ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Reply
Old 20th June 2020, 08:40 AM   #1
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,435
Trans Women are not Women 3

Mod InfoThread split from: as ever feel free to copy from and reference previous thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=337066
Posted By:Darat
I'll go through it one more time, but after that I'm just going to reiterate that if you want to comment on my posts then the best advice I can give you is to read them first.

The article was about menstrual health. It was addressed to "people who menstruate", because what it was discussing was menstrual health. Rowling made the point that they should have used the term "women" instead.

Even ignoring the fact that trans people exist at all, her point is stupid and wrong because the term "women" includes people who do not menstruate. My female relative who had a hysterectomy in her 20s did not stop being a woman when her womb was removed, even though she stopped menstruating.

It's also stupid and wrong because the term "woman" excludes people who do menstruate. My ex-girlfriend who started menstruating when she was 9 did not become a woman when her period started, even though she was menstruating.

Rowling was making the point that the author of the article shouldn't have used a term which was accurate and precise, and instead contended that they should have used a term that was inaccurate and imprecise. This is stupid and wrong. An author should use the terms that are the most accurate and precise. In this case it was "people who menstruate" because the article was about menstrual health and "women" includes people outside the scope of the article and excludes people inside the scope of the article. Therefore Rowling's comment was stupid and wrong.

Incidentally, yes if you were wondering, this means that your point about menstruation being unique to adult human females is also stupid and wrong - although I'm open to hearing your argument that a 9 year old schoolgirl should be considered an adult, if that's an argument you really want to make.

And all of that is before considering the fact that trans people do exist, and that Rowling's history with trans issues means that I don't give her the benefit of the doubt on this one and instead assume that her statement was prompted by bigotry.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Darat; 21st June 2020 at 03:11 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2020, 08:57 AM   #2
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,381
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The conclusion I reach is that you haven't been paying attention to the conversation, or to the links I've provided. Because you're completely wrong about this. The people who run women's shelters report that they do accept transwomen, and that they have done for a long time, without any issues.
I ended up saying exactly the opposite of what I meant. Bad editing. The first version of the sentence was phrased negatively, but when I edited that, I didn't change "accept" to "exclude".
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2020, 09:03 AM   #3
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,381
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
See, this is exactly it. I post evidence that that's not the case. You assert without evidence that it is.
When a group of girls go to the school board and ask that the trans-girl not be allowed to use their locker room, I think of that as evidence that the girls are uncomfortable.


These objections happen all the time. They are the point of this thread. That's evidence. Feel free to dismiss it.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2020, 01:33 PM   #4
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 45,510
I object to the term trans-girl. It has a lot more baggage than "transwoman" and carries overtones of the person actually being a girl when the whole point is that he is not. Effeminate youth is more like it.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2020, 02:43 PM   #5
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,404
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The article was about menstrual health. It was addressed to "people who menstruate", because what it was discussing was menstrual health. Rowling made the point that they should have used the term "women" instead.
Because "women" is (or rather was) a convenient term for the sort of people who do menstruate or have done so, and are therefore in a good position to advocate for various women's health issues related to fertility. You are not even beginning to address the actual argument here (re: the political utility of sexual solidarity between human females in a patriarchal polity) despite repeatedly attempting engaging the issue. Instead, you've pointed out that the boundary between girlhood and womanhood is fuzzy (as if semantic vaguenessWP somehow makes categorical terms useless) along with a few other problems of overinclusion or underinclusion, which aren't actually that important if your goal is to bring (future) women together for the sake of issue advocacy.

ETA: Do you (or anyone) sincerely believe that Rowling is unaware of the fact that "people who menstruate" more accurately captures the set of people who menstruate than other words or phrases? If not, can you begin to consider that there may be values other than linguistic precision in play here? Perhaps Rowling (whom I've yet to see you quote) has values other than those you are saying she should maximize, based on how you believe she ought to operate as a woman in the world.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 01:26 AM   #6
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,435
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
When a group of girls go to the school board and ask that the trans-girl not be allowed to use their locker room, I think of that as evidence that the girls are uncomfortable.


These objections happen all the time. They are the point of this thread. That's evidence. Feel free to dismiss it.
Nobody is claiming that every single girl and woman on the planet will be comfortable around trans women and girls.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 02:16 AM   #7
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,435
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Because "women" is (or rather was) a convenient term for the sort of people who do menstruate or have done so, and are therefore in a good position to advocate for various women's health issues related to fertility. You are not even beginning to address the actual argument here (re: the political utility of sexual solidarity between human females in a patriarchal polity) despite repeatedly attempting engaging the issue. Instead, you've pointed out that the boundary between girlhood and womanhood is fuzzy (as if semantic vaguenessWP somehow makes categorical terms useless) along with a few other problems of overinclusion or underinclusion, which aren't actually that important if your goal is to bring (future) women together for the sake of issue advocacy.

ETA: Do you (or anyone) sincerely believe that Rowling is unaware of the fact that "people who menstruate" more accurately captures the set of people who menstruate than other words or phrases? If not, can you begin to consider that there may be values other than linguistic precision in play here? Perhaps Rowling (whom I've yet to see you quote) has values other than those you are saying she should maximize, based on how you believe she ought to operate as a woman in the world.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
All you're really saying here is that Rowling highlighted this article about menstrual health written by three experts in menstrual health in order to pointedly exclude trans people from anything even relating to women's issues. It seems odd that you think I'm unaware of that. It's even odder that you think that this somehow makes what she said less stupid or less wrong.

This blog post about the importance of saying "people who menstruate" rather than "women" was cited in an open letter to Rowling, posted by a menstrual health charity, and tweeted by the authors of the article in question. Now, who do you think is likely to know best what terminology people working in the field of menstrual health should be using - JK Rowling, or people who work in the field of menstrual health?

BTW, unless you're really keen on advertising for Samsung, you should be aware that you can turn off the Tapatalk signature in settings.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 06:52 AM   #8
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,404
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
All you're really saying here is that Rowling highlighted this article about menstrual health written by three experts in menstrual health in order to pointedly exclude trans people from anything even relating to women's issues.
The original article doesn't mention trans people at all, and neither did Rowling's sarcastic response thereto. You're just reading that in, presumably b/c you want to label Rowling as a TERF.

Until you understand why many people object to seeing the term "women" removed from phrases like "women's health" and replaced by narrower (more alienating and less unifying) phrases such as "people who require pap smears," "people who menstruate," "people who require prenatal screening" and "people who need breast exams" then you are not seriously engaging the argument here.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 08:36 AM   #9
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 676
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
All you're really saying here is that Rowling highlighted this article about menstrual health written by three experts in menstrual health in order to pointedly exclude trans people from anything even relating to women's issues. It seems odd that you think I'm unaware of that. It's even odder that you think that this somehow makes what she said less stupid or less wrong.
Rowling is in a group who has historically been referred to as "Women."

This group has historically had health issues that differed from those of the group called "men." This is something that it actually took time and a lot of work to get the medical profession to really address. Most of those health issues revolved around the different anatomical and hormonal issues experienced by this group.

Those specific health issues were referred to as "Women's health" and "Women's Health Clinics" opened up to address those issues for that group.

So you have established terminology based on biology.

Now, you are suggesting using the current social definition of "woman" as the determining factor for all uses. And you want to replace it with a phrase like "people who menstruate" which is inconvenient to type or say. I mean it's an eye-rolling phrase because the same information is more concisely expressed using the term "women" in terms of sex rather than gender.

Remember, man, woman, male and female all have definitions that refer to sex as well as to gender. Therefore it is possible to be both a man and a woman, male and female depending on context.

In technical writing terms "People who menstruate" isn't even good form. I was taught to use the simplest term (and fewest words) that accurately conveyed the concept. Therefore "menstruating women" or "menstruating females" would be better. Even better would be a definition at the beginning that says "The term <woman/female/whatever> used in this paper refers to re-productively mature humans of the female sex." or something to that effect. (It's standard practice for scientific papers to have a definitions section.)

Anyway, it's not just that the term "woman" has been hijacked, but that its been replaced with an awkward phrase that is difficult to use in conversation.

Likewise, a doctor that specializes in men's health does not need to refer to themselves as a doctor for " People with penises."
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:08 AM   #10
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The original article doesn't mention trans people at all, and neither did Rowling's sarcastic response thereto. You're just reading that in, presumably b/c you want to label Rowling as a TERF.

Until you understand why many people object to seeing the term "women" removed from phrases like "women's health" and replaced by narrower (more alienating and less unifying) phrases such as "people who require pap smears," "people who menstruate," "people who require prenatal screening" and "people who need breast exams" then you are not seriously engaging the argument here.
To what degree is this actually happening? I'm not challenging you, I'm honestly asking. I have no idea. I haven't been to the doctor in awhile.

Is there a genuine push to rename women's health clinics "menstruators' health clinics" (or similar)? If so, I mean, there's got to be a better way to put it than that.

A lot of this is confusing to me, because I think some of the lingo has changed rather radically since I first learned about this stuff around 2010. Back then, I was taught that transwomen were women, they just weren't female. They were women by gender and male by sex. So they'd occupy most women's social spaces, but they'd go to a doctor specializing in male privates. Now, it seems like that isn't quite the correct way to view the issue anymore. In fact, it might even offend someone. There seem to be a number of different "takes," and I'm never really sure which is being discussed at any given point. There also seems to be a lot of "social engineering" surrounding this topic on sites like Reddit, so I barely believe most of anecdotes I read that support either (for lack of a better word) side.

I'd really like to understand the evolution of the concept better. Otherwise, I don't think I can follow the layers of cultural debate, and I'm liable to do or say something offensive without meaning to.
__________________
Ha ha ha, what a story
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:10 AM   #11
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
How do you feel about post #4 in this thread?
I don't really understand what Rolfe is trying to say. I don't see any difference between the terms "transwoman" and "transgirl" other than one implies a younger person. And Meadmaker's post that used it seemed to be commenting on schoolchildren. So the term seems fine to me.


EDIT: Assuming you meant THIS thread (as in, Part 3) and not the original thread, that is.
__________________
Ha ha ha, what a story
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:20 AM   #12
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,435
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The original article doesn't mention trans people at all, and neither did Rowling's sarcastic response thereto. You're just reading that in, presumably b/c you want to label Rowling as a TERF.
I'm reading that it due to her history with the subject. She confirmed that that is what she meant with her justification.

Quote:
Until you understand why many people object to seeing the term "women" removed from phrases like "women's health" and replaced by narrower (more alienating and less unifying) phrases such as "people who require pap smears," "people who menstruate," "people who require prenatal screening" and "people who need breast exams" then you are not seriously engaging the argument here.
You're welcome to explain it to me, if you want. Rowling certainly didn't. She instead posted a long screed full of factually incorrect fearmongering about trans people.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:28 AM   #13
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,435
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Now, you are suggesting using the current social definition of "woman" as the determining factor for all uses. And you want to replace it with a phrase like "people who menstruate" which is inconvenient to type or say.
Actually, it was people whose lives' work is menstrual health who used the term, and it was another person whose life's work is menstrual health who authored the referenced article for why the term is to be preferred.

When it comes to the question of whose opinion on the subject carries more weight, the majority of the time I'm going to side with the experts who speak about and deal with the subject every day over the laymen.

Quote:
I mean it's an eye-rolling phrase because the same information is more concisely expressed using the term "women" in terms of sex rather than gender.
Except it's not, for all the reasons that I've already gone in to at length, and for which I've provided a link of a professional in the field speaking about at length.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:39 AM   #14
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,808
Is there a reason why the sports issue couldn't be solved by simply creating ability "classes" (like weight classes in wrestling) and setting up competitions on that basis instead of sex or gender? That way, the competition would still be fair and no one would be left out or intrinsically misgendered via their placement. I'm not much of a sports person myself, so I may be failing to consider some details. But surely this has been proposed. What are the objections, concerns, etc.?



EDIT: Okay yeah, sorry, like I said, I'm behind on the thread. It seems like the conversation has moved away from sports for the time being, so feel free to ignore this post.
__________________
Ha ha ha, what a story
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 10:02 AM   #15
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,381
Originally Posted by Butter! View Post
I don't really understand what Rolfe is trying to say. I don't see any difference between the terms "transwoman" and "transgirl" other than one implies a younger person. And Meadmaker's post that used it seemed to be commenting on schoolchildren. So the term seems fine to me.


EDIT: Assuming you meant THIS thread (as in, Part 3) and not the original thread, that is.
I was surprised at the comment myself. I put "transwoman" and "transgirl" pretty much on the same level of offensiveness. I don't really like either term, but that's what the language has settled on at least in these circles, so I use the terms.

I'm guessing that the "extra baggage" of "transgirl" has to do with the tendency to encourage minors to transition. This is a controversial aspect of modern life. Rolfe has commented on it at length, and I have agreed with most of those comments.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 10:15 AM   #16
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 45,510
Mmm, I don't think it's just that. The word "girl" has connotations of its own which are being appropriated by these boys. It's used as a plea for sympathy. They're effeminate youths and calling them girls in any form of words obscures this. At least to my mind.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 01:43 PM   #17
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,404
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You're welcome to explain it to me, if you want.
Here you go:
https://twitter.com/RhamnousiaNemis/...63660214468608

Quote:
You see, the reason patriarchy exists is because men decided they wanted control over women’s sexual and reproductive capacities. Not people’s sexual and reproductive capacities — women’s. Sexual subordination is a gendered phenomenon, no matter how you identify, and for an organization that exists to advocate on behalf of women — due to their female biology (you know, the thing that placed them, whether or not they chose it or like it, within an oppressed class of people) — to erase that is unconscionable.
That's the crucial bit of the article, IMO. Human females of reproductive age have good reason to band together to work for sexual equality, and they deserve a banner under which to do so. Arguing that women must be denuded of such a banner strikes me as, well, a bit regressive.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
She instead posted a long screed full of factually incorrect fearmongering about trans people.
Which I'm sure you'd be happy to accurately excerpt and factually debunk whenever you've got the time.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
She confirmed that that is what she meant with her justification.
The justification in question mentioned the "menstruators" problem exactly once, at which point Rowling characterized trans activists as attempting to be loving and kind. I suppose you can call that TERFing if you like, but it's hard to take seriously.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 21st June 2020 at 02:08 PM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 03:07 PM   #18
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Great rant in the opening post. But it doesn't change the fact trans women are dudes.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Last edited by cullennz; 21st June 2020 at 03:08 PM.
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 05:28 PM   #19
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Mmm, I don't think it's just that. The word "girl" has connotations of its own which are being appropriated by these boys. It's used as a plea for sympathy. They're effeminate youths and calling them girls in any form of words obscures this. At least to my mind.
I would be shocked if it's that deep to the kids who are using it. They surely just see themselves as too young to necessarily use "women" to describe themselves.
__________________
Ha ha ha, what a story
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 06:05 PM   #20
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I was surprised at the comment myself. I put "transwoman" and "transgirl" pretty much on the same level of offensiveness. I don't really like either term, but that's what the language has settled on at least in these circles, so I use the terms.

I'm guessing that the "extra baggage" of "transgirl" has to do with the tendency to encourage minors to transition. This is a controversial aspect of modern life. Rolfe has commented on it at length, and I have agreed with most of those comments.
There are a number of different debates happening all at once around this issue. I'm honestly interested in looking into some parts of it more deeply because someone I know fairly well has recently come out as trans. I hope it's okay to say that it surprised me. I had not picked up on her dissatisfaction in any way. It makes me feel like a bit of a jerk.
__________________
Ha ha ha, what a story
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 06:41 PM   #21
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,188
I don't suppose there would be any point in pointing out that there is a big difference between an allegedly 'effeminate' boy and a trans girl.

But I will point out that anyone who accepts the idea that a boy can be 'effeminate' has already accepted that gender is social and not purely biological.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 21st June 2020 at 06:43 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 06:47 PM   #22
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,381
Originally Posted by Butter! View Post
There are a number of different debates happening all at once around this issue. I'm honestly interested in looking into some parts of it more deeply because someone I know fairly well has recently come out as trans. I hope it's okay to say that it surprised me. I had not picked up on her dissatisfaction in any way. It makes me feel like a bit of a jerk.
A friend of mine (female) did the same thing recently.

I've only talked via Zoom since this happened, and not one on one, always in groups, since she made this announcement, so I don't have much insight into what's going on with their life. (She has requested the use of "they/them". I don't know if she is actually declaring herself to be transgender, or non-gender. Linguistically, "they/them" is just incredibly awkward.)

I don't feel like a jerk at all. I thought of her as a woman. I still think of her as a woman. I'll do my best to go along with her new declaration of identity. It's not likely that I'll ever have to behave any differently around her, anyway. It's not like I was trying to start some romance with her.

However, there are still issues. If she tries to shower with the men, I'll think she is a fool.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 07:17 PM   #23
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,636
What sticks out in this mass of posts is a few basic stances.

The one part says we must simply accept, its all good.
Another part says they try to be understanding and not say the obvious to mostly protect feelings, I guess. But they know what isn't.

The last simply agrees with the thread title.

Nobody yet has conceded to any other POV. Not a suprise.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 07:31 PM   #24
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,188
I would have thought that the "trans women aren't women" crowd ought, in order to be consistent, also to be agreeing with the statement "there is no such thing as an effeminate boy or an effeminate man"

Shouldn't any way in which a male person behaves be, by definition, masculine?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 21st June 2020 at 07:37 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 08:11 PM   #25
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,299
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I would have thought that the "trans women aren't women" crowd ought, in order to be consistent, also to be agreeing with the statement "there is no such thing as an effeminate boy or an effeminate man"

Shouldn't any way in which a male person behaves be, by definition, masculine?
I agree with that. It is a meaningless distinction.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 08:13 PM   #26
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,404
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Shouldn't any way in which a male person behaves be, by definition, masculine?
If that were the case, there would be almost no distinction between masculinity and femininity. Which would be just fine by the gender criticalWP folks.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 08:27 PM   #27
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I would have thought that the "trans women aren't women" crowd ought, in order to be consistent, also to be agreeing with the statement "there is no such thing as an effeminate boy or an effeminate man"

Shouldn't any way in which a male person behaves be, by definition, masculine?
Why?

It is a totally different thing.

There are camp dudes and butch chick's.

They are still dudes and chicks
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 08:31 PM   #28
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,299
What is anyone hoping to accomplish with their proposed position?

For example, does anyone think their policy is the most utilitarian?
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 08:45 PM   #29
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What is anyone hoping to accomplish with their proposed position?

For example, does anyone think their policy is the most utilitarian?
Should probably be more which is the most logical to fit the most people's needs
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 08:56 PM   #30
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,381
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I would have thought that the "trans women aren't women" crowd ought, in order to be consistent, also to be agreeing with the statement "there is no such thing as an effeminate boy or an effeminate man"

Shouldn't any way in which a male person behaves be, by definition, masculine?
That's what you get for thinking on behalf of other people.


But seriously...

I can only speak for myself, not for the entire crowd, but I would say that while I would disagree with your statement, I think it's close to something I would agree with.

I would say that no behavior is definitively male or definitively female. So, instead of saying that any way a male person behaves is masculine, I would say that there is no truly "masculine" behavior, regardless of how many men nor how few women engage in that behavior.

On the other hand, there are behaviors and mannerisms that are correlated with maleness. They are not definitive of maleness, but males typically engage in those behaviors and females typically do not. When I was in biology class, these were called "tertiary sex characteristics". I suspect that term is considered archaic today.

With regard to the "effeminate" label, then, I would say that as a means of classification, it is not very useful. There is no test that one can do to say that a person is effeminate or is not effeminate. Nevertheless, we can recognize the word, and the associated mannerisms. It means something to us, despite its occasional lack of clarity.

Similarly, although I said that there is no "truly masculine" behavior, the word "masculine" is still useful for describing the typical case. If I say, "He is very masculine." people still have an idea what I mean. There are behaviors and attributes very strongly correlated with sex, and we have descriptors for those behaviors.

However, no one in my "crowd" would say, "Hmmm....your behaviors are stereotypically female. You should use the women's locker room."
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:05 PM   #31
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,188
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Why?

It is a totally different thing.

There are camp dudes and butch chick's.

They are still dudes and chicks
Notice how you change my words to avoid the conclusion.

Are there unmasculine dudes?

Are there unfeminine chicks?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:07 PM   #32
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,404
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What is anyone hoping to accomplish with their proposed position?
On which specific issue? I doubt that the optimal solution for changing rooms will be the same as the solution for, say, employment discrimination.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:17 PM   #33
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Notice how you change my words to avoid the conclusion.



Are there unmasculine dudes?



Are there unfeminine chicks?
Yes there are.

Which is what I meant by camp and butch

I don't get your argument sorry.

What does this have to do with trans people?
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:25 PM   #34
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
A lot of gay dudes are unmasculine and a lot of gay chicks are unfeminine.

Most aren't trans.

Again. I am just confused how this is relevant to the thread
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:47 PM   #35
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,188
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Yes there are.

Which is what I meant by camp and butch

I don't get your argument sorry.

What does this have to do with trans people?
So you think that gender is is, at least partly, a social construct, right?

If gender was entirely determined by biological sex then every biological male would, by definition, be masculine and every biological female would, by definition, be feminine.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 09:51 PM   #36
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,188
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
A lot of gay dudes are unmasculine and a lot of gay chicks are unfeminine.
That is your opinion. I think that all gay dudes are masculine and all gay chicks are feminine, whether they are camp, butch or otherwise.

Simple because all dudes are, by definition, masculine and all chicks are, by definition, feminine.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 21st June 2020 at 09:54 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 10:07 PM   #37
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So you think that gender is is, at least partly, a social construct, right?

If gender was entirely determined by biological sex then every biological male would, by definition, be masculine and every biological female would, by definition, be feminine.
No not really.

Acting feminine or masculine in a way that people have been taught to perceive as fitting males and females is social.

Gender is internal and totally separate

There are plenty of butch gay dudes and feminine gay chicks
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 10:13 PM   #38
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,188
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
No not really.

Acting feminine or masculine in a way that people have been taught to perceive as fitting males and females is social.

Gender is internal and totally separate
So you are saying that "masculne" and "feminine" are words that do not relate to gender???

I don't get what you mean by these words.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 21st June 2020 at 10:14 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 10:18 PM   #39
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,188
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
There are plenty of butch gay dudes
I can't think of any dude, gay or straight, that I have met who has been butch, nor any woman who was camp. I guess there could be some, but I don't see the relevance of these words "butch" and "camp" to a discussion on gender. Maybe you could explain.
Quote:
and feminine gay chicks
.
I can't see how any chick can be anything except feminine

But then I use "feminine" to refer to gender, whereas you appear to be using it in some odd sense that does not relate to gender. Maybe you could explain that too.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2020, 10:21 PM   #40
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So you are saying that "masculne" and "feminine" are words that do not relate to gender???

I don't get what you mean by these words.
Depends how deep you look into it.

It must be fairly built in to what we perceive as feminine and masculine traits or biologically we wouldn't find it attractive.

So probably biological and a pinch of social.

Obviously it is an ancient thing.

I didn't bring up the terms and it has nothing to do with trans people so not sure what you are asking
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.