Continuation Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

They just give an operational definition. A woman is someone who answers the question "Are you a woman?" with "Yes."

That's not an operational definition. It's a circular definition. Once again we see that self-ID is meaningless and irrelevant.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

My definition would be something like:

1. an adult human female
2. an adult human who identifies as a woman1

(and then a bunch of other definitions of woman that no one's really interested in)

And then what happens is equivocation is used to flip laws, norms and so on that mean "adult human female" to mean "adult human who identifies as a woman". The question of the definition is silly. Nobody who is remotely awake is actually confused about it. The question is, do we, or do we not, want to deconstruct the concept of "gender" such that it becomes a content free label? Do we think society would be better if the word "man" carried no more assumption of having a penis the "woman"?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

A woman2 is an adult human who identifies as an adult human female?

Yes, silly of me.

1. an adult human female
2. someone who identifies as a woman1

Quote:

Fun. Next question, how can you identify as something you're not?

By having a sense of yourself as that thing.

For example, someone might have been raised in a working class family, become rich, but still identify himself as working class.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's not an operational definition. It's a circular definition. Once again we see that self-ID is meaningless and irrelevant.

It is an operational definition. It's not a circular definition.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

For example, someone might have been raised in a working class family, become rich, but still identify himself as working class.

Where this would encounter some similar issues would be if there had been a meaning of "working class" that was defined objectively, and real world social policy was build around that objective definition.... and then activists introduced a new definition that suited their activism. If those activists tried to equivocate from the old meaning to their new meaning in order to change real world policy, then we would have something similar.

"man" and "woman" are far older than "working class" though and go far deeper into the fabric of society. Using these Orwellian language games to try to re-engineer society is profoundly dishonest.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

By having a sense of yourself as that thing.

For example, someone might have been raised in a working class family, become rich, but still identify himself as working class.

That sense of yourself isn't some nebulous concept, but an actual thing that can be defined.

In your example, that person has a very clear idea of why they identify as working class. It's because they were working class at some point in their life and because they still possess certain characteristic that they find significant. There's a clear definition of a working class person in their head, and they can separate people into working class and non-working class based on that definition.

What is that definition in the case of woman2?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

That sense of yourself isn't some nebulous concept, but an actual thing that can be defined.

In your example, that person has a very clear idea of why they identify as working class. It's because they were working class at some point in their life and because they still possess certain characteristic that they find significant. There's a clear definition of a working class person in their head, and they can separate people into working class and non-working class based on that definition.

What is that definition in the case of woman2?

People who think of themselves as women2 have a sense of who women are socially, inferred from their interactions with women and how they express themselves over the course of their lives. They feel they are closer to this than anything else.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Provide a real, non-circular definition.

Hey now don't be so provocative.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

People who think of themselves as women2 have a sense of who women are socially, inferred from their interactions with women and how they express themselves over the course of their lives.

Is this substantively the same as saying they'd rather be subjected to the norms of femininity?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

People who think of themselves as women2 have a sense of who women are socially, inferred from their interactions with women and how they express themselves over the course of their lives. They feel they are closer to this than anything else.

Except having demanded everybody acknowledge the new definition of women2, trans-activists then demand that that women2 be treated as being identical to women1, and all societal norms and laws that applied to women1 should apply to women2.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

People who think of themselves as women2 have a sense of who women are socially, inferred from their interactions with women and how they express themselves over the course of their lives. They feel they are closer to this than anything else.

That's much better, although it needs some corrections:

A woman2 is someone who has a sense of who most adult females are socially, inferred from their interactions with adult females and how most of them express themselves over the course of their lives, and who feels that they are closer to this than anything else.

It works as a definition. It also reduces womanhood to a stereotype, and could be considered sexist. It's also difficult to see why it's singificant with regards to any policies, especially since it would disqualify many women1.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

It isn't circular, if you understand what an operational definition is.

Yes, it's not circular, but it's also not real, in the sense that it cannot actually be used.

Quote:

My definition would be something like:

1. an adult human female
2. an adult human who identifies as a woman1

I think that's a bad definition, but it is a definition at least.

More to the point, since I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter much to you, you won't get the trans activists to accept or adopt it. It already concedes too much, as far as they are concerned. Despite its relative simplicity, they can't come out and say anything like that.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

It is an operational definition. It's not a circular definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition

I don't see any operation being performed in your definition. All it says is "a woman is whatever calls itself a woman". Which is indeed circular.

An operational definition would be: A woman is an adult human female.

Your definition 2 is just: A woman is anyone who claims to be an adult human female. Which is obviously silly.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Yes, silly of me.

1. an adult human female
2. someone who identifies as a woman1

What if the adult human female in definition 1 identifies as a man?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Is this substantively the same as saying they'd rather be subjected to the norms of femininity?

Not really, or at least not exclusively. Olmstead has it more or less right.

Quote:

That's much better, although it needs some corrections:

Quote:

A woman2 is someone who has a sense of who most adult females are socially, inferred from their interactions with adult females and how most of them express themselves over the course of their lives, and who feels that they are closer to this than anything else.

We should probably just remove adult altogether. People develop ideas about who girls are, too.

Quote:

It works as a definition. It also reduces womanhood to a stereotype, and could be considered sexist.

Initially, yeah, it's more or less a stererotype, but in the social psychology sense, and not necessary inaccurate. But it needn't remain that way. If someone transitions, they will start having at least some of the experiences that women do (learning how others treat women, especially if they "pass"). They'll also start learning all the unspoken rules. I've talked to trans men who were shocked to find out how closed off emotionally men can be with each other, or that we're not supposed to talk to each other in public bathrooms, etc.

Quote:

It's also difficult to see why it's singificant with regards to any policies, especially since it would disqualify many women1.

Of course there's also women3, which is just an umbrella for both, so it's not really disqualifying anyone. This could probably be refined, but I do need to do some work today.

The social policies that follow, at least in the US, are basically non-discrimination policy, which is grounded in the fact that they're a targeted minority. Interestingly, some of those protections are already in place, due to the existence of sex as a protected class. There will presumably be some exceptions, just as there are for all other the others.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

A woman2 is someone who has a sense of who most adult females are socially, inferred from their interactions with adult females and how most of them express themselves over the course of their lives, and who feels that they are closer to this than anything else.

Is this not just femininity^WP, i.e. the set of gendered norms and gender expressions generally expected of females by some given society?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Is this not just femininity^WP, i.e. the set of gendered norms and gender expressions generally expected of females by some given society?

That doesn't work. If you call it "femininity", then you can't equivocate on the meaning of the word woman to socially re-engineer society.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes, it's not circular, but it's also not real, in the sense that it cannot actually be used.

Sure it can. Ask someone if they're a woman (girl, man, boy, non-binary, whatever). If they say yes, you tick the box that says woman (girl, man, boy...).

Quote:

More to the point, since I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter much to you, you won't get the trans activists to accept or adopt it. It already concedes too much, as far as they are concerned. Despite its relative simplicity, they can't come out and say anything like that.

Who gives a ****** There's this persistent undertone in this conversation where everyone thinks I'm committed to capitulating to whatever the most obnoxious activists want. I'm not.

The main thing I want to communicate is that I think there's something to the idea of gender identity (and even something to the idea of innate gender identity), that it really doesn't cost you much to accommodate trans people in most situations if you don't work yourself into a froth about it, and that this idea so often on display in this thead that "I'm right, therefore I get to be as toxic as I want about this" is repulsive.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Sure it can. Ask someone if they're a woman (girl, man, boy, non-binary, whatever). If they say yes, you tick the box that says woman (girl, man, boy...).

Sure, but this violates the first of your two definitions:

woman: 1. an adult human female

You need to change that to:

woman: 1. an adult human female who identifies as a woman

However, this is redundant because of your second definition.

So you're stuck with the word "woman" meaning nothing other than something who says they're a woman.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't see any operation being performed in your definition.

The operation is to ask someone if they are a woman.

Quote:

An operational definition would be: A woman is an adult human female.

No, that's not operationalized.

Quote:

Your definition 2 is just: A woman is anyone who claims to be an adult human female. Which is obviously silly.

It should probably say something about being an adult, which is what I was going for when I biffed it.
But it's not particularly silly. That's what gender identity is. It's also what gender dysphoria stems from--incongruence between gender identity and sex at birth. Without gender identity, gender dysphoria has no meaning.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Sure, but this violates the first of your two definitions:

You understand these are two different definitions, right? The one that I think trans activists might accept, and the one I myself would offer.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Sure it can. Ask someone if they're a woman (girl, man, boy, non-binary, whatever). If they say yes, you tick the box that says woman (girl, man, boy...).

The same as if you ask somebody whether they are the Emperor Napoleon I and they say "yes", you can tick the box that says "Napoleon". If we can persuade everybody to treat them like Napoleon, then they will experience true Napoleonness.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Who gives a ****** There's this persistent undertone in this conversation where everyone thinks I'm committed to capitulating to whatever the most obnoxious activists want. I'm not.

OK. There is a war going on over this definition because of an effort to engineer cultural change using language. The whole reason the definition is controversial is that. Coming up with definitions that might have some purpose in a world where that wasn't going on is easy, but pointless. There are plenty of ways that one could come up with a new definition of "woman". The side that want to play language games to do activism would be fools to accept a definition that prevented them doing that. The side that wants to resist this social change would be fools to accept a definition that was acceptable to the activists.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

The main thing I want to communicate is that I think there's something to the idea of gender identity (and even something to the idea of innate gender identity), that it really doesn't cost you much to accommodate trans people in most situations if you don't work yourself into a froth about it, and that this idea so often on display in this thead that "I'm right, therefore I get to be as toxic as I want about this" is repulsive.

If you narrow the scope down to a single individual, the definition isn't very interesting. I might call somebody Napoleon who thought they were Napoleon, just to be nice. By reducing it down to what would be nice for this individual, you are excluding the whole controversy.

Your type 2 definition is introduced as a domain specific alternative to the type 1 definition. Type 1 definitions are then read as if they were type 2 definitions - changing laws and norms in the process. The type 2 definition then functionally replaces the type 1 definition. That is what activists are doing. That is what politicians are bending the knee to who refuse to define "woman". That is what is being resisted. The whole thing functions as a motte and bailey.

Arguing about the merits of the definition in the absence of this cultural question is like discussing a map of Waterloo on 17th of June 1815 as if the chief question that the two armies were contesting was the field boundaries.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

How does "sex or gender" abolish sex?

By in practice expanding any definition based on sex to be meaningless.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Aber

By in practice expanding any definition based on sex to be meaningless.

It doesn't. It just acknowledges the reality that not all gay men are attracted to cis men.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

It doesn't. It just acknowledges the reality that not all gay men are attracted to cis men.

Do you mean men1 or men2? Do we need gay1 and gay2 definitions?

[Aber]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Do you mean men1 or men2? Do we need gay1 and gay2 definitions?

As noted above, Stonewall in the UK has already moved to a gay2 definition.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Aber

As noted above, Stonewall in the UK has already moved to a gay2 definition.

Indeed, but it seemed like mumblethrax was treating gay2 as The definition. This is the process I am talking about. Actually the type 2 definition replaces the type 1 definition, but keeps all the type 1 laws and norms.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Who gives a ****** There's this persistent undertone in this conversation where everyone thinks I'm committed to capitulating to whatever the most obnoxious activists want. I'm not.

This isn't about you. I don't care about you. The activists matter because many of our institutions DO capitulate to them, and so what they say has consequences. You standing up to them counts for naught when so many others don't.

Quote:

The main thing I want to communicate is that I think there's something to the idea of gender identity (and even something to the idea of innate gender identity), that it really doesn't cost you much to accommodate trans people in most situations if you don't work yourself into a froth about it, and that this idea so often on display in this thead that "I'm right, therefore I get to be as toxic as I want about this" is repulsive.

This is a straw man. Nobody here is advocating toxic behavior. No one here has a problem accommodating trans people in most situations. You are working yourself up into a froth here.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This isn't about you. I don't care about you. The activists matter because many of our institutions DO capitulate to them, and so what they say has consequences. You standing up to them counts for naught when so many others don't.

This problem is inflated out of all proportion.

Quote:

This is a straw man. Nobody here is advocating toxic behavior. No one here has a problem accommodating trans people in most situations. You are working yourself up into a froth here.

I didn't say they were advocating it. They're enacting it. And I rather think the people who think there's a conspiracy to replace women with men, driven by the same extinction anxieties that serve as an organizing principle for other replacement theories, are a bit frothier than I am.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

My definition would be something like:

1. an adult human female
2. an adult human who identifies as a woman1

If an 15-y.o. boy sincerely identifies as an adult human female, does this mean they should be legally eligible to do all the things grown women can legally do, e.g. vote, drive, pose nude on OnlyFans?

ETA: I'm asking b/c all this (re)definition mongering is ultimately about driving changes to culture, policy, & law.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If an 15-y.o. boy sincerely identifies as an adult human female, does this mean they should be legally eligible to do all the things grown women can legally do, e.g. vote, drive, pose nude on OnlyFans?

No.

Quote:

ETA: I'm asking b/c all this (re)definition mongering is ultimately about driving changes to culture, policy, & law.

This isn't how the world works. Linguistic determinism is bunk. Forty something years ago all the forms changed from "sex" to "gender". And everyone just started treating it like it meant sex. The same thing would happen if anyone actually succeeded in changing sex to gender everywhere. Euphemism treadmill. Most people just don't really care about it all that much, beyond trying to be approximately polite.

The problem is with the ability of dogmatists to enact professional consequences.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

No.

Okay, so sometimes people should not be expected to allow identity to override reality.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

This isn't how the world works.

Uh huh.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Okay, so sometimes people should not be expected to allow identity to override reality.

Me calling someone what they'd like to be called does not override reality.

Quote:

Uh huh.

I didn't say cultural change doesn't happen. It just has next to nothing to do with what we call people.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

It just has next to nothing to do with what we call people.

Lia Thomas disagrees.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

The operation is to ask someone if they are a woman.

That's not how I understand "operational definition".

I understand it to be a definition adopted for some specified practical application ("operation").

So "adult human female" and "anyone who identifies as a woman" could both be operational definitions for women in sports - women doing sports being the operation in question.

But whatever. I now understand you are trying to thread a semantic needle, rather than address real public policy dilemmas in practical terms. I'll leave you to it.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Lia Thomas disagrees.

She's making an appeal that will be adjudicated on whether people think it's fair or not for her to compete. Which is the same process that determines whether or not people are willing to call her a woman. A does not cause B, C causes A and B.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's not how I understand "operational definition".

Then you don't understand operational definition.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

No.


This isn't how the world works. Linguistic determinism is bunk. Forty something years ago all the forms changed from "sex" to "gender". And everyone just started treating it like it meant sex. The same thing would happen if anyone actually succeeded in changing sex to gender everywhere.

Lia Thomas falsifies this prediction.

Admiral Rachel Levine, hailed as the nation's first female four-star admiral, falsifies this prediction.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Lia Thomas falsifies this prediction.

Admiral Rachel Levine, hailed as the nation's first female four-star admiral, falsifies this prediction.

No. See above.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

She's making an appeal that will be adjudicated on whether people think it's fair or not for her to compete. Which is the same process that determines whether or not people are willing to call her a woman.

Not at all.

She is arguing that once you've accepted the mantra "Trans women are women," you have already made the decision about whether it is fair for her to compete. It's not just a redefinition, it is a moral commitment as well, but the linguistic shift comes first.

ETA: There are those (like LondonJohn and myself) who are more than happy to grant her womanhood in a social sense, but take exception to the idea that high-stakes sports must be sorted accordingly.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Not at all.

She is arguing that once you've accepted the mantra "Trans women are women," you have already made the decision about whether it is fair for her to compete.

And nobody in particular will be persuaded by that.