You don’t actually seem very knowledgable
I’ve listened to opinions of trans people. Doing so made me do a 180 from being supportive of trans rights activism to considering it to be regressive, sexist bollocks.
And you have no interest in why, because so far, all you’ve done is the gender war equivalent of the weird guy here who posts burns victim videos to show how cool he is with burns victims.
So here’s a couple of questions for you, let’s go from first principles. Why do you think trans women are women?, who are you including as “trans women” in the phrase “trans women are women”? and in what circumstances might you doubt a male person’s claim to be a woman?
I can tell you my answer to all those questions, confidently, articulately and from a position of compassion for trans people while not blindly accepting every claim. I can also say exactly what it would take for me to change my mind, and will read anything you point me to that substantively addresses these issues.
And hers one more question for you.
How do you square “it’d be silly to expect me to put forth the opposing position too!” with your other assertion of “nothing about us without us”?
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 10:44, Reply)
"and in what circumstances might you doubt a male person’s claim to be a woman?'
This is the crux of the whole issue here, in my opinion. It's a paradox, really. How do you practice exclusion in a movement/culture that is (allegedly) so fundamentally based around inclusion?
Is the individual below allowed to identify as a woman? By identifying as a woman, does she get the same freedoms as a woman who complies more readily to the accepted image of what a 'woman' looks like? Who decides?
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 11:15, Reply)
Yep. And the answer is
“You don’t - you just evade the idea that there’s any issues”. Which ultimately means that trans activism adopts a “not all men are like this” approach, because it relies on the idea that safeguarding against the risks male people pose to female people becomes absolutely unnecessary when the male person says “I am a woman”, and always falls back on “but most males aren’t rapists!”. I know that I’m not a rapist or an abuser I also recognise that safeguarding at my work, where I sup-pet vulnerable people, has to recognise the potential that I could be. And it isn’t reasonable that a heterosexual male can be considered to be less of a risk than I am on the basis of having dysphoria; dysphoria doesn’t stop some trans men from being celebrated as “the man who gave birth”, so why should dysphoria impact other sex-based behaviour?
And that’s why it’s important that communication is clear - and why it’s important to not say “trans women are women” unless you really do believe these two things:
1: some male people have an inner essence that enables them to know that they have what amounts to a spirit that makes them a member of the opposite sex
2. No male people place themselves in this group, either accidentally, due to a flawed understanding of themselves or mental distress, or deliberately - based on being a male person who wants access to female spaces
I think that most reasonable people don’t believe either of those things - they actually believe the thing that is true - that some male people find being male distressing, and to help, they live as close to their idea of the opposite sex as is feasible. When activism goes beyond that, it will encounter people saying “no”
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 11:22, Reply)
And with your image -
It’s important to treat it head on, not as a facetious comment but as a genuine one.
If that man can’t be considered a woman, as he appears now, why not? Why is it ludicrous? There is no answer to this that trans activism has that doesn’t impose a level of stereotypical expectations of women onto the group “women”.
I can say “this man can not be a woman because he is not female”.
Trans activism can only say “this man probably isn’t a woman because he isn’t presenting as I expect women to present”
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 11:32, Reply)
Anybody who treats it as facetious is ignoring the bigger question.
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 11:36, Reply)
Yes.
Here’s an example of something else trans activism is ill equipped to deal with.
If I said
“I am a woman. I’m here for my gender recognition certificate, I have lived according to this gender identity for my entire life. Here’s some examples:
1: I am a keen footballer, I play football every week and enjoy it
2: I keep my hair short, and occasionally have some facial hair
3: I don’t like wearing skirts and dresses - I tend to wear jeans and t-shirts
4: I’m attracted to women, and all my partners have been women
5: I’m physically strong, and work as a labourer
6. I don’t feel the need to physically transition - I am comfortable with my body and the fact that my body was assigned male at birth no longer causes me distress, as I’m confident that whatever my body looks like, I am a woman”
Then on what basis would any trans activist say that I wasn’t a woman?
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 11:44, Reply)
No,
that is the argument as to why they are not female.
It is a very valid argument for why they are not female, but it is not a good argument as to why they are not a woman.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 16:52,
Reply)
You are biologically male.
But come stay the night and I'll make you my woman.
Female - Sex
Woman - Gender
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 17:36, Reply)
Sewomantics.
The trans activist in my imagination isn't as bogged down by technical/academic terminology as the trans activist in your imagination.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 18:54,
Reply)
I suspect that many trans activists haven't given the subject *nearly* as much consideration as the good folk here have given it over tbe past few days.
The overwhelming post-social media trend seems to be people campaigning for things that they like the sound of, without actually considering what the outcome of those campaigns might be.
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 19:10, Reply)
It's okay though because there's a concern troll for every one of them.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 19:52,
Reply)
Neat trick putting that alamy tag on a selfie.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sun 15 Aug 2021, 15:27,
Reply)
You're not far off, to be fair!
Reasonably accurate besides the fact that I don't have such large bags under my eyes, I don't drink booze and I don't identify as a woman. I'll give you the rest, though.
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 15:58, Reply)
I'll answer your questions, but I'm concerned that you're turning this into a personal attack. I'll not engage with that.
"So here’s a couple of questions for you, let’s go from first principles. Why do you think trans women are women?, who are you including as “trans women” in the phrase “trans women are women”? and in what circumstances might you doubt a male person’s claim to be a woman?"
"I can tell you my answer to all those questions, confidently, articulately and from a position of compassion for trans people while not blindly accepting every claim. I can also say exactly what it would take for me to change my mind, and will read anything you point me to that substantively addresses these issues."
Please tell us your answers.
I think we should treat trans women as women because they tell us they are. I would include anyone who tells me that they are a trans woman, or as they'd more likely say, that they are a woman, in that group.
I would doubt a person's stated gender identity if they appeared to be insincere.
This is the same principle I would apply to anyone's claim about their identity - whether they're telling me that they're Christian, Scottish, vegetarian, a swimmer, or a girl or boy. Usually these identities don't come with any victimisation - but a trans identity often does.
Being a trans person when your body doesn't look like your gender is really tough. It opens a person up to real violence and persecution. People don't do this trivially. Even if we come to fully accept the rights of trans people to self-gender, those who don't easily "pass" as their living gender will still be subjected to misgendering, even if that's only by accident by someone who's otherwise well-meaning.
Victimisation of out trans people is a strong force that I think will sort the jokers from the genuine.
Stonewall have conducted research on persecution of trans people:
www.stonewall.org.uk/lgbt-britain-trans-report
The GMC and Mind have guidance on trans mental healthcare:
www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-hub/trans-healthcare#mental-health-and-bridging-prescriptions
www.mind.org.uk/information-support/tips-for-everyday-living/lgbtiqplus-mental-health/about-lgbtiqplus-mental-health/
So my point is that it's not trivial to come out as trans, and no-one would claim they're a trans man or woman lightly. So I'll believe someone who tells me so.
"And here's one more question for you.
How do you square “it’d be silly to expect me to put forth the opposing position too!” with your other assertion of “nothing about us without us”?""
Yes, there are other points of view, but we've got you and others who share those views who are happy to express them. There's no need for me to promote a view that I don't hold, while others are already so strongly doing so.
Aside from restating this, I can't see the relationship between saying trans voices should be included in any discussion on trans issues, and my saying that I won't promote anti-trans positions.
If you think this point is important, please spell it out simply and clearly so that I can understand.
(
Invisible Wizard - 12th Level Errorer, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 13:47,
Reply)
My question wasnt
“Why do you treat trans women as women”, but
“Why do you think trans women are women”
The distinction is that I would also accept that a male person who says they are a woman is indeed a trans woman. Where we diverge is that I don’t believe trans women are women, as I’ve not heard a non sexist definition of “woman” that would include male people who say they are women.
“Because they tell us they are” isn’t an answer, and certainly isn’t a compelling reason for anyone else to agree with you. That’s because a male person is not a woman by an existing definition, so all you have done is decided to remove any meaning from the term “woman”. You’re welcome to do that, but you haven’t provided a good reason for anyone else to do so.
You mention sincerity, but how are you measuring sincerity? It seems likely to me that a performance of femininity is your criteria, if not, what is a sincere trans identity and an insincere one? Examples, please? Are you able to accept that while you have a “sincerity” filter, others of us have a “reality” filter - we]here we don’t share the idea of an innate, gendered soul and so don’t accept male people are literally women, regardless of sincerity? Can you outline why I should be forced to believe otherwise, lest I be considered a bigot?
I suspect you would doubt a claim to be a vegetarian that was made by a person who was openly eating meat in front of you. I think you’d doubt a claim to be Christian by somebody who attended mosque daily.
I suspect that while you might think “he can call himself a vegetarian if he wants”, you’d understand if he was asked to leave a vegetarian space if he turned up and was clearly eating meat while saying that it didn’t matter if his behaviour was the opposite of what a vegetarian is, what mattered is that he IS a vegetarian and people needed to respect that.
So what would be your gender equivalent of a meat eating vegetarian? Mine would be a male telling me that they are a woman. What would the insincerity be as far as you’re concerned? Masculine presentation? Again, you’re forced to engage with the fact that you clearly believe that femininity = womanhood.
You haven’t yet given a good reason as to why you think “woman” describes an identity and what that identity comprises when a male claims it.
You’ve gone on to ignore every other question, and to simply reiterate that being trans is tough. I don’t doubt that having gender dysphoria is tough; I dispute that a male who has gender dysphoria is a woman for all intents and purposes.
You go on to say “when your body doesn’t look like your gender”. That looks a lot like you’re discussing a separation of mind and body, and is a statement of belief, not of fact. You’re describing discomfort with one’s sex, and discussing “gender” as a ghost in the machine. I reject that notion - we *are* our bodies. And wanting to be the opposite sex is not a compelling reason to think we are actually the opposite sex, as the fact of our sexed bodies is a reality, and the implications of being a member of the female sex is that you have life experiences that are exclusive to members of the female sex.
I’m not concerned about whether people come out as trans trivially or after much thought - my concern is what I’m supposed to do as a result of that. If a person comes out as trans and wants protection from harm as a result, they have my support. If they come out as trans and demand to be recognised as being a member of the opposite sex to all intents and purposes, overwriting the concept of sex with the concept of an innate gender identity, I will maintain that that is an unreasonable demand, as I don’t share that belief and will not reshape reality around a belief I don’t hold.
When someone says they are trans, I believe that they are trans. I don’t believe they are a member of the opposite sex to their actual sex. My question was why you believe that they are.
You have casually dismissed opposing views as bigotry and as ignorance. I’m here telling you that I have studied this at length, examined all sides, and found trans activism to be regressive and sexist. You don’t have to promote opposing views in order to engage with what the opposing view is; you have failed to do so.
Here’s a challenge for you - I suspect you see me as anti trans. Tell me a shift you think it’d be reasonable for me to make in my position, and why you think that shift is necessary for me to move away from the “evil” you mentioned earlier. Do that, and I will read think and explain either why I will do so, and why I won’t. Deal?
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 14:01, Reply)
Deal. My response to your challenge then is this: stop conflating sex and gender, and accept the WHO definitions.
Gender is a social construct.
It is associated with, but not exclusively dependent on, sexual characteristics. It is an identity we assume when we behave in ways that align with societal gender norms.
We have "girly girls" and "manly men", or "girly boys" and "butch women" (using common pejoratives) - and alongside that, we can have people with female sex organs who live as men, and people with male sex organs who live as women.
If gender is the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, then someone who lives with those characteristics IS a man, or a woman, as defined by those characteristics.
I suspect you may not agree with that definition. You've repeatedly conflated sex and gender. But these are the definitions used by the WHO:
www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-determinants/gender/gender-definitions
- and by the UK government:
www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21
I've not suggested that there's a mind-body duality (nor would I, it's not something I believe), but there absolutely is a difference between gender and sex. The experience that trans people tell us is exactly that pre-transition, they feel their body doesn't fit their gender.
So using those internationally agreed definitions, from medical organisations, I believe that yes, you should "overwrite the concept of sex with the concept of innate gender identity".
(
Invisible Wizard - 12th Level Errorer, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 15:38,
Reply)
I am not conflating sex and gender
The conflation of sex and gender is inherent in trans activism’s argument that gender identity determines and overwrites sex categories.
In the absence of your activism having an actual definition of “woman”, a male who says “my identity is woman” *is* saying that in all practical terms they are a member of the opposite sex.
Don’t be disingenuous; I’ve done this before.
You’re the person who said you’d look for “sincerity”, so tell me - what is an insincere trans woman?
Describe such a person without using expectations of behaviour or appearance associated with sex. You can’t. And you’re still fundamentally, wilfully misunderstanding the opposition. I *know* there are men who aren’t “manly” - it’s gender ideology that suggests feminine men are women.
But you still can’t define your terms, so tell me your definition of “woman”. Non circular, please.
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 16:17, Reply)
For avoidance of all doubt
Trans activism’s whole thing is conflating sex with gender. Here’s how:
“Your innate sense of self (gender identity) determines the sex category you can place yourself in” IS what trans activism demands. It’s why Hubbard’s gender identity ends up with Hubbard competing in the category created for female physiology.
It is obfuscation on your part to accuse opponents of the conflation, when what we do is use clarity of language to point out that you are using self declared sense of self to mean a person should be considered to be the opposite sex.
You don’t actually recognise the right of female people to have places reserved only for female people, so it’s you guilty of the conflation, I’m just observing it, using language that enables me to describe it. Linguistic tricks won’t work on me - I will keep you to clarity. So unless you respect that female people can have spaces for female people only, you don’t get to say that this isn’t about sex.
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 16:27, Reply)
My post below took a while to type
so these messages were not here when I wrote it.
IMO it is vital to not conflate sex and gender.
It is exactly that which is causing this whole issue. There are some feminists who want female only spaces, and want to defend what female is.
Call yourself a man or woman if you want, it doesn't and shouldn't matter, but you can't turn yourself from a female into a male, or vice versa.
If a space is for women, then all women, including trans women, should be allowed in. If a space is for females only, then sorry, it's for females only even if they identify as a man.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 17:01,
Reply)
I don't recognise "female spaces" as excluding trans women, no - partly because that is illegal to do.
I've given you my definition of "woman" - it's the WHO definition, the UK law's definition.
The law says that a trans person's gender identity is protected. Excluding someone from a space on the basis of that trans status is not lawful.
In response to your question about when I would doubt someone's gender identity claims, I used their sincerity as my personal test for agreeing with the gender identity of person. If the person appears to be sincere in their statement, then I choose to accept it. If you can't imagine what I mean by that, I really don't know how I could possibly explain it to you.
There is no such thing as an "insincere trans woman". Such a person is lying - they are not a trans person.
I'm only responding to you here because originally you called me out by name in your post to that TERF's blog, and made bad faith arguments against a principle I advocate.
If you're going to continue to brush off the legal definitions I've presented, then I can only assume you're not interested in discussion.
(
Invisible Wizard - 12th Level Errorer, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 17:23,
Reply)
" If you can't imagine what I mean by that, I really don't know how I could possibly explain it to you.
There is no such thing as an "insincere trans woman". Such a person is lying - they are not a trans person."
I admire this allyship, but in practice how on earth can it possibly be actioned? This is where it all breaks down for me. There is absolutely no objective truth in this concern, it's all based on personal testimony and how you interpret the validity of that testimony. That makes it incredibly difficult ethically for healthcare professionals involved in trans care if they are required to supervise any kind of medical transition (yes, I know not all trans people seek medical transition - but it is increasing) or authorities for allowing Self ID trans people access to women and girl only spaces.
Why would someone lie? Because people lie all the time. Obviously they're "fake trans people", as you sort of claim, but even so - it's still proves there's no objective truth here. The fact a rapist can change from a male to female prison shows their Self ID claims were believed by the system sincerely and that it caused untold harm. It'd be great to live in a society where we can spot liars, but I think you'd have to be incredibly naive to believe that utopia exists. I'm sure it's a rare occurrence, like much crime thankfully, but that's not how we mitigate risk in terms of sex-based divisions.
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 18:34, Reply)
Whoah, hold up there
You're posting links from Mermaids, a 'charity' even the BBC disowned, a 'charity' that has a laissez-faire attitude to personal data and was fined for it, a 'charity' that lost it's interfering challenge in the Keira Bell case, and yet here you are calling people out for quoting, in your words, a "TERF's blog".
As others have pointed out, you have supplied no credible rebuttal to the encroachment on female's safe spaces, in fact you reiterate it here.
Quite apart from your crusade, it seems to me you simply want to pile opprobrium on those who oppose your unsupportable views by lobbing around pejorative terms like TERF while quoting from discredited organisations, all the while barely disguising a wish to erode further the hard-fought rights of females to their own safe spaces.
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 18:42, Reply)
No it is not illegal
Single-sex service providers can choose to exclude transgender people where there are ''proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim''.
An example given by the Equality Act is that organisers of group counselling for female sexual assault victims could exclude a trans woman if they judged that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.
However, refusing a trans woman entry to the women's toilet in a pub is likely to be unlawful.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 21:27,
Reply)
If personal testimony is the basis by which someone is/isn't trans...
Then how is it even possible for that testimony to be a lie?
(, Mon 16 Aug 2021, 12:41, Reply)
Your fundamental mistake
Is in seeing this debate as “trans issues”
From a feminist perspective, the issue is “male people trying to redefine what a woman is when they decide they are one”, and women can and do oppose that. Male people wanting to redefine womanhood is at least as much a *women’s rights issue* as it is a “trans rights” issue.
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 14:40, Reply)
I think now
you are getting closer to the actual argument, and using better (more accurate) terms although you are still mixing them up in sentences like "male people trying to redefine what a woman is".
The term woman is a social construct, to be female means you are able to carry a baby to term. Man is a social construct, but males are able to produce sperm. (let's gloss over the people who are infertile or have other niche medical issues, they are still male and female)
Some females, especially those escaping an abusive partner, want to feel safe in a female only space and, because of the abuse they have suffered, generally at the hands of males, do not feel safe when non-females are there, even if they identify as women. Nobody should have a problem with this. It should be totally fine for there to be female only spaces so that females uncomfortable with the presence of males can enjoy the company of other females safely. This could be because of religion or other factors.
Anyone should be able to identify as any gender they feel matches them, and society should respect that. Nobody should suffer abuse as a result of whatever gender they identify as.
It is not currently medically possible to turn someone from male to female, or vice versa.
It should be a simple matter of expression for a person to be regarded as either a man, a woman, or NB. This should not depend on whether they have had surgery, or how they dress, or what hairstyle they have.
When it is said that Trans people want to redefine what a woman is, some people misunderstand and think they are trying to redefine 'female' and I think a lot of the disagreement is coming from that misunderstanding.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 16:50,
Reply)
If a male person says
“I am a woman”, what is that male person saying about themself? “Woman” only has meaning as the term for an adult human female. It has no social meaning because there are plenty of women who reject gender stereotypes.
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 17:01, Reply)
They are saying
"I am a woman"
What they can't say is "I am female"
Don't conflate the two things yourself now.
What it means for the rest of us is we say Her, She etc, and use the name they want to be called by.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 17:09,
Reply)
But what meaning
Does the word “woman” convey if it doesn’t mean adult human female?
(, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 17:15, Reply)
All blackbirds are black
not all birds that are black are blackbirds.
All adult human females are women (if they identify as such) not all women are adult human females, apparently.
Personally, I thought the best way out of this for everyone was to accept a difference between female and woman, but the person who started all this trans stuff on /Links has doubled down and is saying that trans people are female, which they just aren't.
Woman can be defined legally, female is defined biologically.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 21:24,
Reply)
Discussion about potential different meanings
Of “woman” and “female” are a red herring, and it’s simply a nonsense to say that “woman” is an identity word, while “female” is the word for sex: you’re basically just repeating assertions that trans activism made 2-3 years ago before it moved onto “gender identity determines what sex you are”
Your point would mean that “ewe” and “doe” and “peahen” are gender identities in other animals, rather than nouns to describe members of the female sex in other species.
It also misses that a handy byproduct of this idea is that it means that whenever people have, for clarity, used the term “female” on social media, they’re met with that Star Trek meme - as if it’s that person using the cold, clinical term by choice, rather than to make it clear which group is being referred to. Ceding control of the vocabulary in this way means that “anti trans bigots” are using the clinical, sciencey, less human sounding words like “female” and “biological”, while trans activism utilises linguistics to get the warm, nice words like “woman” and “kindness” and “inclusion”
The reason I’m trying to pin down trans activist’s working definition of the word “woman” is not because I’m trying to work out what it is, but to illustrate that trans activism wants to remove meaning from these concepts.
The argument “let’s let trans activism have ‘woman’, we’ll use that to mean “innate sense of self, sort of entangled with the idea of what an adult human female is expected to look like and act like”” misunderstands a crucial thing - it’s not that trans activists want the *word* - it’s that what trans activists want is for male people to be considered, in all practical terms, *female people*, and so if the meaning of the word “woman” *were* to be redefined to clearly mean “adult human females comfortable with the gender identity ‘woman’, and male people who call their identity ‘woman’”, then the term “woman” would no longer be enough for trans activists, as it would still put them in a separate category from female people, which is unacceptable to trans activists.
Don’t believe me? Let’s look at it then. If trans activism really *was* just about freedom to call oneself a woman while respecting sex differences, then trans activism would do these things:
* recognise that in public life, the term “woman” has been widely used to refer to members of the female sex, not a gender identity, and so just because something is labelled “women’s” it can’t be assumed to be for both sexes
* recognise that women’s sport exists not to recognise achievements of a gender identity, but to celebrate female athletes - athletes with female bodies
* recognise that victims of male violence and sexual assault are very likely to require spaces free of male people for treatment and recovery
* recognise the impact that possession of a female body has on female people in workplaces - eg how potential of pregnancy has negatively impacted women’s career opportunities, and recognising by extension that hiring a male person with the identity “woman” doesn’t actually show that employers are treating female people fairly
* be less quick to affirm that people should have hormonal or surgical intervention to help their bodies look and feel more like those of the opposite sex
* recognise that the group of humans with female bodies have political interests that are sometimes in conflict or at odds with the political interests of people with male bodies, and as such have the right to female only spaces
There is, quite simply, no evidence whatsoever that trans activism will back away from demanding access to this, if only women would clarify when the mean “female” and when they mean “woman, but as the innate identity, not as the word for adult human females”
There is, however, lots of evidence that trans activists actually do want to overwrite the importance of sex with the idea that one’s gender identity should be what determines what our sex is: the idea is that if your gender identity is “woman”, then one’s body is a woman’s body, a female body - labelling it “male” is simply a relic of less enlightened times.
Elsewhere here, I decided I’d refer to Laurel Hubbard using male pronouns - I chose to do so not to be insensitive but because I recognised that even when using preferred pronouns, I was accused of “misgendering” when I used language necessary to make my point: “she shouldn’t compete in the Olympics in the female category, as despite her gender identity, biologically she is male” is, according to mainstream trans activism, an act of misgendering, because observing that Hubbard is male is to deny that Hubbard;s gender identity necessarily overwrites sex. Any reasonable person can see that that is nonsensical, and so - while not feeling completely comfortable with it (I don’t enjoy the idea that a term is hurtful) it made sense to re-evaluate and recognise that once you start using the lexicon demanded by trans activism, you rob yourself of the ability to make a point:
“Laurel Hubbard should not compete in the Olympics, because regardless of how he identifies he remains male” is how I can make a point that has a clear meaning. Using trans activism’s style guide, I would have to say this instead:
“Laurel Hubbard should not compete in the Olympics, because regardless of her gender identity, the fact that she was assigned male at birth should rule her out”
The latter *feels* like excluding a female person from her rightful category because of an accident of birth, with the implication that Hubbard is no longer male; the former uses neutral, factual terms to accurately summarise the issue.
(, Mon 16 Aug 2021, 10:53, Reply)
It has become clear over the course of this thread that the person who has been posting about trans issues lately does indeed seem to have the opinion that a male who decides they are a trans woman should be regarded legally and otherwise as female, not just as a woman. And that is certainly not the case.
You posted earlier, "I am not conflating sex and gender" yet now you are saying "it’s simply a nonsense to say that “woman” is an identity word, while “female” is the word for sex", which is pretty much the definition of conflating sex and gender.
I don't agree that the two words mean the same, they have distinct meanings that overlap in most cases but not all cases.
A maths example would be two sets, one which contains all integers over 3, the other contains all even integers. Your argument is that, as all even integers from 4 upwards are in the other set, that we may as well put the number 2 in it as well and that it is nonsense to say that 2 is not in that set.
But it isn't in that set, even though there is a lot of overlap. They have distinct and separate definitions, even though one set mostly is contained within the other.
Mostly, not totally.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Mon 16 Aug 2021, 11:27,
Reply)
It would only be conflation of sex and gender
If I accepted that “woman” *is* referring to gender, while “female” refers to sex.
That isn’t actually the case. The most widely used definition of “woman” is still “adult human female”, and neither trans activism nor anyone on this thread has actually provided a non-circular definition of “woman” that carries meaning about what such an identity actually comprises.
Conflation of sex and gender is in using the idea of a gender identity - let’s say, a male person identifying as a woman, and then using that identity to argue that the identity qualifies such a person to access spaces, services, political movements created based on sex.
As I am being perfectly clear about what I mean when I use each term, I’m not conflating anything.
Again, I’ll ask - what is a male person saying about himself if he says “I am a woman”?
I would argue that such a male person is actually saying “I have a personality that matches what I think is appropriate for the opposite sex” - the *act* of identifying as a woman *is* THE conflation of sex and gender upon which every other conflation builds. A male person isn’t a female person, so what *is* the identity to which he claims, and what are these “women’s spaces” that, as you are arguing, exist with respect to needs that arose based on having the gender identity “woman” and not on being an adult human female person?
(, Mon 16 Aug 2021, 11:44, Reply)
If “woman” is a gender identity, then “man” also is.
I have never experienced having a gender identity. I don’t believe I have one.
Can you outline what it would look like if I did, and can you clarify whether you
* think I am still a man
* think that in the absence of a gender identity I am actually non-binary
* whether I should, in day to day life, consider that anything I read or hear that pertains to “men” is something I should disregard, since I don’t have the gender identity “man”, and wouldn’t know what one was anyway?
(, Mon 16 Aug 2021, 11:56, Reply)
Your logic isn't logic.
What you think follows from your assumptions probably doesn't. This makes it hard to follow your thought patterns and arguments.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Mon 16 Aug 2021, 15:49,
Reply)
Indeed
There are very clear definitions for both words, no matter what any of us here think, or are willing to accept.
I've got better things to do than go back and forth with someone who won't even accept the meanings of words and is willing to contradict themselves to avoid any possible deviation from their pre-conceived position.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Mon 16 Aug 2021, 17:38,
Reply)
Eh? I’m perfectly willing to accept definitions of words
What then *is* the definition of “woman” that I’m missing? Nobody has provided one. “It’s a gender” isn’t a definition, it’s an evasion of one.
(, Mon 16 Aug 2021, 19:16, Reply)
So it's not a red herring any more?
Why is “It’s a gender” an evasion of an answer? What do you mean by that?
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Mon 16 Aug 2021, 19:35,
Reply)
Because as yet
Nobody has been able to say what the “gender” of “woman” comprises, and in which way it is a discrete category; by the logic used, “man” is also a gender, rather than the noun for an adult human male. So what is the difference between the genders of “man” and “woman” - what constitutes a “man” gender, what constitutes a “woman” gender?
Without actually being able to say what differentiates the genders, the concept of “woman as gender identity” males no sense: if woman is a gender identity, what *is* it? Trans activism can’t say - all it actually means is that it’s a word that male people can claim if they want it. In which way do these genders map onto sex in a way that makes a compelling case for a gender identity to overwrite and determine sex categories, as in the case of Hubbard.
Trans activism has no answer to this question, because answering it would mean conceding that it is referring to femininity and masculinity.
What *is* this innate sense of gender identity that is/was shared by Mo Mowlam, Katie Price, Megan Rapinoe, Hedy Lamarr, Caitlyn Jenner, Queen Elizabeth, Margaret Thatcher, Mariah Carey and Tilda Swinton? What do they all have in common? If they *dont* have anything in common, what is the usefulness of this idea that they have a shared gender identity? Are you able to give, say, five examples of things that characterise people with the gender identity “woman” and five things that categorise the gender identity “man”, without using sexist stereotypes? I can guarantee that you can’t, and without it, the idea that “woman” is a gender word but doesn’t have any intrinsic meaning is *literally* male people appropriating a useful term - the word for female humans - and stripping it of meaning for the benefit of male people.
My point is that they don’t have a shared gender identity - most of the people listed above have in common that they are *female*, and so use “woman” in the common understanding as the word to describe adult female humans, while one of them uses the word to describe that they believe they have a woman’s inner sense of self. That person however, has no ay whatsoever of knowing what it is to experience life as a female person, so “gender identity” remains a nebulous belief system.
Feel free to take it out of the realms of the nebulous and into something substantial by explaining what constitutes a “woman” gender identity….
(, Tue 17 Aug 2021, 12:09, Reply)
I see your problem (without reading all that bollocks, seriously tl;dr)
You say "“man” is also a gender, rather than the noun for an adult human male."
But it's both! A lot of words that describe sex also describe gender, and vice versa.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Tue 17 Aug 2021, 14:05,
Reply)
Then what is it describing when used to refer to “gender”?
You’re now saying man means “sex” AND “gender”, while saying that I am the one conflating the terms, and yet you can’t actually say what differentiates the gender “man” from the gender “woman”
Yes, my post is long. Because unpacking trans activism’s obfuscation requires patience and scrutiny of implications. So let’s hear it - what does the “gender” of “man” entail? What good reason is there to use a word that is associated with sex to describe one’s experience of self? What purpose is served by using this - apparently differing - concept, as a qualifying status into spaces and services that were clearly designed for members of a sex, rather than an internal sense of self that -apparently - isn’t about sex?
(, Wed 18 Aug 2021, 10:00, Reply)