Continuation Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Once again you mistake me for an American. What's your problem with Americans, anyway?

No, I know you're not an American, which is why I deliberately didn't put "American flag".

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yes. Sorry to break it to you, but humans are a social species and very often individual humans do things in what they consider to be in the service of the larger community.

Anyone who joins an armed force is either deluded or lying to themselves if they think it's any kind of public service.

Originally Posted by Belz...

...you choose to bomb civilians? What?

Very droll.

I have a handy list of atrocities US forces have committed this century with not a single charge, let alone conviction. Let me know if you need to see it.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I have a handy list of atrocities US forces have committed this century with not a single charge, let alone conviction. Let me know if you need to see it.

How many of them involved targeting people b/c of their gender identity?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

How many of them involved targeting people b/c of their gender identity?

Good point - you've taken the derail back on topic.

Sexual assault within the US armed forces seems fairly high, and interestingly, the assaults were weighted 2:1 against FtM trans. I think you could probably expect that with a little forethought.

They have a much harder row to hoe than FtM trans, but they don't have any bathroom trouble!

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, I know you're not an American, which is why I deliberately didn't put "American flag".

So why did you mention something that clearly refers to American behaviour?

Quote:

Anyone who joins an armed force is either deluded or lying to themselves if they think it's any kind of public service.

We get it: you hate soldiers. You've made that clear. But where you go koo-koo is when you pretend that no one could have a different opinion without being dishonest, evil, stupid or foolish.

Quote:

Very droll.

It wasn't a joke. I have no idea what you're saying if it didn't mean what you plainly said.

Quote:

I have a handy list of atrocities US forces have committed this century with not a single charge, let alone conviction. Let me know if you need to see it.

Why would I need to see it? What relevance would it have to what I said? Or the topic, in fact?

[quadraginta]

[quote=Belz...;12730862]So why did you mention something that clearly refers to American behaviour?

<snip>/QUOTE]


Our most recent Trump meme on the topic aside, is 'flag hugging', AKA 'flag waving', AKA 'wearing their patriotism on their sleeve' AKA 'inciting nationalism', AKA etc., etc., really a uniquely American behavior?

I would be surprised to learn this to be the case, but I'm open to revelation.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Originally Posted by Belz...

So why did you mention something that clearly refers to American behaviour?

<snip>

Our most recent Trump meme on the topic aside, is 'flag hugging', AKA 'flag waving', AKA 'wearing their patriotism on their sleeve' AKA 'inciting nationalism', AKA etc., etc., really a uniquely American behavior?

I would be surprised to learn this to be the case, but I'm open to revelation.

I thought the conventional wisdom was that Europeans were much less openly patriotic than Americans, and that Germans (for example) found the American habit of displaying their national flag in front of every home and business to be somewhat distasteful. For years I've been under the impression that flag-waving patriotism was a uniquely and disquietingly American trait.

ETA: I don't think The Atheist was saying Belz... is American. I think The Atheist was saying that Belz... suffers from an excess of jingoistic nationalism, that prompts him to reflexively champion the rapists and war criminals that are his country's armed forces. Belz... then takes offense (which I think was the plan all along) at being accused of what he thinks of as "American" attitudes.

Which brings us full circle back to your question. Belz..., a Canadian, sees flag-waving patriotism as an American characteristic which he does not share. On the other hand, he doesn't hate the Canadian Navy, so maybe The Atheist has a point.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I thought the conventional wisdom was that Europeans were much less openly patriotic than Americans, and that Germans (for example) found the American habit of displaying their national flag in front of every home and business to be somewhat distasteful. For years I've been under the impression that flag-waving patriotism was a uniquely and disquietingly American trait.

Can confirm this for Belgium and surrounding regions. It's just not done to display national flags everywhere (or even anywhere, the only place you'd find them is in front of city hall or something).

[Ron_Tomkins]

So if Trans Women are exactly like Women, why do they call themselves Trans Women? Why not just call themselves Women?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

So if Trans Women are exactly like Women, why do they call themselves Trans Women? Why not just call themselves Women?

They do. See there are women, some of whom are cis and some of whom are trans.

Kind of like why would black women call themselves black women instead of just women.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

See there are women, some of whom are cis and some of whom are trans.

What do these women have in common?

(Seems like there must be some characteristic or set of characteristics which leads us to create a catchall category for over half of humanity.)

[JoeMorgue]

So we have men, women, and "Schrodinger's Gender" which is or isn't one of the first two depending on the conversation being had and the phase of the moon.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

So if Trans Women are exactly like Women, why do they call themselves Trans Women? Why not just call themselves Women?

Because they're not?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

What do these women have in common?

(Seems like there must be some characteristic or set of characteristics which leads us to create a catchall category for over half of humanity.)

They have a female gender.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

They have a female gender.

Which consists of what?

ETA: Are we really talking about the same thing when we invoke gender? I've linked to the defintion I'm using a few times upthread, e.g. post 3225.

[JoeMorgue]

Okay to sum this up.

Transwomen and ciswomen are the same gender but different sex.
And the difference between sex and gender is the difference between a ciswoman and a transwoman.
20 GOTO 10

Good glad we've cleared that up.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Which brings us full circle back to your question. Belz..., a Canadian, sees flag-waving patriotism as an American characteristic which he does not share. On the other hand, he doesn't hate the Canadian Navy, so maybe The Atheist has a point.

The Atheist seems to view everything through the lens of "army bad". So even if I'm not a raving patriot, me not having a problem with people showing patriotism is unacceptable.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

See there are women, some of whom are cis and some of whom are trans.

Kind of like why would black women call themselves black women instead of just women.

No, not like that at all. "Trans" has a specific meaning. Trans-Neptunian objects are NOT Neptunian objects, even if black Neptunian objects are.

[JoeMorgue]

I don't share D4m10n's "Well the dictionary says" focus, but I think we all need to come to the understanding that for some people in this discussion the fact that certain things are very poorly and fluidly defined is a feature, not a bug. They don't want gender/sex defined because they won't be able to use to mean whatever they need it to mean at this one particular moment in time.

There's been a "Will you just shutup and accept what the poor disadvantaged person is telling you and stop oppressing them by asking it to make sense" subtext to this conversation for a while now and it's not getting any better.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't share D4m10n's "Well the dictionary says" focus, but I think we all need to come to the understanding that for some people in this discussion the fact that certain things are very poorly and fluidly defined is a feature, not a bug.

Yeah but losing meaning altogether because of excessive fluidity flushes it down immediately doesn't sound very useful.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yeah but losing meaning altogether because of excessive fluidity flushes it down immediately doesn't sound very useful.

I would describe it more as intentionally counter-useful.

As in this hasn't happened accidentally. This carefully, even if not intentionally, cultivated language that keeps the discussion in a constant state of arguing over terms that one side is specifically not using consistently.

That's why we haven't got a straight answer in months and 2 threads as basic questions of what terms mean because the answer is "They mean whatever we need them to mean so we sound right and whatever argument we're using right now."

That's why and how the people advocating for transwomen have kept the most basic question of what a transwoman is stuck in a quantum flux of women, not women, special sub-category of women, and "women without any modifiers allowed at all" all being aggressively defended even when they contradict each other and the waveform just refuses to collapse this entire discussion.

It's third person, by proxy gatekeeping... and they won't even tell us where the gate is at and they're hoping nobody noticing that is is because they don't know where the gate is at either.

[Lithrael]

It’s not that they want it to be indefinable it’s just that it really pretty much IS. It’s too variable and too personal. Seriously, it’s like defining God. Definitions broad enough to apply to everyone are really just overviews of what the concept is. The more precise the definitions, the fewer people’s ideas of the concept will line up with it.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Seriously, it’s like defining God.

Yeah and that's why people's personal definitions of God don't get to (in theory) make changes to how society functions either.

I was being a little snarky earlier, but I was lying or even being outright dismissive or insulting when I said at this point "Gender identity" has basically been watered down to a "Soul." All actual... meaning the terms sex and gender are gone, replaced with "Whatever I say."

"Hi there's this completely internal thing that I get to define however I want, up to and including the point of it even remaining internally consistent, and you are't allowed to even ask clarification on" isn't a thing you can ask other people to factor into their existence.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

It’s not that they want it to be indefinable it’s just that it really pretty much IS.

It really isn't.

We managed on the binary, sex-based definition for thousands of years. Can we really say that our understanding of gender changed radically in the last few years? Or perhaps that we'd rather not discuss how dysphoria doesn't mean the concept of gender has changed in any way?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

They do. See there are women, some of whom are cis and some of whom are trans.

Kind of like why would black women call themselves black women instead of just women.

But more like why would Rachel Dolezal call herself a black woman instead of just a woman.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Belz...

The Atheist seems to view everything through the lens of "army bad". So even if I'm not a raving patriot, me not having a problem with people showing patriotism is unacceptable.

Yup. I went a couple rounds with TA a couple years ago. Once he made his axioms clear, the conversation seemed to reach a natural stopping point.

[theprestige]

All we're doing differently in the last few years is taking a closer look at the edge cases and rare manifestations.

Gender dysphoria affects a very small percentage of the population. In the past, we'd probably just have said, "these two buckets work for almost everybody; figure it out; pass as whatever you can pass as; or find a subculture that accepts your differences; don't make things difficult."

This is an easy and convenient solution, but is somewhat inhumane. What we're seeing today is people calling that out. People saying, "no, I don't give a **** that I'm a tiny minority. I'm still a person. I still deserve to be treated like a first-class citizen. I refuse to be exiled to a subcultural ghetto like some sort of freakshow. I refuse to sit down and shut up and not make things difficult for everyone else. Things are mother ******* difficult as **** for me, and that needs to change."

They have a point, we as a society are going to have to sort this crap out sooner or later.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by theprestige

All we're doing differently in the last few years is taking a closer look at the edge cases and rare manifestations.

Gender dysphoria affects a very small percentage of the population. In the past, we'd probably just have said, "these two buckets work for almost everybody; figure it out; pass as whatever you can pass as; or find a subculture that accepts your differences; don't make things difficult."

This is an easy and convenient solution, but is somewhat inhumane. What we're seeing today is people calling that out. People saying, "no, I don't give a **** that I'm a tiny minority. I'm still a person. I still deserve to be treated like a first-class citizen. I refuse to be exiled to a subcultural ghetto like some sort of freakshow. I refuse to sit down and shut up and not make things difficult for everyone else. Things are mother ******* difficult as **** for me, and that needs to change."

They have a point, we as a society are going to have to sort this crap out sooner or later.

They have a point, but there's quite a gulf between "treat me as a human" and "accept my factual claims at face value".

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Belz...

They have a point, but there's quite a gulf between "treat me as a human" and "accept my factual claims at face value".

Yeah. Bridging that gap is going to be a royal pain in the ass, no matter how we go about it. Especially if it's a gap between believing you're Napoleon and actually being Napoleon.

But my point was more about how it's no longer sufficient to appeal to tradition in this case. The tradition is hurting people, and that's a problem we need to confront, not dismiss. Even if the best solution is to keep the tradition and accept that it's not perfect.

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by Belz...

It really isn't.

We managed on the binary, sex-based definition for thousands of years. Can we really say that our understanding of gender changed radically in the last few years? Or perhaps that we'd rather not discuss how dysphoria doesn't mean the concept of gender has changed in any way?

This looks like a swing and a miss to me. ‘We’ is just ‘the majority mainstream in the west’ opinion, and happened to be a very widely held belief. If you use the God metaphor, your statement would look like ‘We managed on the Catholic definition for a thousand years. Can we really say our understanding of God changed radically since those Protestants showed up in the last few years? Or perhaps that we’d rather not discuss how Martin Luther’s ****-stirring doesn’t mean the concept of God has changed in any way?’

ETA: I mean seriously it sounds like a joke but a bunch of humans going ‘sure ok that works for me’ to a concept already embraced by the society they find themselves in, doesn’t particularly lend that concept any ring of truth, IMO. It just means it’s broadly acceptable and doesn’t break the society as a whole.

ALSO ETA: appreciate Prestige’s comments there.

ETA even more: and I don’t get the impression that gender was something that many people ever really sat down and thought about throughout history. I think most people just set it and forgot it so to speak. When you got outliers people would just sort of be locally notorious.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Belz...

It really isn't.

We managed on the binary, sex-based definition for thousands of years. Can we really say that our understanding of gender changed radically in the last few years? Or perhaps that we'd rather not discuss how dysphoria doesn't mean the concept of gender has changed in any way?

Yea we accepted women as the property of their husbands for thousands of years why are we getting all radical recently that they should have rights and be listened to, and that they can even refuse to perform their wifely duties!

And of course this is also ignoring all the cultures that have more than 2 genders in them as well.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So why did you mention something that clearly refers to American behaviour?

Alas, the behaviour is not a solely American trait - patriotism is on the rise everywhere, which unsurprisingly leads to a rise in nationalism, and we see where that leads.

Anyway - shocking derail I'm always happy to discuss elsewhere. Another thread is fine with me.

More importantly, we're right back on subject: (The OP even!)

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

So if Trans Women are exactly like Women, why do they call themselves Trans Women? Why not just call themselves Women?

Mate, that's the exact problem, and why the thread was started.

They don't just want to call themselves women - which is fine by everyone, I would assume - they want to be acknowledged as being women and gain access to all the rights women have mostly fought for, and agencies they specifically need.

Some of it is plain insanity. No matter how trans a trans woman is, she doesn't have a uterus, won't ever need a cervical smear, and is highly unlikely to develop breast cancer.

On the other hand, she might well develop prostate problems later in life, and is definitely subject to prostate cancer, completely unlike women. Imagine going to your gyno as a trans woman - how much experience does this person have with prostate issues?

Looking at it logically, I would have thought that acceptance by the world would be the only priority for trans people, then they'd insist on retaining some kind of unique identity for precisely the reasons I just mentioned - no matter how girly they are, they will have a unique physiological and psychological issues that just won't fit in a specific camp.

But who does logic? It all about the feels, man.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Alas, the behaviour is not a solely American trait - patriotism is on the rise everywhere, which unsurprisingly leads to a rise in nationalism, and we see where that leads.



Anyway - shocking derail I'm always happy to discuss elsewhere. Another thread is fine with me.



More importantly, we're right back on subject: (The OP even!)







Mate, that's the exact problem, and why the thread was started.



They don't just want to call themselves women - which is fine by everyone, I would assume - they want to be acknowledged as being women and gain access to all the rights women have mostly fought for, and agencies they specifically need.



Some of it is plain insanity. No matter how trans a trans woman is, she doesn't have a uterus, won't ever need a cervical smear, and is highly unlikely to develop breast cancer.



On the other hand, she might well develop prostate problems later in life, and is definitely subject to prostate cancer, completely unlike women. Imagine going to your gyno as a trans woman - how much experience does this person have with prostate issues?



Looking at it logically, I would have thought that acceptance by the world would be the only priority for trans people, then they'd insist on retaining some kind of unique identity for precisely the reasons I just mentioned - no matter how girly they are, they will have a unique physiological and psychological issues that just won't fit in a specific camp.



But who does logic? It all about the feels, man.

Didn't we just see a story about someone who went to the hospital presenting as a man, and calling themselves a man, and they ended up having a miscarriage because the hospital staff didn't realize they were treating a woman who might be pregnant?

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

snip


Mate, that's the exact problem, and why the thread was started.

They don't just want to call themselves women - which is fine by everyone, I would assume - they want to be acknowledged as being women and gain access to all the rights women have mostly fought for, and agencies they specifically need.

Some of it is plain insanity. No matter how trans a trans woman is, she doesn't have a uterus, won't ever need a cervical smear, and is highly unlikely to develop breast cancer.

On the other hand, she might well develop prostate problems later in life, and is definitely subject to prostate cancer, completely unlike women. Imagine going to your gyno as a trans woman - how much experience does this person have with prostate issues?

Looking at it logically, I would have thought that acceptance by the world would be the only priority for trans people, then they'd insist on retaining some kind of unique identity for precisely the reasons I just mentioned - no matter how girly they are, they will have a unique physiological and psychological issues that just won't fit in a specific camp.

But who does logic? It all about the feels, man.

I'm perfectly ok with treating a transwoman as a woman and a transman as a man, (I don't treat males and females differently anyway, so makes no odds to me), I'll treat people how they wish to be treated as I like seeing smiles on peoples faces, define yourself and I will just go along with it to make you ok.

But I am suspending reality as I do so.

[IsThisTheLife]

Apropos the chatter about racial discrimination - some biology for you;

the healthiest, longest lived, the 'fittest' and most 'viable' genome of any higher animal is maintained by its individuals breeding within c. six generations of removal.

"Hybrid vigor" is a phrase used by Victorian botanists to describe the fecundity observed in sub-species of plants hybridised after divergence through separation in time and space of millennia and oceans.

Hybriding sub-species of higher animals, such as mammals, which have the diverged in the same way (usually called 'genetic drift') rarely if ever produces offspring that are superior in any way to the parent species, in fact it can cause some serious congenital problems.

Animals, observably, tend to 'breed true', keeping to within the 'degrees of separation' mentioned above where the option exists, but with a powerful instinct to mate outside their family group (also beneficial, obviously).

Humans, though, are completely different.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Didn't we just see a story about someone who went to the hospital presenting as a man, and calling themselves a man, and they ended up having a miscarriage because the hospital staff didn't realize they were treating a woman who might be pregnant?

We know they had a miscarriage, and we know that there seems to have been some initial confusion about the hospital's treatment regimen as a result of their trans status. It seems apparent that fetal distress was already in progress when they presented themselves to the hospital

But as far as I could determine from the articles I read, there was nothing which established that any different treatment regimen would have prevented the miscarriage or substantially changed any outcomes.

That's all conjecture.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Apropos the chatter about racial discrimination - some biology for you;

the healthiest, longest lived, the 'fittest' and most 'viable' genome of any higher animal is maintained by its individuals breeding within c. six generations of removal.

"Hybrid vigor" is a phrase used by Victorian botanists to describe the fecundity observed in sub-species of plants hybridised after divergence through separation in time and space of millennia and oceans.

Hybriding sub-species of higher animals, such as mammals, which have the diverged in the same way (usually called 'genetic drift') rarely if ever produces offspring that are superior in any way to the parent species, in fact it can cause some serious congenital problems.

Animals, observably, tend to 'breed true', keeping to within the 'degrees of separation' mentioned above where the option exists, but with a powerful instinct to mate outside their family group (also beneficial, obviously).

Humans, though, are completely different.

Are you arguing that gender dysphoria is caused by, or results in, miscegenation?

If you are, that's nuts.

If you're not, then your ideas about proper mate selection to achieve the healthiest offspring seems more than a bit off-topic.

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Apropos the chatter about racial discrimination - some biology for you;

Humans, though, are completely different.

What the ****? I wouldn’t mind reading a bit about what makes for healthy genetics but your zinger ending is true enough to make the whole thing irrelevant. Humans can’t have health problems from species hybridization because there’s not more than one species of humans.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Apropos the chatter about racial discrimination - some biology for you;

the healthiest, longest lived, the 'fittest' and most 'viable' genome of any higher animal is maintained by its individuals breeding within c. six generations of removal.

"Hybrid vigor" is a phrase used by Victorian botanists to describe the fecundity observed in sub-species of plants hybridised after divergence through separation in time and space of millennia and oceans.

Hybriding sub-species of higher animals, such as mammals, which have the diverged in the same way (usually called 'genetic drift') rarely if ever produces offspring that are superior in any way to the parent species, in fact it can cause some serious congenital problems.

Animals, observably, tend to 'breed true', keeping to within the 'degrees of separation' mentioned above where the option exists, but with a powerful instinct to mate outside their family group (also beneficial, obviously).

Humans, though, are completely different.

RE: the highlighted. How are humans completely different?

Or in other words, bollocks.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So we have men, women, and "Schrodinger's Gender" which is or isn't one of the first two depending on the conversation being had and the phase of the moon.

[8enotto]

Originally Posted by Belz...

No, not like that at all. "Trans" has a specific meaning. Trans-Neptunian objects are NOT Neptunian objects, even if black Neptunian objects are.

I was working on a car as I read this earlier. I thought this was funny.