I might agree with your point, but I'll not discuss it further here - it's not the place for it.
Ok, /talk don't want serious discussion on their patch either. Fuck it, I'll carry on here - sorry Wendy.
---
Clint's suggested that "Where we differ is when we move away from steps to enable personal comfort and towards demanding that people perceive trans people as being effectively of the opposite sex, in all circumstances".
Yes, that's absolutely the case. That's where we differ.
I think that's one of the most fundamental parts of being an ally to my trans friends: that I accept that they are the gender they say they are.
I would use different language to Clint here though - I would say gender and not sex. I see these as importantly distinct things.
For me, saying that someone is "effectively the opposite sex" is to me, too wrapped up in the language of sex=gender. I expect Clint and others disagree. This is to be expected, that we'll disagree.
I'd also personally tend to ask rather than demand. I might ask strongly, and passionately, because I believe in this. But I'm not trying to annihilate anyone's point of view, I'm hoping that I can change it.
(
Invisible Wizard - 12th Level Errorer, Mon 23 Aug 2021, 17:18,
Reply)
You’re still failing to engage with
The demonstrable fact that your position doesn’t differentiate sex and gender: it simply says that “gender” (an innate sense of self that you’ve been patently unable to define what it entails and what “man” or “woman” means if they refer to something other than sex) should override any categorisation based on sex.
(, Mon 23 Aug 2021, 18:44, Reply)
Please demonstrate how I don't differentiate between the things I've repeatedly said are different.
I'll repeat it again: I am not saying that gender = sex, or that gender overrides sex.
I'm reporting to you that trans people want to be recognised as their living gender, and that this should include the rights that the gender enjoys, the rights that all humans should enjoy.
I'd contrast that with the position that trans-exclusionary proponents put, that trans people should be denied access to certain places, because those places are intended for people of a certain sex only.
What places can we agree must be split according to sex - not gender? Gynaecologists, sperm banks, anywhere else that has to do with the health or functions of sexual reproductive organs exclusive to a particular sex.
But the trans-exclusionary position also wants to exclude trans people from gendered spaces, that have less to do with the sex organs of the people who use them, and more to do with their gender - changing rooms and toilets, and safe shelters.
What's the reason to exclude trans people from gendered spaces? Because trans people are dangerous? Because trans people are scary or disturbing?
I genuinely want to understand why you think trans people should be excluded from places that match their gender.
And please explain why the posts where I gave definitions of gender aren't actually definitions of gender.
b3ta.com/links/1571370
b3ta.com/links/1571237
If they're not definitions of gender, what definition would you accept?
(
Invisible Wizard - 12th Level Errorer, Mon 23 Aug 2021, 19:34,
Reply)
do you understand the reasons why men are excluded from many women only places, services and support networks, putting aside trans-people for a moment?
Do you think this is only about genitals, or about other gendered differences, such as differences in behaviour, power, cultural upbringing, potential for physical and sexual aggression, sexual interest etc. I'd be interested if you recognise these differences.
If you do, then the question is that do you think that somebody in their mid-30s, for example, by forming the belief that they are a different gender and becoming trans, by doing so also instantly changes all these other gendered differences in that individual, of which I listed some, that underpin these separate zones, separate treatment, and separate dedicated services that women have?
My position is that they don't, or at least, we have no way of verifying to the safe satisfaction of women that they do. Therefore, I reject your blanket "we should give them all the rights they ask for", however well-intentioned, in favour of granting only those rights that don't interfere with the competing rights of other groups.
People talk about rights as if they have some mystical almost religious ordination, but they are just laws like any other, a common agreement that is entirely dependent on the culture that enacts and enforces them, and vary enormously across cultures. One way would to have a referendum, similar to gay marriage ones in different countries, so that you get majority agreement on this extension of rights, crucially from women who hitherto haven't been polled. They may well get it, but I suspect not
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 24 Aug 2021, 1:11,
Reply)
Thanks Cumquat, that's a good set of points.
"do you understand the reasons why men are excluded from many women only places, services and support networks, putting aside trans-people for a moment?"
Yes, I believe I do understand. There are many reasons of course - shared experiences of being one gender or another, avoiding pressures that are felt to come from other genders, nudity taboos, and so on.
Again, I believe these are part of gender roles in society, rather than being determined by the sex organs of the people involved.
"Do you think this is only about genitals, or about other gendered differences, such as differences in behaviour, power, cultural upbringing, potential for physical and sexual aggression, sexual interest etc. I'd be interested if you recognise these differences."
Yes, absolutely I recognise those differences. Growing up gendered as a girl brings one set of cultural baggage, as a boy brings another - but again, that's cultural.
Yes, separately, I acknowledge the physical differences of muscle and bone growth during puberty. But I strongly feel that the cultural issues of gender roles are more important in determining behaviour - and I think it's behaviour that's the bigger issue when we're thinking about gendered spaces.
"If you do, then the question is that do you think that somebody in their mid-30s, for example, by forming the belief that they are a different gender and becoming trans, by doing so also instantly changes all these other gendered differences in that individual, of which I listed some, that underpin these separate zones, separate treatment, and separate dedicated services that women have?"
Instantly? No, not really. Because transition doesn't work like that. There's a lot of counselling involved. It's hard work to get recognised as a new gender. It's certainly not instant.
You've worded your example as if this person's transition was somehow flippant, or whimsical. I'm not taking issue with that, I just want to say that I've never encountered anyone that way. Maybe they do exist? But from my experience, and from what I've heard from trans people - no, never heard of a real one.
"My position is that they don't, or at least, we have no way of verifying to the safe satisfaction of women that they do. Therefore, I reject your blanket "we should give them all the rights they ask for", however well-intentioned, in favour of granting only those rights that don't interfere with the competing rights of other groups."
I think that we do have ways of verifying a person's transition - the BMA's comments on Gender Recognition Certificates I already linked to, the process of accessing transition treatments, these are strong methods.
Are they strong enough for general public acceptance? I suppose we don't know yet.
But I strongly believe that we should accept what medical professionals tell us about trans identity, and get over the fears of harm from a cohort of people who are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime than they are to be the perpetrators of it.
I hope that doesn't take long.
Meanwhile, I'll concede trans people are probably going to have to stay out of changing rooms for one gender or another. That for their own protection, trans people are having to curtail their own rights to avoid putting themselves in harm's way.
But I certainly don't think we should legislate that exclusion as mandatory.
(
Invisible Wizard - 12th Level Errorer, Tue 24 Aug 2021, 8:26,
Reply)
You’re again ignoring the reality
that there is a *reason* that there is a cultural difference in the way male and female people are treated from a young age. And that reason is *sex* and the use and exploitation of female bodies as a *resource*
Once more - what trans activism actually does is this; it asserts that the self experience of interpreting one’s innate personality as being sexed (gender identity: it would not be described in terms of “woman” and “man” if what was being experienced wasn’t interpreted as “the sex of my consciousness”), which may not align with their sexed body, should be more politically relevant than the fact of having a sexed body.
Since you don’t believe that female people - those people who actually have female bodies - are entitled to organised on the basis of sex rather than identity, your argument is inherently sexist: it’s just that you can’t see it because you’ve taken the faith based step that some male people are effectively female people on their say so. You still haven’t even begun to think about whether the idea that some male people are female people on their own say so has a negative impact o female people, because you’ve avoided actually acknowledging that while you say sex and gender are separate, you believe that gender identity trumps sex in every context in which male people want into female spaces on the basis of identity.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2021, 10:15, Reply)
i think we have some common ground in that we both don't think the concept of gender is purely biological
though I'm more in the germain greer camp (and this is only the basis of one article of hers I read on the subject) that "woman" includes lived experience and upbringing as a girl as well as biology and hormonal factors . Nor do I think it's a entirely cultural construct. I think gendered roles can vary between cultures but there is a fair commonality in very diverse societies to gendered roles, suggesting that such constructs are still intrinsically tied to biology rather than arbitrarily imposed. even the rare anomalous ones vary only to the point of equality, where women might share hunting. but even if gender were purely an imposed cultural construct of our culture, that's the culture we live in, and a transperson will be without those cultural experiences that we say makes a man or woman. It still counts unless you think simply calling them cultural constructs means they can be dismissed. And my example was not intended to suggest flippancy, though the reasons for transistion can vary (and I note the BMA proposal that you or someone else linked advocated doing away with current medical/psyche assessment in favour of self-certification, meaning you'll probably get the extreme fetishists doing it too). I used it to show that the transition can and does occur in middle-age or later, meaning that person will be without any cultural or lived experience of the opposite gender for most of their lives and those crucial early years when most of our development occurs.
I don't want to push someone elses barrrow, as a bloke what transpeople do has almost no impact on me apart from minor intellectual annoyance at categorisation that doesnt reflect what I see are fairly obvious differences with other people already given that assignation.
As a compromise, I'd favour allowing transpeople to assume the rights and services of their new gender, but only after a 10 year period where they are in some intermediate category, like transwomen. Similar to how you have spend 10 years as permanent resident in switzerland to get citizenship, followed by a check where they came into your house or business unannounced to make sure you're a committed swiss (I had a mate refused because they found a bunch of cheaper french products in his house. he lived in geneve, so it must have been tempting to nick accross the border to the hypermarts). This would also mean that they would have 10 years of living as the new gender under their belt. Not sure how workable this idea is...
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 24 Aug 2021, 10:29,
Reply)
@Cumquat
This is where being clear about terms is important: absolutely gender isn’t biological, because the term refers to - depending on which usage is in play - ones sense of self (metaphysical) or a set of cultural associations.
But sex *is* purely biological, and the cultural context of sex didn’t arise arbitrarily, it arose because of the sex differences and the body as a resource
(, Tue 24 Aug 2021, 10:56, Reply)
im not sure you can be clear
language is a mutual agreement on meaning to facilitate communication, and we have a disagreement on categories. This does happen from time to time. How I define a woman sounds like it's different to some people, and I'm not the arbiter. all I can do is make a case that it sounds more sensible to not classify transwoman as women because they differ in most other areas apart from identity and dress (and it tends to be only those who have an issue with it that dwell a lot on their own gender identity, so this also sets them apart), and that also it's not a decision without consequence to women, as there are a myriad of ways that women are treated differently and have access to services on the basis of their gender, and there are complex reasons as why this is that will be directly challenged by the categorising transwomen as women. transmen much less so, as apart from religious nutters, most of us couldn't give a shit if some shiela wanted to try her hand at being a bloke. It's not like they'll stop us getting some imaginary men's business grant or prevent other men winning the tennis. though who knows what will upset millenials...
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 24 Aug 2021, 11:38,
Reply)
Then provide your definition of the gender identity
You call “woman”. What does it entail and how is it differentiated from the gender identity “man”, and what links everyone with that identity that makes it useful to use it as a category in law and in everyday life, and why the word “woman” - with its meaning being traditionally “adult female human” is the right word to use for that category.
You’ve been completely unable to do this, because you’re working backwards from “I’m a good person because I believe trans people”. You’re completely unequipped to even elaborate on what you actually believe, because you don’t understand it, and you’ve been told “you don’t have to understand”
Your previous definitions are flawed as they don’t describe anything and ae self contradictory - they work on assumptions that we know what “femininity” is, and yet presumably you don’t believe that a female person with a “masculine” set of traits is a man, unless they claim to be, at which point you unquestioningly will accept it.
So the questions remains: what is a male person saying about themselves when they say “I am a woman”. Your own definitions suggest (though avoid clarity) that you think he’d be saying “I am feminine and therefore want to live as a woman”, but that leaves us with two issues
* it doesn’t demonstrate that he is literally a woman in any meaningful way (eg “feminine male” does not belong in the same social category as “female people”)
* it reinforces regressive ideas that what we call femininity is for women and what we call masculinity is for men.
Here, to pre-empt your likely response. When “describing” gender, you say “there are “manly men” - what is being measured in “manliness”? You’re measuring stereotypes of masculinity, and the implications of that are backwards. You know this, which is why you can’t actually engage with it and instead rely on obfuscation.
And here’s my “anti trans” position:
A man is a person with a male body and any personality
A woman is a person with a female body and any personality
Trans activism says this:
A man is a person with any body and a male personality
A woman is a person with any body and a female personality
Again, regressive as fuck, and not grounded in anything as we haven’t established what a “female personality” or “female identity” comprises.
Meanwhile, the reality based position is this:
A trans woman is a male who, to alleviate discomfort with their sex and their body , lives according to their idea of what a woman is
I get it - your intentions are great. But you’re having to do mental gymnastics to avoid dealing with the fact that you’re discussing a condition - gender dysphoria - which, despite having been successfully PR’d into being viewed by progressives as an intrinsic identity rather than a condition, has more in common with anorexia than with the gay rights movement. And that’s be absolutely fine if you were advocating for a point of view in a context where all views are freely aired, but you’re advocating for crazy, reality denying nonsense while decrying all objections as bad faith.
I had reason several years ago to look at pro-ana websites as they were called, and *every* mindset you encounter on those spaces has a direct analogue within the trans rights movement. The difference being that the infrastructure of the gay rights movement left a route to successfully advocating the idea that their condition is an intrinsic identity rather than a condition. To me, you are a person agreeing that an anorexic needs to lose weight, and that nobody has any right to challenge them, because you *believe* them.
And sure, I might be wrong, there might be an angle I haven’t considered. But I have a damn sight better a grasp on the issues here than you do. Do you think I’d be arguing this with you if there was any chance whatsoever that you have a good, non sexist definition of the gender identity you call “woman?
(, Tue 24 Aug 2021, 8:27, Reply)
I'm not attempting to define gender identities any further than I already have done, because they're subjective cultural terms.
I'm happy to leave things without restrictive and exclusive definition, especially when societal and cultural norms are involved.
It seems to be that we have a fundamental philosophical difference here, that cannot possibly be resolved with the positions that we've both put forward. Clearly you all rang rings round me logically, and I've got everything wrong.
You can have your philosophy of sex and gender, and I'll just go and have my opinions corrected, along with the WHO's and the GMC's and BMA's.
(
Invisible Wizard - 12th Level Errorer, Tue 24 Aug 2021, 12:40,
Reply)
i think your hearts in the right place
transpeople want to be seen and treated as their chosen gender and get distressed if they don't, and it's noble to try to accommodate them. you might be able to out-reason someone, but you cant instil empathy in them if they have none. Whether you think we're wrong in our categorisation of terms like woman, I think you'd concede that yours is a change to what most would have if pressed, and to how people have viewed it for centuries with the odd exception. This doesn't mean we have to keep things as they are, but it does mean that it's not a trivial change they're asking but a change to something fundamental all of us do constantly everyday, which is deduce the the gender of the person we're interacting with if we havent already. And there are plenty of thorny side issues that come with it.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 24 Aug 2021, 13:36,
Reply)
Why do you think
A “subjective cultural term” is a more meaningful category than “sex”? Why do you think a claim to come under the undefined umbrella of the “subjective cultural term” “woman” should qualify one into the category of sport created to recognise the material reality of sex?
(, Wed 25 Aug 2021, 15:29, Reply)