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

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

No, because height and eye color are empirically observable whereas gender isn't.

Like hell it isn't. Even with the more "modern" definition of gender as behaviour, it's quite observable.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Expecting (even when hiding behind a weasel concept like "What? It's not like I can make them!") men to shave their faces or women to shave their legs is...problematic.

I suppose I'll just have to take your word for it, as a skeptic.

The aforementioned social norm causes problems, and we needn't actually say what the problems are (or provide any evidence thereof) so long as we convey a certain level of moral outrage when discussing the topic and maybe throw in a gratuitous reference to patriarchal dystopia.

Totally not a weasel word, "problematic."

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Like hell it isn't. Even with the more "modern" definition of gender as behaviour, it's quite observable.

Feel free to answer the same question then: What experiment could I perform that demonstrates someone's gender identity?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Nope, gender identity is claimed to be fixed by age 3.

Who claims that? Is it correct? And what does it even mean?

If you've ever actually parented a 3 year old, you will discover that they don't even really understand what gender is, and they've got a limited grasp on language as well. Whether they call themselves a boy or a girl is largely a function of what you told them, regardless of whatever kind of internal model of gender they might have working in their brains.

Quote:

If it is neuroanatomical then the group under consideration should also have identified as boys in pre-pubescent childhood. Them identifying as girls before puberty but as boys during and post puberty suggests a social basis for gender identity and not a neuroanatomical one.

No, it does not. It suggests that social conditioning can override biology pre-puberty, but that once hormones assert themselves in puberty, biology will override social conditioning in most cases.

Quote:

If testosterone levels determined gender identity then everyone should identify as girls before puberty.

Nope. Even before puberty, testosterone levels aren't the same. The difference is just far more pronounced after puberty.

Plus, of course, we tend to socially condition biological males to believe that they are male and biological females to believe that they are female. And in most cases, their anatomy correctly reflects that difference even before puberty, which children will discover and learn about as well.

Now, it might be interesting to raise a bunch of children without ever telling them about sex differences in humans or what their own sex was, or letting them see anyone else naked to compare themselves with. And maybe they wouldn't conceptualize such differences until puberty hit. But you can't do such an experiment for obvious ethical reasons.

Quote:

You seem to have this weird idea that somehow testosterone levels are explanatory for, well, pretty much anything.

You seem to have this weird idea that somehow testosterone has no affects on behavior at all.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Totally not a weasel word, "problematic."

Jesus Goddamn Christ what do you want me to say?

I think it's wrong. Define "wrong" however will get you through the day.

I don't think men and women should have expectations put on them based on their biological sex unless their biological is the actual determining factor in it. The fact that at some point in the last... 7 second that somehow became an controversial opinion I'm getting the "no true Skeptic" card played against me on is rather troubling.

I said waaaaaaay back when this thread (and the thread before it) started that Transgenderism required us to put gender stereotypes back on the table and that called a strawman.

No someone's doing it and me saying that's what they are doing is a strawman.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Why should we be working to get rid of them? I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that women wear sundresses and men (generally) don't, or that men wear neckties and women wear some other form of gratuitous silk ornamentation. I’m okay with the fact that men are generally expected to go without makeup and nail polish, whereas women get to choose. I'm even okay with the fact that people are significantly more likely to ask (politely) for my help with the Ozarka bottles and other such heavy lifting tasks.

Has anyone in this thread (or its lengthy predecessor) argued that all gendered roles and expectations must be abolished in favor of some other system?

That's a side-effect of the feminism of old: once they were done with trying to make men and women equal, they moved on to trying to make them the same, either because they're confusing the terms or because they see the latter as a means to reach the former, which they believe hasn't been reached yet.

Not saying Joe's thinking like that, but that sort of odd logic has crept into the collective counsciousness.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Who claims that? Is it correct? And what does it even mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender...e_of_formation

Personally I don't think it means anything, but I happen to be arguing with someone who asserts that gender identity is phenomenal.

Quote:

No, it does not. It suggests that social conditioning can override biology pre-puberty, but that once hormones assert themselves in puberty, biology will override social conditioning in most cases.

Given that large groups of children are placed on puberty blockers whereas their peers are not there should be some sort of experiment that can be devised to test which hypothesis is correct.

Quote:

You seem to have this weird idea that somehow testosterone has no affects on behavior at all.

Not at all. I do think you can't just throw out "testosterone levels" at any problem and expect it to be considered a valid explanation.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't think men and women should have expectations put on them based on their biological sex unless their biological [makeup] is the actual determining factor in it.

I think there is a biological reason why men typically have more trouble presenting a baby smooth face to the world than women do.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Define "wrong" however will get you through the day.

As a consequentialist, I like to be able to point to some cognizable harm done whenever I say something is wrong.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Expecting (even when hiding behind a weasel concept like "What? It's not like I can make them!") men to shave their faces or women to shave their legs is... problematic.

Why, though? You've oft repeated that you think it's an issue but not why.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I think there is a biological reason why men typically have more trouble presenting a baby smooth face to the world than women do.

Okay before you go full Bob on me and start getting treated as such, I need to know where I'm losing you exactly because you're off somewhere beyond the event horizon of the formless at this point.

What in the bloody, blue, blazes does the difficulty in shaving have to do with anything?

Yes men have to shave and women don't because men grow beards. How does this in anyway connect to "Men are expected to shave?"

Men are expected to shave to be smooth faced and women aren't so men... shaving is... sexist because they wouldn't be equal any other way or something? Is that where you are trying to land on?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Feel free to answer the same question then: What experiment could I perform that demonstrates someone's gender identity?

One post ago you said "gender", and now you've switched to "gender identity". Which one is it? Because the former, as I said, can be observed objectively. The latter is subjective and based on report. However, one's identification does not change objective fact -- in this case the gender.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Men are expected to shave to be smooth faced and women aren't so men... shaving is... sexist because they wouldn't be equal any other way or something? Is that where you are trying to land on?

You're the one who brought up sexism, just a few posts up. I'm the one who thinks this particular gendered social norm is mostly harmless.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Jesus Goddamn Christ what do you want me to say?

Joe, it doesn't help to flip the table over with every post. Could you calm down and discuss this more dispassionately, please? I have quite a bit of trouble following your arguments and positions in this thread.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Belz...

One post ago you said "gender", and now you've switched to "gender identity". Which one is it?

There's a difference?

I thought sex was the external thing and gender was the internal thing.

To me it's like the weather man saying "rain" or "rain event."

I love how the more pedantic arguments get the less anyone actually the uses the language with any clarity.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Joe, it doesn't help to flip the table over with every post. Could you calm down and discuss this more dispassionately, please? I have quite a bit of trouble following your arguments and positions in this thread.

I'm sorry I'll take being called a transphobe by one side and a rape enabler by the other with my customary good humor.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm sorry I'll take being called a transphobe by one side and a rape enabler by the other with my customary good humor.

Compromise and accept that you are a trape phobler.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Compromise and accept that you are a trape phobler.

*Laughs* At this point that's the best I'm gonna get.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I thought sex was the external thing and gender was the internal thing.

Well, there's the problem. Not long ago the two were essentially the same. Then it was a set of behaviours associated with sex. Now it's whatever the **** we want, which as you said is akin to the soul debate.

Me, I'd rather avoid the third definition and stick to either the first or second. In both cases, however, it makes how you identify completely irrelevant.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm sorry I'll take being called a transphobe by one side and a rape enabler by the other with my customary good humor.

That has nothing to do with what I posted, Joe. You think I haven't been called that? As I said, I can't follow your argument, so I don't know where you stand. It's hard to address someone's points under those circumstances.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Pretty incredible that, in this day and age, we have to remind some people of something we've been aware of since, like, ever.

I think it's a little more complicated than that.

The problem is that over time, societies have evolved a lot of non-biological norms and expectations on top of this basic biological fact. I think that many of them probably started out in societies where group survival was much more closely tied to realistic assessment of sexual dimorphism. Even as civilization advanced and survival depended less and less on being a man and easily producing surplus food, or being a woman and trading other things for some of that surplus, the existing norms and expectations remained and continued to evolve into the rather baroque and apparently pointless conventions we have today.

So you're not really having to remind people of the sexual dimorphism. You're having to remind them that we're dealing with tens of thousands of years of evolved tradition, stemming from this sexual dimorphism. And you're having to remind them that even though civilization has greatly narrowed the raw power gap between men and women, or even eliminated it altogether in some areas, the dimorphism still exists, and some version of the social norms and expectations that arise from it will probably always be with us.

Joe's proposal to just abolish them probably won't work. And as long as we have competitive sports, gender dimorphism will mean gendered roles, and transgenders will still have a venue for their disphoria and a preferred mode of treatment.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Belz...

As I said, I can't follow your argument, so I don't know where you stand. It's hard to address someone's points under those circumstances.

Because I have to stop every other post and restate because it immediately gets lost in the weeds.

For the 50th billionth time (I should just save this so I can copy and paste it.)

- I do not recognize a level of valid, meaningful, non-biological difference between the sexes (either as things that exist or things that we should be creating) that is required to make "identifying" as one sex or the other beyond the biological as meaningful in anyway.

- When (g)you say or "accept" (which I could phrase that better, something in that ballpark) a statement like "I'm biologically X, but I identify as Y" (g)you are reinforcing unnecessary at best, dangerous at worst stereotypes placed on the genders. When (g)you let a man who wants to wear a dress present himself as a woman, you are, whether you like it or not, saying that wearing a dress is associated or expected or some version of the same, for women.

- You can't have stereotypes, rules, expectations, etc that only work in the subversive. You can't champion subverting the rules without shoring the rules up.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm sorry I'll take being called a transphobe by one side and a rape enabler by the other with my customary good humor.

Nobody is calling you either of those things. Except maybe ponderingturtle. I'm not sure. But ranting at the rest of us isn't really going to help you with that (assuming that's even happening).

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

- I do not recognize a level of valid, meaningful, non-biological difference between the sexes (either as things that exist or things that we should be creating) that is required to make "identifying" as one sex or the other beyond the biological as meaningful in anyway.

What do you consider "biological"? Hormones can have quite a bit of influence on behaviour, and everything humans do, in a way, stem from the biological. So where do you draw the line?

Quote:

- When (g)you say or "accept" (which I could phrase that better, something in that ballpark) a statement like "I'm biologically X, but I identify as Y" (g)you are reinforcing unnecessary at best, dangerous at worst stereotypes placed on the genders. When (g)you let a man who wants to wear a dress present himself as a woman, you are, whether you like it or not, saying that wearing a dress is associated or expected or some version of the same, for women.

Lots of things are unnecessary but it's another thing to say they should be done away with. Why are they dangerous stereotypes? In fact, how are they stereotypes at all, rather than, say, expected behaviours based on general sex-based behaviours?

Quote:

- You can't have stereotypes, rules, expectations, etc that only work in the subversive. You can't champion subverting the rules without shoring the rules up.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what this means.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

- I do not recognize a level of valid, meaningful, non-biological difference between the sexes (either as things that exist or things that we should be creating) that is required to make "identifying" as one sex or the other beyond the biological as meaningful in anyway.

Society as a whole, however, does. It probably will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The solution to helping transpeople live healthy and fulfilling lives as first-class citizens is not to simply declare that gender norms and expectations are stupid and wrong. That doesn't help transpeople, and it doesn't help the rest of us. We all have to get by in the society we have, not the society we wish to have or plan to have at a later date.

Quote:

- When (g)you say or "accept" (which I could phrase that better, something in that ballpark) a statement like "I'm biologically X, but I identify as Y" (g)you are reinforcing unnecessary at best, dangerous at worst stereotypes placed on the genders. When (g)you let a man who wants to wear a dress present himself as a woman, you are, whether you like it or not, saying that wearing a dress is associated or expected or some version of the same, for women.

Of course (g)you're saying that. It's true. That's the whole point. The transwoman is saying that she wants to express her interpretation of the norms and expectations for women in her society, and she wants that same society to honor her expression, even though it's at odds with what that society normally prescribes for her biological gender.

"I want to be seen as a woman."

"Then wear a dress."

Is a perfectly cromulent exchange, in a society where women normally wear dresses. You're not so much trying to solve for transgenders, as you are trying to solve for JoeMorgue.

Quote:

- You can't have stereotypes, rules, expectations, etc that only work in the subversive. You can't champion subverting the rules without shoring the rules up.

Erasing the rules probably isn't the right answer here. Not for transpeople, and not for the rest of us.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Erasing the rules probably isn't the right answer here. Not for transpeople, and not for the rest of us.

At the local pride parade (day before yesterday) I saw plenty of people happily subverting everyday gender norms. I don't have those photos yet, but here is a link to a random drag queen lineup from a while ago and a world away. This sort of willful and joyful subversion would be lost in the process of degenderfication proposed above, not to mention any number of fun & useful sexual cues.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

What are the more important aspects,being able to throw someone out of their apartment or job for being trans?

Yeah, I'd definitely say both of those are a bit more important than which bog to use.

Originally Posted by theprestige

"Then wear a dress."

Just all become Scots - or Pasifika - and everyone wears skirts.

Problem solved.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

At the local pride parade (day before yesterday) I saw plenty of people happily subverting everyday gender norms. I don't have those photos yet, but here is a link to a random drag queen lineup from a while ago and a world away. This sort of willful and joyful subversion would be lost in the process of degenderfication proposed above, not to mention any number of fun & useful sexual cues.

Exactly

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well, there's the problem. Not long ago the two were essentially the same. Then it was a set of behaviours associated with sex. Now it's whatever the **** we want, which as you said is akin to the soul debate.

Me, I'd rather avoid the third definition and stick to either the first or second. In both cases, however, it makes how you identify completely irrelevant.

The way I think of it is that there is a physical sex and a mental sex. Yes, I used the term "sex" for both. Deliberately.

Gender is your second definition: "a set of behaviours associated with sex."

Dysphoria occurs when the (external) physical sex does not match up with the (internal) mental sex. We can argue all day about why this happens.

In order to relieve their dysphoria, a person may express the gender that matches their mental sex. In many ways it's easier to manipulate external things than internal. So by acting and dressing like a woman they feel more at ease because it relives the tension between their internal image of their sex and their external. An analogy is painkillers. Morphine doesn't eliminate the cause of pain, but it numbs it so that you can function.

For the purposes of relieving dysphoria, those items that are most distinctly associated with gender will be most effective. This changes over time and between cultures. I don't think the drive is to wear a dress or play with Barbies. It's to be seen and see themselves as female. Currently, that includes wearing a dress. In the future it could mean shaving the left side of your head. Or tattooing a symbol on your forehead.

Of course, that's just the interpretation I have from reading and watching videos.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't think men and women should have expectations put on them based on their biological sex unless their biological is the actual determining factor in it.

What if it’s an influencing factor, but not 100% determining? Are social expectations still wrong in such a case?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what this means.

If your goal is to be granted an exception to a rule, you have to first acknowledge and uphold the rule itself. This is different from the goal of abolishing the rule and getting rid of any possibility of exceptions. Our current understanding of gender disphoria seems to be that transgenders function best when there is both a rule and an exception made in their case.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yeah, I'd definitely say both of those are a bit more important than which bog to use.



Just all become Scots - or Pasifika - and everyone wears skirts.

Problem solved.

Not for transgenders in those societies, I bet.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not for transgenders in those societies, I bet.

Scotland might be an issue - isn't Rolfe in Scotland?

However, MtF trans aren't just readily accepted in Pasifika culture - they're a part of their culture and always have been. The girls just see them as girls and they use the girls' toilets.

And let me tell you, 95% of the time, you do not need an ID card to spot the girls who still have the male bits.

There may be a case where one of them has attacked a woman, but I've certainly not heard about it, and I've heard of lots of cases of a big Pasifika trans knocking sevens bells of **** out of blokes.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I certainly have, which is why (as I've stated multiple times) that leaves me nowhere to go.



I don't put roles on men and women outside of what is literally required by pure biology, therefore "Man who identifies as a woman" has as much literal meaning to me as "Crankshaft that identifies as a meatloaf."



A man who wears a dress isn't a woman, or "a woman on the inside" and there's no scale or dial that tips just a little toward "woman" or anything else.



So there's nowhere for me to go, so I'm everyone's bad guy. Person with a vagina in my bathroom? Don't care. So Rolfe thinks I want her to get raped. But since I don't think the woman in my bathroom "identifying" as a man or a woman matters or indeed even makes sense, I'm the other side's badguy as well.



Can't win, can't lose, can't quit the game.



I'm not even gonna touch the whole "Getting rid of Gender Roles? Why (gasp) when did anyone ever suggest that?" revisionism because I don't feel like playing a rousing game of "Show me where someone said exactly that in those exact words before I'll admit the idea was ever even on the table."

But surely Joe you recognise that you are rather nonconformist in this regard? It's a fact that whether it is right or wrong our societies do compartmentalise certain behaviours, such as what we wear to one sex/gender. Therefore in the context of our actual society someone could consider themselves to be the gender that wears tights/pantyhose not the gender that doesn't. You can claim this is an arbitrary, non logical way of assigning gender, and I'd actually agree with you BUT it is how society actually is organised.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

That's not a valid description of an experiment, you didn't specify which outcomes of this would entail which conclusions. Furthermore, even if it were, your proposal only concerns boys born with deformed genitalia who are a small minority of the population. So I ask you again: What experiment could be performed that allows one to determine someone's gender identity?

You ask people.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

True, but then it isn't cross-culturally invariant and the claim for a neuroanatomical basis fails.

Not necessarily, it could simply mean it has different expressions depending on the environment.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I think there is a biological reason why men typically have more trouble presenting a baby smooth face to the world than women do.



As a consequentialist, I like to be able to point to some cognizable harm done whenever I say something is wrong.

You've got that the wrong way around. To use an example. Women with visble facial hair are considered less feminine, less beautiful, less attractive in a culture such as the USA because visible facial hair is considered a "masculine" trait. Yet in reality both women (albeit generally to a lesser amount) and men "biologically" have facial hair. This means a biological trait is suppressed in the societally/culturally defined female gender but can be expressed in the male gender. It is these types of gender differences that some of us think should be irrelevant and should really be relegated to history. A woman shouldn't be judged as less "womanly" because she allows her facial hair to grow and be seen.

The issue this view has is the one Joe is expressing, which is wanting to be identified as or even just self identify as a particular gender is really saying you want to use these *arbitrary* social markers to identify yourself but these are simply cultural and societal norms not objective differences that exist outwith society. (We know these are not objective in the sense that they appear the same in all human societies, the classic example is the swap of pink for boys to pink for girls.)

It does raise an interesting question and that is if there were not these socially created and reenforced differences between certain groups of humans what would wanting to be a particular gender actually mean?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

The issue this view has is the one Joe is expressing, which is wanting to be identified as or even just self identify as a particular gender is really saying you want to use these *arbitrary* social markers to identify yourself but these are simply cultural and societal norms not objective differences that exist outwith society.

I wouldn't say that emphasizing observable average sex differences in body hair counts as entirely arbitrary, at least not in those tribes where men are noticeably more hirsute than women. Same goes for any attempt to emphasize other sex differences which would exist even in something approaching a state of nature, e.g. push-up bras. There remain plenty of differences which are entirely arbitrary, however, such as makeup, hair length, clothing color palettes, neckties, etc.

Like Joe, I believe we should avoid being heavy-handed in our enforcement of the above-mentioned gender norms, but unlike him, I don't think most of them are harmful enough to make total degenderfication a worthwhile social project. I try to argue these things on a case-by-case basis, weighing the relevant benefits and harms.

Originally Posted by Darat

It does raise an interesting question and that is if there were not these socially created and reenforced differences between certain groups of humans what would wanting to be a particular gender actually mean?

I addressed this question (somewhat) in a previous instance of this thread.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yeah, I'd definitely say both of those are a bit more important than which bog to use.

Depends if you are on a trans friendly employer and own a house then they are less of issues. Using bathrooms and being outed are constant issues for all trans people. These are certainly all issues, why do we have to deal with them in some specific sequence?

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Darat

You ask people.

Do you then consider the existence of souls demonstrated because you can ask people and some will say "yes I have a soul"?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

You've got that the wrong way around. To use an example. Women with visble facial hair are considered less feminine, less beautiful, less attractive in a culture such as the USA because visible facial hair is considered a "masculine" trait. Yet in reality both women (albeit generally to a lesser amount) and men "biologically" have facial hair. This means a biological trait is suppressed in the societally/culturally defined female gender but can be expressed in the male gender. It is these types of gender differences that some of us think should be irrelevant and should really be relegated to history. A woman shouldn't be judged as less "womanly" because she allows her facial hair to grow and be seen.

Facial hair isn't irrelevant, and will probably never be irrelevant.

Excess facial hair on women is one of the signs of polycystic ovary syndrome. Another symptom is lowered fertility. So facial hair is negatively associated with fertility. That makes facial hair unattractive on women. This isn't fair, but it's not arbitrary, it has a biological basis, and you're never going to get rid of it simply by wishing it away.