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

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

That happened once. Didn't go well. Really, really horrible story.

The story of David (or Bruce or Brenda it got weird) Brenner.

First Bruce, then Branda, then David Reimer.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't accept completely internal criteria in the way you are asking me to do. "Identity" isn't a thing that I factor in how I view the world in the way you're telling me to.

I'm not telling you to do anything. If you want to take the view that you aren't conscious, that's fine by me.

Quote:

We're disagreeing and having a discussion about that.

No, you're disagreeing with a straw man, and thus not having a discussion at all. If you want to have a discussion, you'll need to stop doing that first.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I'm not telling you to do anything. If you want to take the view that you aren't conscious, that's fine by me.

What does conscious have to do with anything?

This is more and more like the Jabba Immortality Thread every post.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

What does conscious have to do with anything?

If you don't accept internal criteria, then you should reject the idea that you are conscious.

At least, if I've understood what you're trying to say. It's a bit word salad-y.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

2. Social roles placed on the sexes (Men have to do this, Women have to do this, Girls are expected to do this, boys are expected to do this) that we should be working to get rid of.

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?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

If you don't accept internal criteria, then you should reject the idea that you are conscious.

At least, if I've understood what you're trying to say. It's a bit word salad-y.

No I just reject that your internal opinion of how reality should be is some form of objective reality in and off itself.

You keeping get mad that I'm equating "Gender Identity" with "The Gender I want to Be" but I still don't get difference you think there is.

I keep having to go back to asking again and again the most simple and basic of questions that I haven't got an answer to that I can't move forward into until I do.

Standing in front of me is a person. This is person is biologically male. This person tells me they identify as female.

For your concept to make any sense, something has to change here. Something meaningful has to change.

What is this change? What do I do, say, think, conceptualize, act, react, or otherwise is any way do differently with this new information?

If you can't answer this question in a way that is completely self referential I've got nowhere to go and right back to choosing whether I get transphobe screamed at me by your side or rape enabler screamed at me by Rolfe's side.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah and let me tell you adding "transgenderism" into the mix has really made the "we don't treat the sexes fairly/equally" problem go away.



Again, this can't be your go-to excuse to wave away everything that doesn't make sense.

It's my go-to excuse for this one thing, because this one thing happens to be more understandable as a human idiosyncracy rather than as a logically coherent proposition.

You were asking about subjective height or eye color. But nobody seems to be struggling with issues of subjective height and eye color. So what's your point in asking about it?

Is there some insight there you'd like us to see? Some new perspective that sheds light on the question of gender identity?

Why is the question of subjective height relevant, JoeMorgue? Because it seems to me that, knowing what we know about humans and human social issues, subjective height is a complete non sequitur that adds nothing to the discussion about subjective gender.

If you think differently, please explain.

Quote:

Fine. I'll settle for informal logic. Or any logic. Or even just someone explaining anything beyond "Because the person says so."

What do you need explained? Why subjective gender is a real social issue that concerns us today, but subjective height isn't and probably never will be? How do we as a society work with things that are both subjective and very important to a lot of people? What kind of formal rules we can establish about subjective values and how they work in society?

You are (presumably) a human being living in a human society. What have you figured out for yourself so far, about how subjective values work in such a society?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

No I just reject that your internal opinion of how reality should be is some form of objective reality in and off itself.

I don't think you can reject that, since I've never asserted it.

Quote:

You keeping get mad that I'm equating "Gender Identity" with "The Gender I want to Be" but I still don't get difference you think there is.

I've never once expressed any anger about that.

Quote:

I keep having to go back to asking again and again the most simple and basic of questions that I haven't got an answer to that I can't move forward into until I do.

You do get those answers. Every time you ask. Then you wait a few minutes and ask again. Certainly, you will never make any progress doing this. The rest of us are not so hidebound.

Quote:

For your concept to make any sense, something has to change here. Something meaningful has to change.

"I'm was born male (or assigned male at birth, or whatever) but identify as a woman" is perfectly intelligible. Nothing has to change in order for me to accept that this as a true proposition.

Quote:

What is this change? What do I do, say, think, conceptualize, act, react, or otherwise is any way do differently with this new information?

You seem to have to have this hang-up where you think description implies prescription. It doesn't. I'm sure transgender people have some advice for you here, but it's just immaterial to understanding gender identity as a phenomenon.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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?

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."

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

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."

Expect to be met with skepticism if you don't want to play a rousing game of "I have at least some evidence for the proposition I put forward in a skeptic forum."

ETA: If you're literally the only gender abolitionist here, I don't see any reason to take the idea seriously.

[JoeMorgue]

So that's it? We've done a 360 back to "Women stay in the kitchen"-lite?

So now I have to put societal role back on men and women to be "woke?" and "Get ride of stupid rules put on the genders that we don't need" is such a fringe belief it's dismissable as not worth considering?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

ETA: If you're literally the only gender abolitionist here, I don't see any reason to take the idea seriously.

No, he's not. I think we're all just clumps of matter and for the sake of convenience people invented categories for easy classification, but the need for that classification is mostly archaic cultural baggage. Also the classes were never as sharply defined as the proponents assumed they were, but there's insufficent significance to the classification to justify effort to clarify it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So that's it? We've done a 360 back to "Women stay in the kitchen"-lite?

So now I have to put societal role back on men and women to be "woke?" and "Get ride of stupid rules put on the genders that we don't need" is such a fringe belief it's dismissable as not worth considering?

Rule of So aside, I don't think it's a dismmissable fringe belief. I think we absolutely consider it. I think the first thing we need to consider about it is how do we figure out which rules we don't need, what might replace them (if anything), and what happens when we get it wrong. See also: Chesterton's fence.

[d4m10n]

Can you see a difference between these two proposed reforms, Joe?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Social roles placed on the sexes . . . we should be working to get rid of.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Get rid of stupid rules put on the genders that we don't need...

I can see a pretty obvious difference, in part because I agree with the latter claim but not the former.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

You could try giving sex reassignment surgery to boys born with deformed genitalia and then look at the outcomes.

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?

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Gender is relatively easy to observe if you take it to mean what I take it to mean.

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

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Can you see a difference between these two proposed reforms, Joe?





I can see a pretty obvious difference, in part because I agree with the latter claim but not the former.

By your own definition of gender the latter is nonsense.

"Get rid of stupid rules put on the genders that we don't need..."

Gender = A set of behaviors, roles & norms typically associated with one sex.

Substituting: "Get rid of stupid rules put on the set of behaviors, roles & norms typically associated with one sex."

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yet they seem oddly willing to accept sexual orientation at peoples word with out any kind of strict medical proof of such a thing.

The difference is that sexual orientation is empirically observable, namely by whether you engage in intercourse with people of the same sex or of the other sex. Gender identity is not empirically observable, it is not phenomenal. What can be observed is that someone says they have a gender identity, but that doesn't mean that gender identity is phenomenal. For the same reason that just because it can be observed that someone says they have a soul doesn't mean that a soul is phenomenal.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

By your own definition of gender the latter is nonsense.

Which is why it's charitable to assume Joe wasn't using it in that context.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

The difference is that sexual orientation is empirically observable, namely by whether you engage in intercourse with people of the same sex or of the other sex.

Except of course when it isn't. Clearly people who have not had sex have no orientation.

Quote:

Gender identity is not empirically observable, it is not phenomenal. What can be observed is that someone says they have a gender identity, but that doesn't mean that gender identity is phenomenal. For the same reason that just because it can be observed that someone says they have a soul doesn't mean that a soul is phenomenal.

And yet it certainly is as well

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

The difference is that sexual orientation is empirically observable, namely by whether you engage in intercourse with people of the same sex or of the other sex.

I disagree. Situational homosexuality is a thing, for just one example. Sexual activity doesn't actually prove orientation. Or even that orientation is actually a thing.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Which is why it's charitable to assume Joe wasn't using it in that context.

Because I'm asking what the context is.

There's been a lot of people asking me to define the the thing they are arguing for in this discussion.

So that's where we are at. I don't think men and women should have purely non-biological rules, roles, and expectations placed on them. So I can't conceptualize "A man who identifies as an X" or a "A woman who identifies as a Y" the way I'm supposed to.

Problem I do this and I've got "Rape enabler!" screamed in one ear and "Transphobe!" screamed in the other and my best solution is to pick one of those two sides and I ain't doing that.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I disagree. Situational homosexuality is a thing, for just one example. Sexual activity doesn't actually prove orientation. Or even that orientation is actually a thing.

Then there is the aggressively not gay male x male sex of the bro job.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Except of course when it isn't. Clearly people who have not had sex have no orientation.

Then it would be observable by which sex they attempt to have sex with, or what kind of porn they watch while masturbating, or any similar behaviours which can be observed.

Quote:

And yet it certainly is as well

A soul is phenomenal?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Then there is the aggressively not gay male x male sex of the bro job.

I'm not familiar with that term. There is a phenomenon called "helping a buddy out" which has a long history, but it is never referred to by any terms so concrete. It'd be a breach of etiquette to discuss the matter at all, before or afterward. There is a charming mixture of naivete and subtlety in such matters, which has afforded a great many gentlemen a good deal of quiet fun over the centuries. Some traditions are worth preservation.

[TomB]

I haven't caught up with the thread, so maybe someone has cleared this up for you. But...

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah and let me tell you adding
Person A: "X = Y, but X does not equal Y."
Me: "That doesn't make sense."
You: "Oh we're not systems of formal logic."

The highlighted is where you go wrong.
In math terms:

X represent biological sex such that
X(0) is biologically male and X(1) is Biologically female

Y represents gender such that
Y(0) is Masculine gender and Y(1) is feminine

X=Y is a false statement although moist of the time this appears to be true.

because...

X and Y are strongly correlated, but it's not a 1:1 correlation.

A plot of X will show very high peaks at X(0) and X(1) such that the sum of X(0) and X(1) is very nearly, but not quite 100%, depending on how you plot those with intersex conditions. These are very steep peaks with slopes approaching infinity.

A plot of Y will also show high peaks near Y(0) and Y(1), but these peaks will be broader and flatter. This is because gender (defined by behaviors and expectations) is less polar. The affinity to the poles (Y(0) and Y(1) is weaker. There are feminine males and masculine females. (Also, we are simplifying a complex set of behaviors down to a single variable....)

If you graph X vs Y, you will see a strong correlation, but you will also see significant noise around the 1:1 line.

In short: Sex and gender, when defined as biological morpholigy and behavior patterns, while strongly correlated are not the same thing.

One of the difficulties here is that we are talking about the intersection between a biological trait that can be directly measured, and a psychological trait that can't. If that bothers you, you are likely to have a hard time with psychology/sociology as well. (To be fair, that's one of the reasons I'm a biologist rather than a psychologist.)

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I disagree. Situational homosexuality is a thing, for just one example. Sexual activity doesn't actually prove orientation. Or even that orientation is actually a thing.

If someone claims to have a certain sexual orientation yet displays no observable behaviours then this sexual orientation isn't phenomenal either. Because that's the definition of phenomenal, that it is observable through the senses.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't think men and women should have purely non-biological rules, roles, and expectations placed on them.

I'm not sure which sort of current social expectations you'd tolerate.

Would men still be expected to shave their faces? Women their legs? Can I still shave my head or is it unisex haircuts for everybody? Will sundresses continue to exist and if so will I have to buy one? Makeup for all, or none? Separate sports leagues?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'm not sure which sort of current social expectations you'd tolerate.

Would men still be expected to shave their faces? Women their legs? Can I still shave my hair or is it unisex haircuts for everybody? Will sundresses continue to exist and if so will I have to buy one? Makeup for all, or none?

Why is it required to have such expectations to begin with? Anybody of any sex or gender can shave anything they like (so long as it's their own), and dress how they please (although there are some places with particular gendered rules for clothing, which rules ought to be abolished).

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Would men still be expected to shave their faces? Women their legs?

Bloody hell of course not! What kind of sexist B.S. is that?

Do you think any of those things? Because that's some goddamn Handmaiden crap right there.

Screw... all of that.

Quote:

Can I still shave my head or is it unisex haircuts for everybody? Will sundresses continue to exist and if so will I have to buy one? Makeup for all, or none?

Oh pisstake. You went right into "Will I be forced to" without even pausing for breath. Sod that.

If you don't see the difference between "Everyone is free to choose" and "everyone is forced into identicalness" I can't even begin to help you.

Quote:

Separate sports leagues?

You know what... I don't care. I don't care. It's sports. Society is not gonna rise and fall on it.

Since we're talking entertainment the answer is "Whatever people want to pay to watch."

[mumblethrax]

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.

An outcome where those boys were raised as girls and given adequate medical support yet nevertheless ended up identifying as boys at much higher rates would entail the conclusion that gender is not merely a matter of social programming.

Quote:

Furthermore, even if it were, your proposal only concerns boys born with deformed genitalia who are a small minority of the population.

You think it would be inappropriate to generalize? Why?

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

An outcome where those boys were raised as girls and given adequate medical support yet nevertheless ended up identifying as boys at much higher rates would entail the conclusion that gender is not merely a matter of social programming.

Not necessarily. At what age did those boys start identifying as boys? If it is at puberty or post-puberty then it would suggest that social cues are responsible, for example the other girls developing breasts but not him, or the other girls developing periods but not him, or the increased focus on genitals cuing him in that he is not "like the other girls." If your conclusion is correct, that gender is neuroanatomical then he should also identify as a boy in pre-pubescent childhood.

Quote:

You think it would be inappropriate to generalize? Why?

Several possibilities. For example it could be that the intersex condition itself is responsible for the psychological result so that you're not so much seeing an example of a general psychological phenomenon but a specific result linked to the intersex condition itself. Another possibility might be underestimating the base rate of the intersex condition, not every person with an intersex condition ends up being identified as having such condition, so it's possible that the higher rate you're seeing is a result of underestimation of the base rate of the condition.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I'm not familiar with that term. There is a phenomenon called "helping a buddy out" which has a long history, but it is never referred to by any terms so concrete. It'd be a breach of etiquette to discuss the matter at all, before or afterward. There is a charming mixture of naivete and subtlety in such matters, which has afforded a great many gentlemen a good deal of quiet fun over the centuries. Some traditions are worth preservation.

Apparently they are getting more comfortable talking about it. There was/is even a hook up site for straight dudes looking for straight dudes.

https://www.salon.com/2015/10/12/the...other_partner/

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

What kind of sexist B.S. is that?

Wait, what? By invoking the spectre of sexism^WP, you seem to be saying that men shaving their faces somehow makes them superior to women.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Do you think any of those things? Because that's some goddamn Handmaiden crap right there.

I'm not really seeing the harm in any of those social norms, especially when compared against Atwood’s dystopian vision of forced sexual and reproductive servitude.

Care to explain?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

You went right into "Will I be forced to" without even pausing for breath.

We are talking about social norms and the usual social enforcement mechanisms here, we are not talking about criminal law, arrests, and jail cells. My question was which of the existing gendered social norms you find acceptable, and (as best as I can discern) your answer is basically just sports.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Not necessarily. At what age did those boys start identifying as boys? If it is at puberty or post-puberty then it would suggest that social cues are responsible, for example the other girls developing breasts but not him, or the other girls developing periods but not him, or the increased focus on genitals cuing him in that he is not "like the other girls." If your conclusion is correct, that gender is neuroanatomical then he should also identify as a boy in pre-pubescent childhood.

You have this backwards. If it's neuroanatomical, then puberty should have a huge effect, since that's when testosterone levels shoot up.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Wait, what? By invoking the spectre of sexism^WP, you seem to be saying that men shaving their faces somehow makes them superior to women.

What? What are even talking about?

I don't know if you're being serious or setting up some argumentative trap for a gotcha, but I literally what you are trying to say here.

"Men hot having to shave their beds is sexist to women" is nonsensical. It's a Lewis Carrol poem.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't know if you're being serious or setting up some argumentative trap for a gotcha, but I literally what you are trying to say here.

There exists a fairly pervasive social norm in western society that men (especially professional career-minded men) should shave their faces. You said of that norm, "What kind of sexist B.S. is that?" Sexism is when you discriminate against people on the basis of sex, typically in a way that favors men, as you can see on the relevant wiki page. Not sure what you're really driving at, though.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have this backwards. If it's neuroanatomical, then puberty should have a huge effect, since that's when testosterone levels shoot up.

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

If testosterone levels determined gender identity then everyone should identify as girls before puberty. You seem to have this weird idea that somehow testosterone levels are explanatory for, well, pretty much anything.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

There exists a fairly pervasive social norm in western society that men (especially professional career-minded men) should shave their faces. You said of that norm, "What kind of sexist B.S. is that?" Sexism is when you discriminate against people on the basis of sex, typically in a way that favors men, as you can see on the relevant wiki page. Not sure what you're really driving at, though.

Yes. 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 don't care to get into one of your dictionary fetishist "Well what does the dictionary say?" debates with you about whether it's Sexism or Sparkling Sexual Discrimination.

Putting unnecessary rules on the sexist is sexism by any workable definition. Why am I arguing this point?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Because humans are sexually dimorphic

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