This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
(Hello! I'm new here and this is my first post, so apologies if I'm messing up any social norms here. Please feel free to call me out! :))
That seems like a pretty easy challenge. Here's my definitions:
External Gender: When people greet me, they say "ma'am" instead of "sir". There's a wealth of subtler behaviors, but the basic idea here is that people perceived as "female" get treated differently than people perceived as "male".
Internal Gender: I prefer being called "ma'am", and am happier when my external gender is "female". In a lot of magical stories, a character has their sex transformed by some magic. "Internal Gender" is when a character wants to transform back, which is fairly common. "Internal Gender" is the idea that if you body-swapped with your mom, you'd still want to be called "him" despite the uterus.
Sex: the biological reality. A messy mix of chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy.
This is the 'gender role' terminology: The social role played by a particular gender.
And this is the 'gender identity' or 'gender performance', depending on the exact thing being discussed: Either that internal feeling of what 'gender' you are or the behaviors that feel natural to you on account of your felt 'gender'.
But here is the hard part: What is 'gender' separate from all of those individual nouns? What does the modifier 'gender' alone mean in front of all of these?
The truth is that it's an empty signifier unless you treat it as as synonym for 'sex'. But that has a whole lot of implications that aren't like by the kind of activist theorists who invented 'gender' as something different: Someone with a 'gender identity' discordant with their physical sex has a body dysmorphia, for example, and not something more deeply psychologically central. If that's true, the drive to 'affirming' care runs up on the rocks of evidence based medicine, where it's not entirely clear that that paradigm is actually the best. And it also means there are only really two genders, because sex and gender are the same thing and there are, in humans, only one big gamete and one little gamete and the machinery to produce each (which may or may not actually work in any particular implementation). That means that the 'nonbinary' clique is a philosophically incoherent trend, rather than anything more meaningful (not like there is anything wrong with that -- there's a reason punk ranges from anarcho-communist radicals to skinhead Nazis: there's something at a the heart of punk that doesn't make sense or, more likely, there's really nothing there but loud, angry music).
But these results are disturbing, so the desperate pretense must be continue.
Now that I've learned a bit about the definitions here, this actually seems even easier:
The basic idea behind trans ideology is that sometimes you get a person, a trans woman, who is born as a guy. Despite this, they feel a strong desire to modify their body to have breasts and a vagina. When they modify their body in this way, they become much happier - it is one of the most successful medical interventions, on that axis.
So, a woman is someone who prefers to have a vagina rather than a penis, and vice-versa. But of course "prefers" is really hard to confirm, so let us instead say: a woman is someone with a vagina.
Tada! Nothing circular, and nothing referring to any sort of immutable biology.
I'm totally aware that plenty of trans activists want to go beyond this, of course, but it seems pointless to discuss anything past this point without first agreeing to this point. If you reject this, then obviously you reject anything more radical, and I'm more curious where the possible middle-ground is. I don't like the modern trans "grab as much privilege as we can" attitude at all; I just want to pee in peace, and that requires at least some willingness to compromise.
(I am less familiar with trans men, I will admit. I get the impression their goalposts are more "remove boobs and grow a beard", which still doesn't refer to anything immutable or circular)
Hi! I was skipping a lot of the conversation you started, because I didn't want to contribute to the "explain yourself now, trans person" dogpile, but my ears perked up at that one.
My understanding is that this view is pretty outdated. WPATH seems to outright reject it, and to only use it cynically as a foot-in-the-door thing in countries with lower trans acceptance. They hold that it's all about "authenticity" and self-expression, and that doctor's empashis needs to be on removing barriers, and on patient autonomy. They don't even think it's about transitioning from man to woman, or the other way around, and are happily endorsing "non-binary" surgeries.
Would you say they are out of line, or is it that you're more old-school and no longer representative of the community?
I think a lot of trans women genuinely fall into the older, classic model like me. It's really hard to say if it represents the actual community, because there's some loud voices that want to make the newest ideology the only one, but I do think there's a lot of people like me, and still are, even if we're no longer the majority within the trans community. I think there's a lot more of us than you'd guess, simply because we tend to be quiet: we already got what we want, as long as we don't draw attention to ourselves.
I have a bit of trouble taking someone seriously as a "trans woman" if they just want to self-identify, don't have dysphoria, and aren't even taking HRT, but... I'm asking people who don't believe I'm a woman to call me "she/her" anyway, so I'm at least fine with names and pronouns even there.
If we accept the idea that I want to have a cis-woman looking body despite not being born with one, it doesn't really surprise me that some people might want "non-binary" mixes. I don't really understand the category well myself, though. I think a lot of non-binary is much more about abolishing gender roles entirely - most cis women I meet who identify as "non-binary" just seem unhappy with society's concept of "female", or are viewing that concept through a fairly narrow lens. All that said, if you're actually going out and getting surgery, I'm going to take you seriously.
Well, my guess was roughly what you're describing. I saw a pretty big generational difference in the trans community, and figured the more old school view is probably still strongly represented, but trended on it's way out I was wondering if an insider's view was different.
But my problem here is that this isn't a question of numbers and loudness, but one of position. Ten thousand reasonable trans women, who aren't bothering anyone, and just want to live their life, will easily be outweighed by a single Dr. Ren Massey simply by virtue of him being a doctor, and being in the position of training other doctors.
Well, if I understood the new approach to the issue, it's less about being trans without dysphoria and HRT, and more about taking HRT without dysphoria. The way you described it, HRT / pronouns / gender affirming care generally is something we do, because it's the best way to alleviate suffering. I'm not into causing unnecessary suffering, so I can go along with that, but the new view on this matter seems to be that there might not be any suffering involved to begin with, so this is where my patience starts to wear thin - I didn't sign up to be a part of anyone's grand project of self-expression.
That's interesting, because that's the opposite of my instincts. As long as it's about "roles" it's no skin off my nose, it's when doctors encourage body modification to express one's non-binariness that I'm starting to think that things are getting out of hand, and we need to put a stop to it.
That feels a bit oddly phased. Presumably it is the patient who is expressing a desire for this, and going through a fairly lengthy bureaucratic process - especially for anything non-binary. I don't think there's a bunch of doctors out there going "have you considered transition?" I would indeed find it super creepy for one's personal doctor to be offering recommendations like that unless the patient is listing off dysphoria symptoms.
That said, if someone knowingly undergoes surgery, and this routinely makes those people happier, I don't see any reason to stop it. I support people doing other forms of cosmetic surgery, getting tattoos, etc.. My general understanding is that very few people regret these surgeries, partly because there is still generally a lengthy bureaucratic process weeding out anyone doing this on a whim. If it makes them happy, why not?
I see nothing odd about it. A few years back there was a story about a patient who went to a psychologist, and expressed a desire to be blind (and, if you're curious how it ended, the psychologist did oblige), it's still the doctor's job to discourage rather than encourage it, in my opinion.
The process is neither lengthy nor particularly bureaucratic.
The issue I brought up is that there are doctors explicitly advocating for removing all guardrails, including age, history of mental illness, and even the incidence of gender dysphoria. The response that they're (probably, maybe) not going out of their way to sell transition, does not alleviate my fears stemming from the issue I brought up.
Well, you originally made it sound like it's a question of best medical practice. If diagnosis doesn't enter into it, and we're just fulfilling people's arbitrary desires, hoping it will make them happy, it would appear the original argument is invalid.
In any case the reason that I see to stop it, is that young people are not known for their good judgment, so I don't think we should be letting minors undergo irreversible procedures on the basis of their sayso.
There's also an argument for limiting access even for adults, but if we can't agree on minors, I don't we'll get far regarding adults.
I'm not talking only about surgeries, but about the whole "gender affirming care" package (blockers, hormones, surgaries). Further, my entire point is that specific doctors, and organizations like WPATH are explicitly working towards abolishing any such process, wherever it exists. If the reason why you're not worried about people undergoing these procedures is that there are safeguards in place, then I think the biggest worldwide association of gender care providers arguing to abolish them should be a bigger deal to you.
In any case what you said is inaccurate. Until recently you could get all of these things, with zero questioning, and few bureaucratic hurdles, even as a minor. In response some jurisdictions decided to clamp down on the practice, and impose age limits through legislative action. In other places, this was done through medical oversight institutions finding little to no evidence for the effectiveness of the practice. But there are still many jurisdictions that did not regulate the practice, and even doubled down on making it even more accessible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I note that this is an empirical statement, not a normative one (like "adults have the right to modify their body however they please, and it's none of your damn business whether you think it's a good idea or not"). Hypothetically, if you were presented with persuasive evidence that the majority of trans women who fully medically transition later come to regret their decision, feel markedly less happy afterwards (according to, for example, a PHQ-9 or HAM-D survey), or feel that their quality of life has declined as a result of their transition - would that persuade you that trans ideology is a bad thing on net?
Well, keep in mind: I know thousands of trans women online. That's a lot of evidence that it is successful. So any study has to overcome my prior, and explain why there's a huge cluster of visibly-happy trans women, but I never meet any of these people who regret it. I'm the sort of trans woman who wanders onto The Motte and TERF forums and so forth, and I have yet to encounter any such cluster. (There's certainly a few, of course)
I'm also referring to actual studies when I say we feel happier, so you'd have to reconcile why the two studies disagreed.
But, yeah, if 10% of trans women regret it, I think we maybe need to tighten up the gates a little bit, or at least make that warning a LOT clearer within the community. If 50% regret it, I think I'd have to spend a few days seriously reconsidering my world view.
This is all assuming actual regret, too. Right now, "happiness" is a bit tricky to measure: Maybe someone gained 100 happiness points from transitioning, but lost 150 because now they're subject to a lot more bigotry. I think in that case, the right solution is to fix the cultural bigotry, not to block transition.
Just FYI, that was a literal hypothetical question. I'm not personally aware of any strong evidence that the majority of medically transitioned trans people eventually regret their decision, although the increase in subscriptions to /r/detrans over time suggests that the rejection rate is higher than the most outspoken trans activists would have me believe.
It takes a great deal of intellectual integrity to acknowledge that and I commend you for doing so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If "trans woman" was defined as "a male person who has undergone a surgery to change their penis into a neovagina", I think that's a definition I could get on board with: it's straightforward, non-circular and trivial to verify. Perhaps we could be even a little bit more generous and define it as "a male person who has undergone a surgery to change their penis into a neovagina, or is actively seeking one (has applied to the relevant medical practitioners etc.)".
I'd just like to gently point out that such a definition excludes almost everyone who identifies as a trans woman: only 5-13% of trans women have undergone genital surgery. Even if we allow that for every trans woman who has undergone genital surgery, there's another trans woman who has applied for it but is stuck on a waiting list (or even two such women), your definition still excludes anywhere from 61% to 90% of males who consider themselves trans women.
This is not intended as a "gotcha", it's a completely sincere question (echoing @Amadan, I'm genuinely grateful to get the input of someone with "skin in the game", so to speak). You're a trans woman who has medically transitioned. Supposing you're having a conversation with a visibly male person who has told you that her name is Samantha and her preferred pronouns are she/her. During the course of the conversation, the topic of medical transition comes up, you start talking about your own experiences, and Samantha mentions that she hasn't undergone bottom surgery. She also mentions that she has no interest in undergoing it and is perfectly happy with the configuration of her genitals as they stand.
Once she's made this clear to you, do you continue referring to her as a woman? Or no?
I mean, personally, I'm not harmed at all by her. I personally have no objections to this. I'll call her "she/her" and Samantha, because it seems rude to do otherwise. My mental classification will be "female" because to me female just means "person I refer to as she/her".
Other women have expressed that, for instance, they would not be comfortable dating Samantha because of it. I think that's reasonable.
If Samantha goes on a rant about how people are transphobic for not dating her, just because she has a penis, I will think she's full of shit and making the rest of us look bad.
Okay, well now it seems like you're just flipping between definitions according to the needs of the moment. This time yesterday you said "a woman is someone with a vagina" (or neovagina). Now you're saying a woman is someone you refer to as she/her, even if you know for a fact that that person doesn't have a vagina (or neovagina). I find this inconsistent. Maybe the idea is that the word can have multiple meanings, e.g. a woman is anyone who has a vagina, or anyone who has a neovagina, or anyone who has expressed a desire to be referred to with female pronouns.
But now we're right back to circular definitions! A woman is anyone who has expressed a desire to be referred to with female pronouns. What are female pronouns? The pronouns we use to refer to women and girls.
Well I'm glad to know we agree on that much at least.
Words have multiple definitions, yeah. I think one can draw a reasonable consensus at "a woman is someone with a vagina", but I personally, in my head, use it to mean "someone in the ma'am cluster." If we are arguing about how you categorize people, I feel unreasonable imposing my personal definition. But if you ask me how I personally categorize people, I want to be honest about the system I'm actually using.
I don't think there's anything invalid with the category "people who want to use female pronouns". We can talk semantics about circular reasoning and all of that, but at the end of the day it seems very obvious that some people are delighted by "ma'am" and some people are extremely offended by it. Do you have some problem with me, personally, calling Samantha a woman and saying she/her?
Frankly, I think the two definitions of "woman" you're using (one commonsense and straightforward, the other postmodern and controversial) amount to a motte-and-bailey fallacy, and I don't like motte-and-bailey fallacies on general principle.
If you said "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman", I would think that definition was incoherent and circular - but at least I'd know exactly what you meant when you used the term "woman" in conversation. If you said "a woman is a person with female reproductive organs", I would likewise know exactly what you meant whenever you used that term.
But if the single word means both of those things, then that gives you a blank cheque to jump back and forth between the definitions on a whim according to the needs of the moment, depending on who you're trying to persuade and what rhetorical point you're trying to make.
It also makes the basic act of communicating a nightmare, because if I want to communicate honestly without misleading anyone, I have to laboriously explain exactly which definition of "woman" I'm using whenever I make a statement like "women cannot impregnate people" (true according to the second definition, false according to the first), "all women should undergo regular breast cancer screenings from the age of X onwards" (true according to the second definition, except for the minority of women who have already undergone a mastectomy; a complete waste of time and medical resources for many people if we're using the first), "in post-pubescent pre-menopausal women, amennorhea is a cause for medical concern" (true according to the second definition; false according to the first, as that set includes many perfectly healthy members who are physically incapable of menstruating), "women are dramatically less physically strong than the strongest men" (true according to the second definition; if using the first definition it would be false, because that set includes many members who would be competitive in tests of strength against men, by virtue of being male). And if someone were to insist that both definitions are equally valid, but refused to specify which definition they were using at any particular moment, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that, at best, they hadn't really considered the implications of using a single word with two such radically different definitions (as the examples above illustrate); at worst, that they had considered this and were knowingly trying to sneak something past me.
Compare with some of Scott's examples when he popularised the concept: does "God" refer to a specific Abrahamic deity, or is it just another word for the order and beauty in the universe? Is "racism" just an unconscious bias which can't be fully controlled and which everyone is guilty of to one extent or another; or is it prejudice + power (ergo anyone who's not white conveniently can't be guilty of it, except Asians for some reason)? I dunno, maybe for all of the above examples you'd say "it means both of those things", but at some point I think you'd have to acknowledge that there's something a bit underhanded about the whole rhetorical technique, regardless of to what end it is aimed.
You asked me what I personally thought, and I assumed that meant you wanted to know how I use language in practice. When I am off in trans spaces, everyone uses "woman" to mean one thing, and I'm trying to be honest and open about that. That's it. I am explicitly acknowledging that "gender is a feeling" is a bailey: it is not a defensible position. I am explicitly acknowledging that "women are people who have/want a vagina" is my motte; it's the position I can actually defend.
I believe in something I can't defend: I can't prove that I "feel like a woman" but it doesn't mean that I don't. It would be dishonest to hide the fact that I do feel like a woman. But it would also be a different sort of intellectually dishonest to act like that's a defensible motte that I can reasonably expect other people to respect. All you have is my word, and there's certainly at least a few bad actors out there who are happy to parrot the same words.
I'm not even sure how I could pull a motte-and-bailey when I've got them marked out for your convenience like that?
I think I've been pretty clear about what definitions I'm asking about in any given conversation thus far. If I do slip up, I'm happy to clarify.
(Unlike a lot of trans activists, I also think we can use a little common sense and assume "only women can get pregnant" obviously refers to people with uteruses, even if I disagree and think we should call people women once they've got a vagina. I don't want to get bogged down in stupid semantic games when it's absolutely obvious what you mean by that sentence. I do not think we have any disagreement over who has large gametes, who has a uterus, or who can get pregnant.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and this is a body dysmorphia, like phantom limb syndrome.
It may well be that the best treatment for gender/sex dysphoria is some form of physical transition surgery. But, if you can acknowledge that that is what is going on here, the only thing we really might disagree on is where exactly that line is on various axes of treatment.
Of course, you're no longer talking about anything like 'gender' as separate from sex. Trans women are natal males who are born with an intense desire to be female and vice versa. This desire can cause such serious stress that it becomes clinical and they must be treated in some way, possibly (and, honestly, probably, once the evidence base catches up) including surgical transition.
Yes, and they're the people I have a problem with. At heart, they're communists or the useful idiots of communists and their whole ideology destroys everything it touches, intentionally.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hello, welcome to the Motte.
Putting cards on the table here, I was a little suspicious of you (not many people just independently "discover" us, and announcing yourself with a username guaranteed to set off a lot of folks here is a little suspicious), but I appreciate the discussion you have generated so far, and I will go with my presumption of good faith. Genuinely, I would like to see more posters like you.
So as you have probably figured out by now, the majority of people here are... not very friendly to trans identities. This ranges from "Thinks trans women are men but don't feel a need to start fights over it" to "Believes trans women are all AGP perverts who should be mocked and shunned and they really want you to know it."
Our rules require everyone to be treated civilly, so no is allowed to directly insult you just for being trans or advancing trans views, but nonetheless you probably will receive some vigorous challenges, so I hope you are prepared for that and have a thick skin. I am being sincere here - I would like you to be able to stick around despite what you will probably perceive as an adversarial environment. Because this is also one of the few places on the Internet where people are allowed to say "Trans women are men" without being banned.
Which, bringing this around to my point, is part of the reason even many more moderate folks like myself have become, if not radicalized, then rather more hostile to trans people than we once were. Putting cards on the table again, my own personal opinion is that gender dysphoria is real and I think people should be allowed to live and identify as they wish, but they shouldn't be able to force other people to accept their internal identification as biological reality. More concretely, I think people should address you as "Ma'am" out of politeness and people who go out of their way to "misgender" you are being hostile assholes. But most people don't really believe you're a woman and you shouldn't expect them to feel obligated to update their mental model on demand, nor should you try to sniff out signs of heresy (i.e., clues that they don't actually think of you as a woman, for which you would then try to socially punish them). I am not saying you do this - but many trans people do do this, and that is the cause of the much of the present hostility towards trans people.
In my opinion, until a decade or so ago, most people (at least on the liberal side) were much more accepting of trans identity because trans people sold themselves the way gay people did - "We just want to be left alone to live our lives in peace." Which is no doubt true of most trans people! But then we started seeing increasing pressure not just to accept, but to validate. Increasing demands to proactively affirm that we really, really see you as a woman, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a hateful bigot. Then came trans women who used to be mediocre middle aged male athletes suddenly joining a woman's sports league and crushing lifetime competitors. Trans women who were men until five minutes after their conviction for a violent sex felony, whereupon they discovered their female identity and a need to be housed in women's prisons. Trans women who really want to show off their erections in women's locker rooms and force low-wage immigrant women to wax their female balls. Trans women who transition after a lifetime of being a husband and a father and dress like minimal-effort clowns while representing the US government. Trans women who want you to be fired if you won't put pronouns in your email signature.
These are undoubtedly a tiny minority of trans people. But it doesn't take very many bad actors to cause a lot of disturbance and distress, and more importantly, the reaction from the trans community has been largely, not acknowledgment that there are bad actors and maybe it's appropriate to not assume "good faith" on the part of every single man who suddenly realizes he's a woman in his 50s. Not to allow us to apply some... gatekeeping and to acknowledge that biological sex is a thing and you can let trans women live as women and be polite to them without letting them compete against women in the Olympics. But instead, to double down on all these issues and say "No, a trans woman is a real biological woman and should be able to show off their female penis in front of teenage girls, should be able to beat up women in sports, should be able to share a cell with women in a prison."
And that... is why I personally have lost a lot of my sympathy for the trans movement. I still am polite to trans people I know personally. I would use your preferred name and pronouns in person. Even though I would not actually think of you as a woman. And I would treat you as a very dangerous person to interact with, socially and professionally, on the assumption that a slip on my part would result in you trying to bring down sanctions upon me.
I am interested in your thoughts on this. Do you think the trans community has "gone too far"? Or do you think this is an exaggeration and we just see the worst and most extreme outliers? Do you think people should be required to actually think of you as a woman (to the degree that you can police someone's thoughts)? I won't demand you defend trans women in women's sports or prisons, though I am kind of interested in that, but that's a very familiar discussion we've had before (albeit rarely with trans people actually participating).
I've hung around the Slate Star Codex space for a while, if it helps. I lurked in /r/TheMotte for a while, but that's been dead for a while.
I figured if I was going to poke the bear, I might as well be open about my identity; I've got skin in the game.
It is indeed a thick skin. I'll admit I'm mostly disappointed with the response; I was hoping for more light and less heat. Your response is a lot more interesting than most :)
I think a lot of people are more open-minded than you think. I think the vast majority of people I interact with either genuinely think I'm a cis-woman, or don't care. I've encountered people that DO care, and they tend to react much differently. Obviously there are many areas of the world where that would be different, but I've done a fair bit of business travel and I feel confident in saying most people just don't notice.
At the end of the day, if you're trying to treat me with respect, I think that's what really matters. When I first changed, it was clear some people struggled to update my pronouns even though they clearly respected me. I'd have been offended if anyone tried to sic HR on them.
Oh boy, that's a complex one...
First off, I don't think anyone is going to transition just to cheat at sports - you're making life long changes to your body, and also we have tons of known cheaters who chose much easier routes.
Second, the evidence I've personally seen (and I'm hardly an expert), suggests that when people do this, they're usually placing middle of the pack, which suggests that transition and hormones and all of that really does have a negative impact on performance.
Conditional on "this person has completed hormonal transition, and performs in the cis-female athletic range", I don't see a strong argument for excluding them from the league - they're going to get trounced in the male league, and aren't exactly setting records in the women's league, so... that seems like a fair competition?
Look at the other direction of transition: If someone is taking testosterone, and performs in the male athletic range, do you really want to keep them in the women's league just because they were born with a uterus?
But to bite the bullet, yeah, IF trans women DO have a clear advantage over cis women, then that defeats the whole point of gendered sports leagues. I just don't think this is nearly as decisively established
(and it does follow that any law made before we've actually established the science is probably premature, although I also can't think of a better way to collect data - run this experiment for a few years and if trans people keep ending up at the top, we made a mistake. If trans people generally end up in the middle, well, what's the problem?)
I think the USA has a really weird culture around nudity. There's plenty of cultures where seeing grandma and grandpa naked at the hot springs is just a normal part of life, and everyone grows up well adjusted. Seeing a penis in the locker room shouldn't be so traumatic. But then US culture acts like any nudity OUTSIDE of a locker room is horrific, which just doesn't make sense to me. If you think seeing genitalia is so bad, we should clearly have single-person gender-neutral locker rooms.
You've got a row of men showing off their penises at the urinal in the men's room. If seeing a penis is so horrible, why are you so comfortable making people endure that?
And, I mean, do you really feel more comfortable in a bathroom full of bearded trans guys? What if they've had surgery and have penises?
But the whole problem is because the US can't decide whether nudity is a normal part of life or some horrifying thing. If nudity is a normal part of life, then seeing a penis in the locker room is nothing. If nudity is some horrifying thing, then get rid of communal locker rooms and urinals and all these other disgusting locations where guys feel free to show off their dick.
I simply don't get the idea that women are UNIQUELY scandalized by penises, but guys should all be totally okay with it.
(and as a trans person, the answer is "I change in a bathroom stall because no matter which choice I make, people seeing me naked are going to get upset", which sucks)
Aww c'mon, that's heat, not light.
Amusingly, pronouns in email is actually something a lot of trans people hate too. Making it mandatory means everyone in the closet has to actively submit the wrong pronouns, and it's usually done in a way that just calls attention to the most androgynous / badly-passing trans people in the group.
So, going the other way: I think one could reasonably say a lot of anti-trans voices are also acting in bad faith. For instance, JK Rowling recently called out an Argentinian boxer as "trans" with... basically zero evidence? And on the "not actually trans" evidence, we've got the fact that she's from a country where transition is illegal, we've got childhood pictures of her, we've got the IOC tests that every other athlete does, and we've got said boxer suing JK Rowling (not exactly a clever move if it really is all a fraud!)
Do you have ANY examples of an openly trans person winning the gold metal in a Women's Olympic event?
I'm still not sure why penises are uniquely traumatizing to teenage girls, but have no harmful effect on teenage boys. I'm still not sure why only penises have this uniquely traumatizing effect, but men can handle vaginas just fine. Again, there's plenty of cultures where nudity is common, and everyone seems to do just fine seeing a penis there. But if you think seeing a penis is this horrifying traumatizing event, why do you keep inflicting it on little boys?
I think this really depends on where we are in the world. There's plenty of countries that make my existence illegal, so I think overall trans people are in a lot more danger than you are. If you meet me on my home turf, I've probably got some ability to make things awkward for you, but I really doubt I could get you fired or cancelled or anything.
"Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in the previous 6 months were highest for female inmates (212 per 1,000), more than four times higher than male rates (43 per 1,000)." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438589/
If someone wants to be put in with the more dangerous group, I'm not really clear what the controversy is?
There's clearly a huge sexual violence problem to solve here. I'd think solving that would take priority, and then in a few decades we can discuss the 1% of the population that's trans?
Similar to bathrooms, either nudity is a normal and OK part of life and you need to stop being scared of penises, or else you need to stop forcing people to get naked together.
I'm pretty firmly anti-thought-police and anti-censorship.
That said, I'd again assert that most people that meet me don't give it that much thought, and really do just think of me as a woman.
Thanks, it was nice getting a juicy reply that was more than just "no, you're not a woman" :)
I don't think the concern is trauma. Exposing a male sex organ to a girl/woman is seen as defiling her due to women being traditionally considered sexually "pure". There's no need to worry about defiling boys as they are inherently defiled.
More options
Context Copy link
Amadan touched on this, but I feel it's worth joining in: men very much do not show off their penises in the men's room. The norm is to give other men as much space as you can (leaving at least a urinal between you, especially in the case of urinals without privacy barriers), and to politely refrain from looking at other guys' penises even if one might catch a glimpse. In fact, someone who is showing off his penis (or deliberately looking at someone else's penis) is considered extremely rude and subject to social consequences for it. I'm not sure if you meant this claim literally or just as a rhetorical flourish, but either way reality is the exact opposite of what you describe.
We're talking about, like, 100 out of 300,000 trans women misbehaving. Do you really think there are not 100 men in the UK that have waved their penis around and tried to make people uncomfortable? Or are just socially oblivious and therefore always take the closest urinal instead of spacing out?
My personal experience with locker rooms is that if you take 100 guys, there'll be at least one that Really Clearly Does Not Mind Showing Off. Maybe they're not actively strutting around with an erection, but they're making zero effort to hide it, they're taking their sweet time changing, and they're more than happy to walk over for a conversation with it danging right there. Congratulations on you not personally being a victim of all that, but as a victim... I find it really weird that everyone here just wants to ignore that and reassure me that no, unlike my experience, everyone ELSE gets taken seriously an there's consequences when it happens to THEM.
But also, if the standard is purely "subjected to social consequences", then... what's the problem? It still feels insulting to me to say that cis women are utterly incompetent and can't even handle a simple disruption like this, but somehow it's absolutely zero problem for men to handle it. In what other areas are women too psychologically frail to handle things that don't affect men? If women can't even handle one person behaving inappropriately in the bathroom, why in the world are we trusting them to be police officers and politicians?
Ok you've moved the goalposts twice in one reply. First, I didn't say diddly squat about trans people so that's irrelevant. Second, we were talking bathrooms (and specifically the urinals therein), not locker rooms. The two are different situations so you're going to get very different results.
Sorry, I'm having a dozen slightly different conversations, and it can be hard to keep track of them. My point on urinals is that merely seeing a penis is not harmful. I have seen vastly more penises in the men's bathroom than I have seen in any other context. Stadiums and those big trough urinals are especially awful here. There are a lot of penises on display, even if supposedly no is trying to "show off."
I also, separately, think you're wrong about how often guys do enjoy showing off, but maybe I just got unlucky growing up. The core point is that people routinely have their entire dick out and exposed, and strangers are going to accidentally see a bunch of penises in there whether they want to or not. Maybe not every time you pee, but over a lifetime you're certainly going to see a lot more cocks than if we didn't have urinals. Some bathroom designs are certainly better here, but if we actually cared about privacy I dare say we could do a lot better.
Thank you for calling out the stadium trough. I don’t know how those can be a good idea just from a sanitation perspective.
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one a little horrified by those :)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
With regards to sports, I don't think anyone disputes that estrogen has a negative effect on athleticism and testosterone a positive. The dispute is over the "performs in the cis-female athletic range" part. I would probably put trans women and men in the men's category, in that testosterone is probably not going to give enough advantage to a trans man to really matter.
As for seeing penises, I guess it's one of those things where you probably just have to say America is prudish and you are an exception. Short of Amazon tribes, even less prudish places like Japan that have penis festivals have segregated restrooms.
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you for the response. Apologies if I don't cover every response (a lengthy quote-and-respond chain can get very lengthy), but let me address a few points where I think we either disagree or you misunderstood my objections.
I will take your word and your lived experience for it on this, but my own impression is that (a) most trans women think they pass much better than they do (because most people are polite and aren't going to go out of their way to tell you they know you're trans), and (b) most people are open minded, but you probably think "Accepts my identification and agrees with me when I talk about trans rights means they really think I'm a woman." You might be disappointed if you knew what everyone really thinks. I don't really know, any more than you do, how many people who say TWAW really, truly believe it - neither of us can read minds or hearts. But my own suspicion is that it's less than would admit it.
About trans women athletes: I haven't studied the issue enough to produce statistics, and trans women are sufficiently rare that there probably aren't conclusive statistics yet. We all know the high profile cases like Rachel McKinnon and Lia Thomas and Laurel Hubbard, et al - the cases of mediocre male athletes who suddenly blow away their competition after transitioning are pretty numerous at this point. The response from trans rights activists is always similar to yours: "Trans women don't win every competition they enter!" And what seems to me like a lot of handwaving to deny that having a male-sized, male-muscled body with testosterone (even if reduced post-transition) is a major advantage in pretty much every athletic competition. I mean, if 10 years from now we have solid evidence that trans women do not, on average, perform at a higher level than women of similar age and experience, that would be interesting, but I have to say from the small sample sizes we can see now, I am very skeptical. Certainly every time I see a trans woman standing next to women in a rugby or a boxing match, I cannot understand how anyone can claim there isn't an obvious problem there.
I think as a matter of legality, it would have all go the same way, one way or the other: either trans women compete with women and trans men compete with men, or everyone competes with their birth/biological sex.
I am not aware of any trans men who after taking testosterone have become competitive in a men's sport. Are you?
The fact that (a) we don't see a lot of trans men trying to join men's teams and it hasn't been an issue because (b) any trans men in a men's league would be crushed and everyone knows it, is evidence of my point, that biologically, you are still going to compete with the body you were (mostly) born with.
About locker rooms: look, I agree that in theory, if we had a more open culture around nudity, maybe this would be less of an issue, but my problem is not that I think teenage girls will be traumatized by seeing a penis. (Nowadays, they've probably seen one about five minutes after they first got a smartphone.) My problem is explicitly the bad actors who want to show their penis to women in a locker room, knowing that it will make women uncomfortable. They are, to put it bluntly, exhibitionists if not worse, and saying "Well, if we were all just more comfortable about nudity" is missing the point. Again, I know these trans women are a minority, but I have read enough stories to know they aren't singular incidents either; there is a very small but very aggressive minority of trans women who really seem to get their jollies by making women (and girls) feel uncomfortable in female spaces. Whether it's because they think this is some sort of sitting-at-the-lunch-counter stand for trans civil rights, or just garden variety harassment and exhibitionism, it is definitely doing nothing to convince me they are acting in good faith. And I can't say I am impressed by an argument like this:
Dude (I say with tongue somewhat in cheek), as a penis-haver (past and/or present), you know damn well that we don't "show off our penises" at the urinals. You have to kind of go out of your way to see another guy's junk in the bathroom, unless he's waving it around.
Which is also unfortunately the pattern I have heard from these penis-in-the-women's-locker-room stories. Men and women will both walk around naked in the locker room, but generally speaking, they don't like... display themselves, or go so far as to stand in front of another person giving them a belligerent full-frontal display. How often have you seen that, honestly? If someone walked up to you buck naked in the locker room and just stood there trying to engage you in conversation from an arm's length away while letting it all hang out and no effort to cover anything up, would you not consider that... strange? Especially if they are a stranger? Come on now.
I mean, leaving aside the whole sexual assault survivor thing (some women probably genuinely are freaked out by seeing a penis in what is supposed to be a woman's space), I can say I was at a convention recently that decided (because everyone there is super-woke) that all the bathrooms would be "agender." Most people, of course, still used the "men's" and "women's" rooms as appropriate for their equipment, but while I was standing at the urinal, one woman (who I happen to know is one of those super-woke people and probably calls herself non-binary or something) walked out of a stall and past me. And you know what? I felt uncomfortable. Not threatened or anything, just -- neither of the bathrooms were crowded, so she decided to use the men's room to make a point. And it annoyed me.
Well... I will cop to being a little snarky there, but honestly, Admiral Rachel Levine really does strike me as someone who is cosplaying a fetish. Maybe she really, truly does identify as a woman and has always felt female, but I am pretty skeptical, because her entire presentation is that of a man who knows she looks like a man and wants everyone to know it and dares you to say something about it.
As for Rowling and Imane Khalifa, I honestly don't know enough about Khalifa's status to pass judgment. To my knowledge, Rowling didn't say she was trans, she said she was a man. Which may or may not be true, either biologically or legally. I have defended Rowling in the past because I think a lot of the attacks on her are made in bad faith, but I think Khalifa's case is, at the very least, complicated and she probably spent the first part of her life believing she's a girl, which makes me less hasty to call her a man myself and I wish Rowling had reserved judgment as well. But I'm not a famous billionaire who's made this my personal cause (nor been subjected to attacks over it for years). I think someone who is (most likely) an intersex person with chromosomal abnormalities who grew up as a girl is a pretty edge case and a distraction from central trans issues.
I live in the US so that's where I am talking about, not someplace where you could be killed for being trans or gay. I can't say I find it reassuring that you basically say "Well, I probably couldn't actually threaten you" but it seems like you would if you could.
Okay, I skimmed this paper - can't say I read it in detail, but it sure doesn't make it easy to separate out sexual victimization by staff compared to sexual vicitimization by other inmates. Let's say that women do prey on other women in prison at a higher rate than men prey on other men. I can think of a number of explanations besides "Actually, women are the more dangerous group," but it definitely doesn't suggest that a trans woman being put in a woman's prison is in more danger from the other female inmates than she is to them. Especially if said trans woman used to be a violent rapist and has undergone no physical transition. Yeah, I saw that Orange is the New Black episode where Laverne Cox gets jumped by a bunch of other women. Let's say I was not persuaded of its verisimilitude.
Forgive me for only skimming this discussion, but is there some other comment that gave you this impression? I don't get it from what you quoted.
It's hard to talk about threat in the capabilities sense without any subtext of threat in the intentions sense, but I don't perceive any deliberate subtext.
More options
Context Copy link
On trans athletes: honestly, I think we largely agree here. I think a few high profile cases don't provide as much evidence about the average result, but I'm certainly open to the idea that it's unfair.
I'm not sure what about this reply made you think I would want to get you fired/cancelled. Could you elaborate? I already said I was against siccing HR on people who used the wrong pronouns for me at work, so that seems like a pretty big disconnect
Presumably we should treat that person like a criminal? Sure, it's a hard problem, but so are the bad actors who want to show their penis to little boys. We still let gay people use the bathroom, though.
Oh, I found that super weird when I was growing up. Quite a few guys discovered I was not comfortable with that, and would go out of their way to make me uncomfortable. But no one seems to want to do anything about that. So... again, why is it okay to expect little boys to handle this, but grown women can't?
It really depends - those big trough-style urinals at stadiums don't leave much to the imagination. Certainly, I've seen penises while using the bathroom numerous times, while I have seen a stranger's vulva exactly zero times. And your whole concern was exactly the sort of guy who is "waving it around."
... okay? What's your point? People feel uncomfortable when I use the men's room, for exactly that reason. If my trans-masc friends show up in the women's room, it makes people SUPER uncomfortable. If it makes you uncomfortable, why do you want more of it?
I mean, presumably we have methods for handling violent rapists in prison? I'm sure there's at least one lesbian violent rapist out there.
The prison thing has a lot to unpack. If you can show some strong evidence that trans women are reasonably safe in male prison AND are a threat to cis women in female prison, I'll have to seriously reconsider my world view. So far I've not seen much evidence of either.
See, the goalposts for everyone else is "uterus". If we change the standard to "vaginoplasty" I definitely feel better. The idea of throwing someone into male prison, despite them having a vagina and breasts, just seems insane on the surface.
If you're willing to bite the bullet and say "anyone with a vagina is female"... I mean, I could still quibble and debate, but I'd honestly consider you more of an ally than an enemy in today's political climate.
Sorry, I misunderstood that part about "I could make things uncomfortable for you." But as I said, I would not intentionally misgender you. I wouldn't tell you "I believe trans women are men" (even if it wouldn't bring HR down on me). I would, however, assume you have a certain set of beliefs and attitudes that make it very risky to draw attention to oneself as potentially not trans-affirming. I realize this might be unfair, but that's how things work nowadays.
Sounds like bullying, and those guys were assholes, and in an ideal world it wouldn't happen, but in the real world kids have to put up with a lot of shit they shouldn't have to. We mostly expect kids to grow out of that behavior, and adults not to have to put up with it.
But the problem is we don't treat trans women who wave their penises around in locker rooms as criminals. Unless they're literally committing assault, someone who does that, even if very blatantly doing it as a display of dominance and exhibitionism, mostly can't be restricted in any way.
A man who goes out of his way to show his penis to a little boy in a locker room might not technically commit a crime, but ya know, people would know and recognize what is happening and definitely take action. Because he's a bad actor and we can identify bad actors. But we are not supposed to identify trans people as being bad actors even when it's pretty obvious that's what they are. The trans woman strutting around with her cock on full display in the women's locker room is doing it to make women uncomfortable, and women who have reported feeling uncomfortable have been told they have no grievance (or even been kicked out themselves).
This isn't comparable to inadvertently getting a glimpse of your neighbor's dick while standing at a trough urinal.
I don't, and I think generally speaking people should be able to use the restroom they "identify" with, and yeah, that means maybe some people are uncomfortable seeing someone who doesn't clock as the "right" sex in their restroom. My point was that I think this woman was being a bad actor (in a very small way). I believe she wanted to make me and other men uncomfortable to make some sort of point. I could be uncharitable in my interpretation of the situation (there are other explanations - she genuinely identifies as male or non-binary, she didn't know which restroom she walked into and she really had to go, she thinks gender is stupid and genuinely thinks no one should care about that, etc.) but it made me think that was a tiny sample of what a woman would feel like if someone with a dick wanted to make sure she saw it in the women's room. I just didn't understand why she didn't use the women's room.
There is probably at least one. But come on, are you not seeing the same news reports I have? How many women getting assaulted/impregnated by a trans woman would be enough to make it a problem? (And yes, ideally there should be zero sexual assaults in prison regardless of sex, but I don't see why we should make an already bad situation even more exploitable by predators.)
I would not agree that having vaginoplasty makes you female (I will still consider them a male who had surgery, sorry), but I would consider it enough of a commitment to living as a woman that women's prison would be more appropriate.
So, if I'm correct: You're fine using my preferred pronouns, letting me use the restroom I "identify" with, and (post-surgery) using the "appropriate" locker rooms and prisons?
At that point, wouldn't it be easier to just say "female", though? Like, except for my ability to join a sports team (I'm too old for that stuff anyway), I look like a duck, I quack like a duck, why not just call me a duck?
If we were to follow this logic to its ultimate conclusion, seemingly it would mean we should consider anyone who mimics the outward appearance and behavioural standards of a group to be a part of that group. Is that something you'd endorse?
Correct me if I'm wrong though, but mainstream progressives don't appear to accept this line of argument in regards to any social construct besides gender. When white college professors are exposed as having falsely claimed to be Amerindian despite lacking any Native DNA or cultural background, they're typically considered to have committed a grave act of cultural appropriation and transgressed against a marginalised group, even though evidently they quacked and looked enough like a duck to convincingly pass as one for several years in some cases.
If we were to apply the current trans self-ID paradigm to the situation, they needn't even have done that; just claiming to be Native should have been enough for them to be considered valid, even if they made no changes to their appearance or behaviour at all. Likewise, an American weeb who claims to be Japanese shouldn't be a valid target of mockery, but every bit as Japanese as an actual born-and-raised Japanese, who has no right to object.
If we're going to so strictly police the boundaries of every other social construct, and say that there is an actual essentialist element or at least one of lived experience required to qualify as part of it, why are we expected to make an exception for gender?
Maybe you think mainstream progressives just don't go far enough and follow their logic to its conclusion here, or maybe the idea is that there are good political reasons to police the boundaries of race; in practice a white man who self-IDs as black isn't going to be perceived as such and so won't be subject to the same struggles actual black people face. But people who object to trans ideology might say the same, that the struggles of a transwoman are not those of a cis woman and so this is a valid reason to police the boundaries of womanhood, too.
That said, personally I am sympathetic to the idea that it may ultimately not matter much if transwomen are granted access to women's changing rooms, sports and prisons, provided they've undergone full medical transition at least. But if this is the reasoning as to why trans self-ID is valid, then fundamentally there is no philosophical reason full ethnic self-ID shouldn't be valid too; it's simply politically inconvenient currently where trans self-ID isn't.
Ultimately though I think if we take this radical self-ID paradigm seriously, it implies people should be able to adopt absolutely any identity they like and be considered valid immediately, no questions asked. But socially constructed identities are an extremely helpful method used to distinguish between categories of people who have salient material differences from one another, so we can't just cease to police all their boundaries.
I think there's a large contingent of mixed-race people who "pass" as one race or another without any real controversy. No one seems particularly concerned that light-skinned black people might "pass" as white, and no one seems to object to calling Italians white anymore.
I think, outside that category, you mostly only find "bad actors" who are looking to abuse the system.
If it turns out that 1% of the population really does, in good faith, identify as "trans-racial" and undergoes permanent surgical alteration to achieve that... I mean, wild, didn't see that coming, but... okay, we probably should accept that. And maybe we were being dicks for mocking those "drop of Native American blood" types. But when it's a handful of people who are pretty clearly just trying to gain an advantage... I don't see any particular reason we need to accept that?
I also think on a systemic level, we give advantages to women because they are currently threatened, and the best good comes from extending those protections to trans women. Conversely, racial affirmative action is meant to adjust for inequalities from the past: an unequal starting position. So extending those protections to someone who did not actually have that unequal starting position doesn't make any sense. (I'm totally open to the idea that racial affirmative action is a failure, and we should focus on things like "actually born in poverty" instead. Racial justice isn't my area of expertise.)
It's worth noting that I'm focusing on a more moderate trans agenda here: I expect trans women to go on HRT, try to pass as female socially, and eventually undergo surgery. I think there's benefits to protecting people who are only partway through that process, but the goal is to protect people who are actually undergoing the process. You can't just stop at "self identifying" if you want society to accept you; you've got to meet people halfway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn't say I am "fine" with it. I would be willing to use your preferred pronouns out of politeness, but mentally I'm always going to be annoyed at having to play along with (what I consider to be) your delusion. I am not one of those people who'd go out of my way to misgender you just to rub it in your face that I don't accept your self-identification, but I consider it to be a polite fiction we're all playing along with.
As for you using female restrooms, locker rooms and (assuming you lack a penis and are on HRT) prisons? Yeah, I guess, with the significant caveat that I think being treated as your preferred gender should be a privilege, not a human right, and it should be revokeable in the case of bad faith charlatans.
The distinction between sex and gender has been discussed upthread. Many people are against recognizing this distinction; I am less so. I'd be willing to call you a woman (again, with the caveat that, you know, I don't really think of you as a woman), but "female" should have a meaning grounded in biological reality. My question is if you can just identify as "female," what word should we use to distinguish between the two (2) human sexes? Because I ain't calling people "uterus-havers" and "penis-havers."
Do you particularly think there's likely to be bad faith charlatans that take HRT for years, socially transition, update their legal paperwork, and have surgery? I feel like if you're willing to put that much work into something, we can assume good faith. (I can see how bad faith actors would enjoy "absolutely zero requirements", obviously)
Again, in the "post-surgical" domain, what would even qualify as bad faith? Are we willing to apply that standard to cis-women who behave the same way?
(For the pre-surgical domain, things get complicated; I don't think "zero gatekeeping" is the right answer, at least currently)
I mean, for a medical form, "Which of the following do you have: [ ] breasts, [ ] uterus, [ ] vagina, [ ] penis" doesn't seem particularly unreasonable?
I'm fine calling it "men" and "women's" sports; plenty of words have different definitions in different contexts.
I think dating apps should probably sort "pre-op trans-women" into a different category, because people obviously care about penis -vs- vagina when it comes to dating.
I don't think I'm really the person to ask about post-op; obviously some people care about fertility, but cis-women can also be infertile. So, to me, this mostly depends on whether a surgical vagina is "acceptable" for people who aren't looking for fertility. The general consensus I've seen is that modern surgery does quite well there, but I'm obviously in a giant biased bubble.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So can we also safely assume that the man strutting around with their cock on full display in the men's locker room is also a bad actor?
Is "strutting around naked" really an unusual thing to do in a locker room? Are your genitalia somehow NOT "on full display" while you shower? We have had very different experiences of the men's locker rooms if you've never seen another guy's cock.
I feel like it's pretty easy to come up with an alternate explanation for why someone might be naked in the locker room, beyond "wanting to make others uncomfortable". But if we really do care about comfort, why not move to single stall designs so that no one has to see unwanted genitalia?
Do you have any statistics there? Are trans women more dangerous than cis women? Are trans women more dangerous than cis men? All the statistics I've seen about assault and rape say that intimate partners are the major threat, not strangers in bathrooms.
I mean, realistically, probably not! Media is a massive bubble of filters, there's dozens of sources out there, and we probably live in different parts of the world.
If I want to understand an issue, I consider news a terrible way to learn. Keep in mind that news reports are mostly heat, not light - the very fact that it made the news means it's unusual enough to report on that event.
Yes.
Post-op trans women are 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent crime (including rape and sexual assault) than cis women.
Okay, so... trans women are no more of a threat than trans men, or cis men are? Are you suggesting we also kick trans men out of the bathrooms?
Isn't it odd that trans women don't commit crimes any more often, despite having access to bathrooms and locker rooms? If trans women and cis men are equally violent and criminal, that suggests that we don't need gendered locker rooms or bathrooms at all - there's literally no change in crime rate when we let people use the bathroom they want.
That's neat information, thank you (I am honestly surprised to learn hormones and even surgery don't affect that for MtF but do for FtM. I had assumed things would be more symmetric!)
I'm guessing this study isn't the one you were referring to? Or are there a lot of post-op trans women who don't bother to get a gender recognition certificate? I don't know the UK that well.
Either way, 76 trans offenders vs 13,234 cis male offenders makes me think there is, once again, not much evidence that trans people are actually that much of a threat. That seems like you've got some lopsided statistics from a small sample group (especially since, again: "Prisoners with a gender recognition certificate were not counted as transgender")
A bit of a tangent, but: "Made to penetrate" is now widely regarded as a form of rape, and it turns out that when you don't explicitly gender the crime, the gender bias is vastly weaker. At least in the US, the male:female rape rate is somewhere near 1:1, maybe 2:1. Hardly something women are innocent of. It's a bit difficult to take gendered claims seriously, when you've cheated and used a definition that explicitly excludes cis female offenders.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe, though I'd be more inclined to think he's just socially oblivious. Generally speaking, men aren't threatened by seeing other guys' cocks.
Walking naked from the shower to your locker, standing naked under the hair dryer, maybe standing naked in front of the mirror while you do your grooming, not really. But ambling around the room sporting an erection (a scenario I've read about happening more than once) would definitely strike me as "weird" if done to other men, and "bordering on threatening" if done to women.
I'm just saying I think if I saw a naked guy in a locker room, I could distinguish between "He is naked because he's in the process of dressing/undressing/showering" and "He is naked because he really wants me to see him naked."
My bad for the confusion there - I was specifically talking about trans women assaulting women in prison.
This is fair, which is why I have tried to reserve some judgment. I don't like LibsOfTikTok style nutpicking, finding the very worst and most deranged examples of trans people and blasting them as examples of what "trans people" are like. Graham Linehan does the same thing - for all that I sympathize with a lot of his grievances, "Here's a trans person who committed a crime" is like 90% of his output at this point.
That said, I'd be less cynical about trans rights if every trans person who does act in bad faith didn't seem to be a hill that trans activists are willing to die on defending.
This becomes much more sympathetic when the media is actively trying to mislead via the headlines of the "Brighton woman guilty of flashing genitals" variety.
It's unfortunate that we have to depend on Twitter-deranged people for counter-messaging but it really shouldn't be allowed to stand imo.
More options
Context Copy link
Again, this seems like heat instead of light if we're talking about "this happened once". I'm sure there's been guys with erections in the men's locker room at least once as well? Sometimes those things happen involuntarily, and it's terribly embarrassing. I remember that much from my time as a guy.
Yeah, there we agree. I've certainly met reasonable trans people, but they're quieter. Even us trans women get shouted down by the loud ones if we try to be moderate, which is part of why I'm here.
In case it's not clear: if someone is deliberately making women uncomfortable, I think we should have procedures to deal with that. I don't think these procedures need to be gendered - I think women making other women uncomfortable, and men making other men uncomfortable is also a reality you've got to deal with there.
At the same time, I think a lot of people try to sensationalize the slightest incident, like "simply being naked", so I'm going to be slow to condemn any specific individual without knowing the full details. In general I tend to be a very "innocent until proven guilty" sort who doesn't like the idea of trying people in the public spotlight.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't really think this definition is accurate. The only definition of "sex" which really makes sense is "do your reproductive organs produce small or large gametes?" (substitute "or did they ever" for menopausal women, women who've had their tubes tied, or men who became sterile after undergoing chemotherapy; add in "before you removed them" for men who've been castrated, or women who've undergone oophorectomies; substitute "or will they" for prepubescent children; substitute "were it not for some kind of birth defect, would your reproductive organs produce small or large gametes" for the congenitally sterile). This satisfactorily answers the question "what is your sex?" in 99% of cases. Bringing in secondary sexual characteristics adds nothing to the conversation and does nothing to demonstrate that (as so many trans activists have claimed) sex is a "spectrum": a male with functioning testicles but who incidentally happens to have breasts becomes no less male as a result; a woman with narrow hips and small breasts is not "less female" than a woman with wide hips and large breasts. Yes there are intersex people, but no one thinks that the existence of people born with one leg (or, more rarely, three legs) invalidates the definition of "human" as a bipedal species. And even as far as "intersex" goes, it doesn't complicate our understanding of sexual dimorphism as much as trans activists would like us to believe: if there has been an intersex person with functioning testicles who has also been impregnated, I would love to read about it.
Why does it make sense to include menopausal women, people with birth defects, etc. in that category? "People who menstruate and can be impgregnated" seems like a perfectly natural category, but you're adding all sorts of exceptions in. If we're going to add a whole bunch of exceptions, why not also "Trans Women who have undergone SRS"? If we can create an artificial uterus in the future, does that make transition valid?
Menopausal women's bodies once produced large gametes, but no longer do. That is a historical fact about their bodies. Just because someone has one of their legs amputated doesn't change the historical fact that they were bipedal from birth. Just as we consider prepubescent girls females because in most cases their bodies eventually will be capable of producing large gametes, we consider menopausal women female because their bodies once did produce large gametes: the arrow of time points both forwards and backwards.
Women with birth defects rendering them infertile have all the relevant "equipment" associated with the production of large gametes, but something went wrong in the development process and they're essentially being included as honorary members in the set, as they possess every characteristic associated with the set except for one specific thing that went wrong. (Another way of looking at it is that "X, which is broken or defective" is generally considered a subset of "X". If someone owns a car, but the engine isn't running and it's sitting on blocks, they still own a car: the owner still belongs to category "people who own at least one car". Barren women may not produce large gametes, but they still belong to the set of "people with ovaries". Trans women neither produce large gametes nor possess even defective examples of the organs which produce large gametes.)
By contrast, essentially all trans women's bodies had all of the characteristics associated with the male sex since puberty, including the key rule-in criterion (the ability to produce small gametes). SRS does nothing to change this: from the perspective of "what sex are you?", all it does is remove the ability to produce small gametes without doing anything to aid the target body in producing large gametes. Trans women who undergo SRS have not really "transitioned" from the male sex to the female sex: from the strict definition of sex outlined above, all they've done is desex (or emasculate) themselves and gone to greater or lesser lengths to approximate some of the secondary sexual characteristics associated with female people. SRS doesn't involve implanting ovaries or a womb (even defective ovaries or wombs) into the recipient's body. A male body which cannot reproduce is not functionally equivalent to a fertile (or even infertile) female body.
A memorable and evocative analogy I once encountered is that motorcyclists wear helmets that cover their entire head and leather clothes in case they have a bad fall, while cyclists wear lighter clothes for aerodynamicity and smaller helmets. But it's the vehicle you're riding (literally, what's in between your legs) which determines whether you're a motorcyclist or a cyclist, not the ancillary clothing choices incidentally associated with it: a cyclist wearing leather clothes and a helmet that covers his entire head is not "on the motorcycle spectrum" or someone who has successfully "transitioned" from cyclist to motorcyclist. All that FtM medical transition does is add the leather and removes the bicycle without replacing the bicycle with a motorcycle.
Maybe, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Seems like a real armchair hypothetical given the current (decidedly primitive) state of the art in gender reassignment surgical procedures.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but what does ‘female’ and ‘male’ mean?
Ultimately, it comes down to biological sex. The actual definition of a trans woman is ‘a biological male by sex who performs a social role or set of roles associated with women’. The question thereof comes down to ‘why should we care’. Like the social roles associated with women that aren’t on some level arbitrary are the ones a male-sexed person can’t perform anyways.
It's worth noting that there isn't broad agreement about what these differences in gender roles are. As far as I can tell, the entire war between trans activists and radical feminists happened because a specific sect of feminism denies that there is (or ought to be, at least) a difference between those gender roles. If women can be, say, fire
menfighters, there isn't a distinct "men" gender role to mismatch with your mechanical parts, and so from their perspective the entire idea is nonsensical.I've always found it odd that radical feminists hold some of the strongest objections to men who voluntarily emasculate and feminise themselves while it reads as a rad fem fantasy.
If the choice were between encouraging men to emasculate themselves at the cost of sharing the label of "woman" with them versus the essentialist position of telling men that they'll never be women so stop trying I would have assumed they'd choose the former.
I don't always find myself agreeing with the most radical egalitarian types, but I can at least accept their viewpoints. We've largely broadened the definition of "woman" to include anything a man can do (specific corner cases, maybe not). But they weren't really successful, as far as I can tell, at broadening the definition of "men". We haven't really increased the acceptance of men in caregiving roles, or even wearing traditionally women's attire -- the reverse pant suit, as it were.
I'm not planning to do it myself, but "I'm not a trans woman, I'm a man wearing a perfectly egalitarian dress. Don't assume my gender. " would at least be an interesting wrench to throw into the debate.
It's already been done. The shitstorm was pretty funny.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In my experience, TERFs tend to be a lot more chill with trans women who've undergone bottom surgery than with those who haven't. They tend to find males with fully intact male genitalia but who still want to be considered "women" much more aggravating/threatening than males without, for understandable reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They're clusters that were originally based around sex, yes, but plenty of cultures use the categories without referring back to sex these days. It's like how "2024 AD" means "two thousand and twenty four years after Jesus died"; you're making a fairly simple error if you think our calendar system relies on the existence of an actual biological Jesus.
I mean, every word has multiple definitions, especially a controversial phrase like that. But also: that wasn't the question that was being asked.
This seems like a fundamentally flawed analogy. The choice of the year 1 as the starting point of the Gregorian calendar was arbitrary, meaningless and didn't refer to any actual historical event (even most historians no longer believe Jesus Christ was born in that specific year), but changing calendars is an enormous hassle, so we're stuck with this one even if it's based on something which is ultimately arbitrary and irrelevant. With you so far.
But the "clusters" that are based around the words "male" and "female" are not meaningless and arbitrary. In fact, the concepts associated with these words have more predictive power than almost anything in the biological (never mind social) sciences. For instance: 100% of human babies born via natural birth or C-section were gestated in the womb of a person whose body produced large gametes i.e. a female person. Conversely, 100% of the human people who impregnated another human person were people whose bodies produced small gametes i.e. male people.
Of course there's loads of ancillary, arbitrary and irrelevant nonsense associated with these two categories of human being (there's no reason that people whose bodies produce small gametes shouldn't wear pink clothes or dresses). But pointing out that there's loads of ancillary irrelevant nonsense associated with a given category of entity doesn't mean that the category itself is meaningless, or that the category doesn't "cleave reality at the joints" in a manner demonstrative of underlying physical laws. Boats still float on the water even if they are given a male name and no one gets around to smashing a bottle of champagne against the hull. "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
If you're measuring by gametes, then post-menopausal women are a third gender, and the same gender as a eunuch. Does that really seem like it cleaves reality at the joints?
That seems to be an attempt to make others adopt your frame that it is possible to change genders. If it is not assumed that it is possible to change genders, then it explains quite handily why a pre-pubescent or post- menopausal female is still considered a woman, and a post- castration male a man.
In biology there is always a "when functioning properly" attached to descriptions. A heart pumps blood "when functioning properly." A kidney filters waste "when functioning properly." A female organism produces large gametes at the species-appropriate point in the life cycle "when organs are functioning properly." Reproduction is generally only applicable at certain times in an organism's life cycle, but a bitch that isn't in heat is still a bitch.
I mean, you can change heart conditions and kidney conditions, why not everything else? We treat "people who have heart problems" as a discrete category regardless of whether it's congenital or not. No one sane is going around saying "well, your heart USED to function properly, so it's ridiculous to suggest you can transition into not functioning properly"
Also, really, "bitch"? C'mon, try to have some manners :)
The equivalent to changing heart conditions would be to go from a infertile to fertile, which happens all the time without changing sex. I'm not convinced you understand me and I don't know any way to be clearer.
We do have categories for female too young to be fertile - girl. But going from girl to woman is not a change in sex/gender, just a change in age. And going from infertile to fertile is not a change in sex/gender, just a change in health.
Do you not know what a bitch is or are you being cute? I would never call a woman a bitch, we are different species.
Edit: it's like you are claiming that someone with heart disease isn't in the phylum Chordata. A disease does not change a classification.
Do you think trans people are a different phylum? Do you think trans people are claiming to be a different phylum, or able to transition between phylums?
Like, if we're just talking general biology, hermaphroditism is hardly a controversial idea. Biology obviously supports the idea that individuals can change sexes. (And in case you're particularly bad at reading: no, I'm not claiming humans can do that yet; we're obviously still a few years away from an artificial uterus - which, hey, it's amusing that no one in this debate is willing to bite the bullet and discuss whether that'd be sufficient to qualify)
I mean, you have the category of "was/will be fertile at some point", and the category of "never fertile at any point."
You then want me to take someone who was born XX but never developed a uterus, and put them in the... first category? That's a "woman" even though they don't have a uterus, will never produce gametes, and so on? But a trans woman, who also never developed a uterus, also has a vagina, also has breasts... that person is "male". And this is a totally consistent, natural, intuitive way to split people up?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Copy-pasting from my other comment:
Menopausal women's bodies once produced large gametes, but no longer do. That is a historical fact about their bodies. Just because someone has one of their legs amputated doesn't change the historical fact that they were bipedal from birth. Just as we consider prepubescent girls female because in most cases their bodies eventually will be capable of producing large gametes, we consider menopausal women female because their bodies once did produce large gametes: the arrow of time points both forwards and backwards. Likewise for eunuchs and prepubescent boys.
So, wait, you think people who lost their legs should still be considered bipedal? Like, you think they don't need a wheelchair, and we should laugh at them when they insist they've "transitioned" to needing a wheelchair?
How in the world is this cleaving reality in a coherent way, but "people who get treated as women" and "people who experience misogynistic sexism" are somehow radical ideas?
To reiterate: "Just because someone has one of their legs amputated doesn't change the historical fact that they were bipedal from birth." They are not currently bipedal, but they once were. A menopausal women is not currently producing large gametes, but she once did.
So your definition of "woman" is "anyone who gets treated as a woman" or "anyone who experiences misogynistic sexism"? Well, I can think of a number of objections that make your definition vastly less precise and meaningful than mine.
Alright, fair enough, too advanced.
Let's try a simple definition as a thought exercise: women have vaginas, men have penises, and non-binary for everyone else. What's the flaw with that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, but just as the existence of such people doesn't invalidate the definition of 'human' as 'a bipedal mammal', the existence of various edge cases does not invalidate the definition of 'woman' as 'producer of large gametes'.
If someone loses their legs, you don't call them bipedal, though. So why are you calling someone who loses their gametes a "woman"?
Does it really make sense to say "well, but you USED to be able to walk, so I'm still going to call you able-bodied"?
For basically everything else, we care about what a person's current condition is: we don't draw a huge distinction between people who were born needing a wheelchair -vs- people who were in an accident. Why does reality "cleave at the joints" differently for gametes vs legs?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. They even exhibit the same kind of stereotypical behaviors, such as disproportionate use of the care/harm moral foundation and loyalty to established political order.
The energetic economics of reproduction are really quite enough to explain sex and sex stereotypes.
Veering into metaphysics can have merit, and there too I think the gnostic approach of gender theory is quite terrible, but that's not really necessary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Those cultures are wrong. Not in the way that using AUC dating instead of AD dating would be on a sufficiently different page that answering '2777' to 'what year is it' would functionally be wrong, but wrong in the sense that it doesn't actually tell us anything. Pink skirts being associated with femininity doesn't have a particular reason behind it; skirts being associated with masculinity still exists in certain contexts, such as kilts or fustanella(this garment is even frilly). Pink is for girls and blue is for boys was the other way around in (barely)living memory, and in fact I can readily imagine a counterfactual world where girls wear blue because Virgin Mary and boys wear pink because that's what blood looks like on a white shirt. On the other hand, uteruses being feminine is obviously biological. Most historical cultures defined, and most cultures today define, femininity as uterus having, and the claim of transwomen is that in every way except having a uterus they are more like having one than not. This is functionally self-defeating for any claim to separate the biological fact of sex from the cluster 'women'.
Yeah. Just since the points of measure are arbitrary it's still an absolute distance that is being communicated whether you do so in Meters or Feet.
More options
Context Copy link
If you remove the uterus, does someone stop being a woman? Are you really excluding anyone who, via birth defect, didn't develop a uterus? If we figure out how to grow artificial organs, does that mean trans people become acceptable?
The category ‘women with severe health problems’ exists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Welcome to themotte!
People who think gender is defined circularly have a certain intuition about words - namely, that words don't really mean anything. These are usually highly systematizing people who would feel at home in a math textbook. In math, there is no particular reason why the particular words are used. Math could be done with random words as long as the relationship between the words is the same relationship as in our real math. This kind of person is over-represented in this forum many times more than in real life because of this forum's genetic history. Go back 15 years and some of the people on this website were reading a systematizer systematizing things
The reason why they would say these definitions are circular is because these definitions revolve around the use of the literal word "ma'am." If we played the randomize-the-word-keep-the-relationship, it starts to look kind of empty to say something like
So what is the meaning of the word "ma'am?"
In any case, I'm not sure "circular definitions" are the true objection to following trans-activist policy and culture proposals. You have a reasonable desire, which is for people to treat you a certain way. I think "transphobia" really is the best word for the reason why people don't treat a trans person like they desire.
Likewise, widespread shortphobia among straight women is the reason why society doesn't treat short kings like people.
A circular definition is just not useful. It breaks down and is only tethered to reality by the lingering remembrance of a rooted definition. A tether that will only fray and disintegrate over time like a plant pulled from it's soil.
There are ways to define trans that aren't circular, they just would cleave off one or another group of the trans coalition or make some asks carry less weight. My current model of trans(I'm going to give the MTF case but assume a symmetrical FTM case) is that it is a feature of some male brains that they are able to be in a state where they genuinely believe that would be happiest if they had as close as possible the experience of being female. This belief can be true or untrue, suppressible or unsuppressible those are their own questions. This belief is genuine and following the principles of freedom of form these people should be allowed to pursue body modifications and ask those around them to treat them as if they were female in whatever ways are reasonable to accommodate. Polite people should humor them and there should be a general understanding that this is an acceptable way to live. However we should not blind ourselves to the reality that this is fundamentally a truth about male brains, that there exist no gendered souls and that a brain cannot be in the wrong body.
I think this is basically the truth of the matter combined with the most reasonable course of action to take in response to it. A circular definition doesn't let us solve anything, it says nothing about the state of the world and is evidence of poor reasoning.
More options
Context Copy link
I've noticed people do not at all share my intuitions about these terms, so I'm curious to explore this a bit more:
Gender is which pronouns I prefer, the same way my name is an identifier I prefer. Does this mean "names" are also an "empty" concept?
So, names used to be based on profession, right? Smith, Cook, so on. Does this mean that a name "just means" profession, even though that's a historical feature, not a modern one? Are you okay with the modern tradition of divorcing names from that former meaning?
Currency used to be based on the gold standard, but now it's just a bunch of numbers on computers. Is currency still "just about" gold? Is currency now also a circular word with no real meaning? Are you okay with the modern tradition of divorcing currency from the gold standard?
For the present, English pronouns do "just mean" sex, but it doesn't have to always be that way. In the far-future, pronouns could easily be just a normal thing people choose, eventually divorced from its accidental history of indicating sex. I think most realistically, we would rid language of gendered pronouns altogether to reduce social friction. Why memorize two identifiers for everyone in your life? That someone wants to overhaul language but chooses to keep gendered pronouns around indicates to me they have an agenda.
I have no problem, personally, with language moving that direction. Personally I try to use any trans person's preferred pronouns (for fear of social censure). I have no problem, personally, with decoupling all connotations and emotions from "she" and "woman." Because most of my social circle is progressive, I already do that in my head.
In 2100, Rule 30 of the internet will apply to real-life and also be amended -- that all women are trans women unless she proves it. I nominate the rule text "women are trans women."
You say that like it's a weird, nefarious thing, but it seems like everyone who wants to change anything is obviously going to have an agenda?
I'm certainly not adverse to "abolish gender entirely" but it seems a lot easier to slot trans women into the existing system -vs- getting rid of the whole thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you arguing that common definitions of gender (e.g. "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman") aren't circular? Or are you being sarcastic and I'm too drunk to pick up on it?
I was explaining arguments without endorsing them because my personal opinion isn't that important.
"a woman is anyone who identifies as 'woman'" isn't circular exactly, but it is empty and silly. To engage in malicious compliance, you should just agree that a woman is someone who identifies as 'woman' but then play stupid whenever anyone ever says anything interesting about a woman. If playing semantic games with "woman" is beneath you, then I'm not sure why you'd care if [silly progressive definition] is circular or not -- it would be silly to you either way.
There is a coherent definition hidden inside the woke agenda: A woman is anyone who wants to be treated like a ciswoman adult human female. This is obviously the correct description for the category that progressives call "woman." Naturally, they are allergic to saying the quiet part out loud.
Edit: (Unsurprisingly, the natural definition reveals that ciswomen is a more fundamental category than woman. Ciswoman is like "red" or "purple" -- you just vaguely gesture at examples from the senses -- you know obviously what I'm talking about)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We can obviously agree, empirically, that there are two major clusters in how people get treated, male and female. "Ma'am" refers to one of those two clusters. The "ma'am" cluster includes both people with penises, and people with vaginas. This all seems like a basic objective observation of reality to me.
Given that, I don't get how this is any more circular than any other subjective category, like "nerd" or "tall" or "centrist"?
If you mean to argue that the way people treat trans women is functionally indistinguishable from the way they treat cis women - well, no. Indeed, even trans activists don't believe this - essentially every complaint made by trans activists (including Tickle, which started this debate) seems to ultimately boil down to "I wish people treated me as a [sir/ma'am], but they don't. Even when I can see that they're trying to treat me as a [sir/ma'am], I can tell they don't really see me that way and are just playing pretend in an effort to mollify me." And that's not even getting into the people who complain that "people keep treating me as a sir, even though I would prefer to be treated as neither sir nor ma'am and this should be obvious to outside observers even though everything about my appearance and comportment is entirely consistent with my being a sir" even though our society never created a script for how to interact with people who are neither sir nor ma'am because those two categories covered 100% of people until some teenagers spent too much time having their narcissism reinforced and encouraged on Tumblr, and now here we are.
I get called "ma'am" and don't see any particular difference in how I'm treated. Plenty of trans people "pass"; it's not exactly an obscure topic. It shouldn't be surprising that trans people who fail at passing complain more - the ones who succeed are already getting treated how they want, so there's no really much to complain about personally.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The supposed circularity of woman is just whenever people use quotes to say something like identifies as "woman." You sidestep that by changing the word to "ma'am" but what if someone says, "err, but you're not a ma'am"? Then you need to define ma'am and then you might run into some circularity.
If you don't want to define ma'am then it turns out woman is just a cluster unified by an arbitrary desire to be called a certain word. Realistically, it's also an arbitrary desire to be treated a certain way in general.
With tall and nerd you don't need to make reference to "quoted" "labels" and self-ID, so you are unlikely to run into any circularity.
I will re-iterate that the supposed circularity is not really the objection to trans activist policy and culture proposals. A significant part of the population thinks the trans desire is unreasonable. The circularity of the new woman definition is a strategy to give trans people what they desire (certain social privileges and connotations).
That would seem like a weird thing to say, since "ma'am" is how most people refer to me, and it'll confuse other people if you refer to me as "sir".
I mean, isn't that how names work? What's wrong with wanting to be called a certain word? I'm not forcing anyone to use it
You're not a ma'am. If you're going to continue to insist that you are, then please define ma'am.
It's simply a matter of fact that when people greet me, they use "ma'am" instead of "sir". I'm not sure what's unclear about that sentence.
"ma'am" is the word other people use to greet me. I'm surprised you haven't run into it before? You'd have to ask them what they mean by it, I'm not the one using it.
But sir, you said that you prefer to be called "ma'am." Why do you have a preference if you don't know what they mean?
Again: "ma'am" is a cluster of behaviors, not just a word. People who call me "ma'am" tend to treat me with respect, while people who call me "sir" tend to be assholes. Seems like pretty obvious incentive structures?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes we can.
No it does not. The ma'am cluster- otherwise known as women- includes people who have vaginas, xx chromosomes, uteruses, etc. Larping males don't belong there even if it makes them sad, any more than the various schizos who run for president on the platform that they have a chip in their brain belong in the oval office.
Having male genitals or xy chromosomes is disqualifying from being a woman. There are some people who don't fit into either category, for no fault of their own, and we call them intersex.
You can say that this way of drawing the line is arbitrary, but you would simply be wrong- my way, and the old way, is better because it gets at the information people actually care about. I don't find you wearing skirts to be some fundamental aspect of your identity because you can put on a pair of pants with, presumably, the same level of effort that I can. But you can't change your biological sex. It takes major surgery to change your anatomy- and artificial vaginas are not functional in the same way as natural ones in a variety of ways. It is impossible to change your genetic makeup. Transwomen having female-typical hormones requires constant intervention.
It is possible to be wrong about your own identity, even if you disguise yourself.
You're really claiming that not a single trans woman has ever been referred to as "ma'am"? 😂 That's a pretty amazing claim, so I'm assuming you have some pretty amazing evidence for it?
But, you know, people have called me personally "ma'am", totally unprompted! They do it all the time, in fact. If I try to explain that I'm a guy, they get confused. So... I mean, I know for a fact you're wrong. I'm pretty sure you can find other trans people with similar experiences.
My claim is that you are not a woman. Your disguise being good enough to pass for one does not change this, because being a woman is based on biology.
So when you meet someone new, do you treat them as some sort of third gender until you've had a chance to confirm whether they have a uterus or not? Like, in practice, how does this function socially? How many people's uteruses have you actually confirmed?
Trans, intersex, extremely androgynous people and people lacking in reproductive organs are such small minorities that if you meet someone and they look like a female person (meaning they have ovaries, a uterus etc.), you will be correct 90+% of the time. It's an extremely reliable heuristic, more reliable than any medical protocol ever designed. I acknowledge that this heuristic may not be quite as reliable in the specific subcultures and circles in which you move, but across the human race as a whole, 90+% sounds about right.
True. And if you assume everyone is bipedal, you'll be even more "accurate"! You might get extremely confused by people in wheelchairs, but hey, what are 80 million categorization errors between friends?
(Because, you do realize, 1% of the population is... 80 million people?)
Do you actually stand by that claim? That seems like an extraordinary claim. If "they look female" is more reliable than medical tests, why are we going around checking for uteruses and gametes? Why not just say "if they look female, they should use the women's bathroom"? Like, again, this test you're proposing, "they look female", is MORE reliable than even the best test on the market! So... why rely on anything else at that point?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I generally believe people’s claims about their anatomy, I generally disbelieve people’s claims that their existence contradicts their anatomy, it’s not that difficult of a concept to grasp- and nor is it a contradiction.
Alright, so I guess: what does it matter? People treat me like a woman, and I'm happy with that. There's clearly a category of "people who pass as female" and I'm in it. The vast majority of society finds it easiest to just call that category "women". It turns out that language is flexible and words have multiple definitions.
Do you go around insisting that people who dye their hair don't "really" have green hair, they're just disguising themselves? Would you find it easier to locate someone, knowing they currently have green hair, or knowing that they were born blonde?
Note that I've not made any claims about my anatomy. All I've said is that I get grouped in as a woman, and if you want to pick me out of a crowd you'd be wasting a lot of time looking through all the male-presenting people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is self-referential. "The meaning of female gender is treating a person like a female, and a person who is of female gender is one who wants to be treated like a female."
So are you saying all subjective categories are self-referential? "Republicans are people who vote for other Republicans" and such?
To me, I'm looking out at the world and seeing "Objectively, society classifies people into two clusters, which it calls male and female."
For historical reasons, these clusters tend to correlate with biological sex, but are clearly independent of it - even cis people get misgendered. I think we can both agree that gender does exist as something independent of sex? In the classic case, gender seems to be something like "best guess as to your genitalia", but people can still guess wrong. In trans-positive spaces it's more like "my best guess which pronouns would make you comfortable", which removes the legacy connection to genitalia entirely
This all sounds perfectly sensible - until you apply it to literally any other trait based on a biological substrate, at which point the reasoning collapses and the motivated reasoning is exposed.
One of the things people most frequently say about my physical appearance is that I look much younger than I am: people from all walks of life consistently place me at about four-five years younger than I actually am (and I've gone to no especial lengths to bring about this state of affairs other than regular exercise and moisturising my face when I remember to). Does it therefore follow that I have an "age identity" which is wholly distinct from my physical age? In the classic case, "age identity" seems to be something like "my best guess as to how much time has passed since you were born", but perhaps in trans-age-positive spaces "age identity" is more like "my best guess as to which age you would feel most comfortable if people thought you were that age". Which implies that Madonna's "biological age" is 66, but her "age identity" is 21. Perhaps it would be trans-age-phobic of me to remind her of her biological age (like sending her out an automated email urging her to get checked for breast cancer, as her age puts her at high risk for that condition), rather than "affirming" her age identity at every turn.
You don't have to be Rachel Dolezal to be mistaken for someone of a different ethnic group. I've had people start talking to me in Finnish unprompted, even though I'm not Finnish, have no Finnish ancestry and have never even set foot in Finland. I have Mexican friends who get driven up the wall by people thinking they're Brazilian. Does it therefore follow that everyone has an "ethnic identity" wholly distinct from their actual ethnic background?
Sometimes you think someone's skinny, then you weigh them and it turns out they're heavier than they look. Does it therefore imply that...
Rather than having to invent this whole elaborate set of epicycles around gender as a trait wholly distinct from sex, I would propose what I feel is a more elegant solution. "Humans are constantly observing and categorising other humans. Over time, they build up expectations of what a typical member of a given exclusive category looks like (or acts like, or sounds like etc.). Because everyone's training data is different, no one's training data is perfect, and there is huge variability in what the members of a sufficiently large category will look, act or sound like - inevitably some amount of humans will miscategorise Person X as a member of category A when they are in fact a member of category B. It does not therefore follow that Person X really is a member of category A in some kind of mysterious ineffable spiritual sense which transcends mere biology. The above is true of any category with a sufficiently large number of members - for any given sex, ethnic group, sexuality, age, height, mass, disability status, annual income, profession, dietary restrictions, level of educational attainment, criminal record etc. there will always be some amount of people who get categorised into the wrong category by one or more people. This is a normal human error, and the appropriate response is a simple 'oh sorry, my bad': we are not required to invent elaborate ancillary concepts and entire academic disciplines to explain and elaborate upon this discrepancy between individual expectation and observable reality."
People routinely get surgeries to try and look younger. There's a rather huge industry around catering to people's "age identity" and trying to "pass" as a younger age than they really are. It is in fact considered rude to go around pointing out that people are older than they look.
No one is going around calling women in heels "deceptive" even if it does make them seem taller.
Given all that, why should I feel bad about taking advantage of your classification errors to get myself called "ma'am"?
I really don't get how this analogy is anti-trans. Presumably if someone has transitioned and grown breasts, we should acknowledge that reality and send them emails suggesting they get checked for breast cancer now that they're at risk? And equally, I don't think a trans guy who has had a double mastectomy is at huge risk, here.
Right, but just because someone looks younger than they really are, that doesn't mean that in some ineffable spiritual sense they are younger than their actual physical age. In my experience, most people who undergo extensive cosmetic surgery to try to reverse the effects of aging (the Bogdanoffs, Madonna, Simon Cowell etc.) are widely ridiculed for being in denial about the plain reality of their own bodies. Truth be told, I do think it's rather sad and pathetic seeing someone who refuses to simply accept the fact that they've become older and don't look the same way they used to.
I notice that you completely side-stepped the transracial analogy even though in principle exactly the same arguments should apply.
If a woman of average height started wearing high heels and began claiming to have a "height identity" distinct from her physical height (and complaining that she wasn't being offered basketball scholarships or modelling contracts), I think just about everyone would react with bafflement at best and derision at worst.
I'm not saying you should feel bad about anything. You do you. If it makes you happy to dress in conventionally feminine clothes and have people mistakenly assume that you have a set of reproductive organs which you do not in fact possess, go for it, more power to you. I just reject the claim that, because people sometimes incorrectly classify you into a category of which you are not strictly a member, that therefore means that you really are a member of that category in some kind of spiritual intangible sense. Such a framing would imply that my "ethnic identity" is Finnish in some sense, despite the fact that I have no Finnish ancestry, am not a Finnish citizen, don't speak Finnish or have any connection with the culture, don't know any Finnish people and have never set foot in the country. Like "I'm not a female person, but I look female" is a perfectly coherent statement; likewise "I'm not Finnish but I look like I could be" or "I'm 35 but I look like I'm 25". But statements like "I'm not Finnish, but I have a Finnish ethnic identity" or "I'm 35, but I have a 25-year-old age identity" would widely be derided as incoherent - and I'm arguing the same is true of "I'm not female but I have a female gender identity".
Many trans activists (not necessarily including you, I don't know where you stand on this issue) get very irate and defensive when people make plainly true assertions like "it is impossible for a person to change their sex", "only female people can menstruate or be impregnated" or "trans women are at no less risk of prostate cancer than cis men". My point is, if it's mean to remind people of true facts associated with their anatomical sex instead of constantly affirming their stated "gender identity" (even if the reason you're bringing up these facts is in their own self-interest), then by the same token it should be seen as cruel to remind people about true facts associated with their physical age (such as propensity to various cancers) rather than constantly affirming their "age identity" (i.e. pretending that they really are the age they're attempting to pass themselves off as).
That seems like a pretty dumb mistake to make, though? You know trans people exist. There's plenty of people in the "female gender, but no uterus" category. So why would you keep assuming that just because I have a female presentation, I have a uterus?
Because 99% of people who look female do, in fact, have a uterus, and I'm extremely confident that this is a "mistake" you make all the time when you're out and about. When you pass a woman in the street, you don't think to yourself "oh, there's a person who bears a resemblance to my personal expectation of what a typical female person looks like. Armed with this knowledge, I cannot possibly make any additional inferences or educated guesses about her anatomy or life experience." No - you clock her as female and assume that she is a typical member of that set, rather than fixating on the tiny minority of women without uteruses.
I'd consider it pretty weird to spend any amount of time thinking about whether a stranger has a uterus or not. I've gone this entire conversation without once wondering whether you have a uterus or not. Whether or not you have a uterus is entirely irrelevant to my life.
Whether I have a uterus has zero impact on your life, too - so why are you spending so much time thinking about it?
And, given how often I meet people who look female and don't, in fact, have a uterus, I maintain some basic epistemological grace and acknowledge the uncertainty - especially since in my social circle, it's definitely less than 99%.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is a volitional category, not a subjective category. With volitional categories you can give the appearance of circularity with statements like "Christians are those who believe in Christianity" or "Military families are families where a father/mother has enlisted in the military." This superficial circularity is resolved by defining the second term. "Christians are those who believe Jesus of Nazarath (0-33 AD) was the son of God and his teachings result in eternal life for those who follow them." "Military families are families where a father/mother receives a salary from the government to train in the use of weapons and fight in the event of war."
This cannot be done with "A female is someone who wants to be treated as a female". Even if female is understood to be volitional, the second term goes undefined.
With the exception of grammar? No. If gender is not sex, it is incumbent on gender theorists to provide a non-circular definition.
"External gender" is your term for "gender roles", which can be defined as the manners and expectations society has for the male/female biological sex. If you want to say "gender roles should be abolished", you have a coherent position. But trans advocates do not (usually) want this; they want the gender roles to remain even as they deny female/male (the real, definable concepts) as meaningful categories.
Then why do people keep expecting me to act like a woman? I didn't grow a uterus, but everyone is calling me "ma'am" and they get upset if I go topless and show off my breasts.
It seems pretty clear to me that "gender roles" aren't based on my biological sex at all, but my gender presentation.
Because they are mistaken as to the facts of your biology, and this mistake likely originated in your intentionally disguising yourself as having female biology.
You really think people are going around a trans-positive space, full of trans people, and thinking "gosh, that person looks like a woman, they must have a uterus"?
You're only "making a mistake" if you are, for some reason, thinking about whether I have a uterus in the first place. Plenty of people avoid this mistake :)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Or, in D&D terms, you'd want to find a way to get that cursed Girdle of Masculinity/Feminity removed, since unlike the Helm of Opposite Alignment, it doesnt update your brain to make you happy with the situation.
Exactly :)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link