QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill?

submitted by DistantGlimmer from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Age, professions and disabilities all have similar arbitrary constructs like gender, ageism (younger and older people are useless and not worthy of respect), ableism (people with disablities are less able than able-bodied people) and classism (that includes elevating people who have a certain job and vilifying people who have others).

They are all based on observable realities and social constructs designed to keep down certain categories were created.

Race is another thing that was made in the same way: race is to etnicity what gender is to sex.

Sexual orientation? Same. Do you think that pretending that anyone can be a lesbian has somehow destroyed homophobia? We are now at a point in which lesbians are told that they are bigots if they don' t accept males as sexual partners. Great job!!! Why is it that I am supposed to believe that pretending that men can be women will be more successfull?

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

Yeah, so eliminate ageism, not age. Eliminate classism, not jobs. Eliminate ableism, not disabilities. Eliminate race, not ethnicity. Similarly, eliminate gender, not sex.

Sexual orientation? Same. Do you think that pretending that anyone can be a lesbian has somehow destroyed homophobia? We are now at a point in which lesbians are told that they are bigots if they don' t accept males as sexual partners. Great job!!! Why is it that I am supposed to believe that pretending that men can be women will be more successfull?

This is a bit off topic, but okay. I already pointed out that sex and therefore sexual orientation is not what I would like to change. Gender is what I would like to change.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Yeah, so eliminate ageism, not age. Eliminate classism, not jobs. Eliminate ableism, not disabilities. Eliminate race, not ethnicity. Similarly, eliminate gender, not sex.

Which I completely agree with. But how do you plan to do it? Because right now, the plan TRAs are pretending to have is that if we respect gender as a sacred thing, it will somehow go away. Explain to me the logic of it or give me your alternative plan to reach that point.

I already pointed out that sex and therefore sexual orientation is not what I would like to change.

The point I am making is that the plan you seem to have is that everyone should be able to call themselves whatever they want because somehow this will lead to the destruction of the thing they identify as. Right now, however, we are there, in which we have, for example, dudes in a relationship calling themselves lesbians and being validated instead of being attacked for sexism, homophobia and appropriation. Because identification is seen as something nobody should criticize.

And yet, that "brilliant" plan led us to have female-only attracted females being called fetishists and bigots for their sexual orientation. Because it' s not working to destroy it, it not only is supporting gender, it crucifies the people who don' t respect the same bullshit and don' t play along with it.

So, once again, what is the plan?

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

Which I completely agree with. But how do you plan to do it? Because right now, the plan TRAs are pretending to have is that if we respect gender as a sacred thing

Yeah I don't care about TRAs, anyone demanding we change laws or redefine sex terminology is an idiot and I'll call them out of that crap.

I don't think we shoud treat gender as "sacred". I believe that social constructions are intended to provide us with a level of socual utility in the real world. For example, while age is technically a social construction (but still based in a characteristic of reality), we use it because it provides us with a level of social utility which justifies our usage of it. I don't think gender in its current state provides such a purpose at all.

While self identification of gender still isn't the end goal, it certainly is an improvement upon (and provides more social utility than) the oppressive force gender is today. People are free to pick a gendered label which they feel most closely represents them. However, as soon as this starts being reflected in law, I oppose it. As soon as it starts redefining sex rather than gender in any capacity, I oppose it. That being said, I do support the social redefinition or gender (but not sex or sexual orientation).

Right now, however, we are there, in which we have, for example, dudes in a relationship calling themselves lesbians and being validated instead of being attacked for sexism, homophobia and appropriation. Because identification is seen as something nobody should criticize.

Yeah that's bad. If it makes you feel any better about this discussion, I will openly admit that I am a homosexual male. There we go, I don't desire to redefine sex or sexual orientation. I'll oppose anyone who tries to do so. I don't think the concept of gender identity is flawed, but that it's current advancement in law and it overwriting the concept of sex is incredibly dangerous and not the way to go about it. It should be something reflected in social usage, not legal usage or in relation to sex.

All that being said, it would be cool if we could talk about this idea itself rather than TRAs, who are vehemently in opposition to the idea I am proposing.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

which they feel most closely represents them

Yeah, but based on what? How can I feel which gender mostly represents me?

RIght now, it' s those stereotypes and roles, but if the goal is to create a World where gender/sex roles don' t exist, what would lead someone to identify as a woman or as a man?

This is what I don' t understand, gender only exists because of those gender/sex roles, if we ever reach a point in our society where these things don' t exist, there won' t be a need for self-id to begin with, because the only thing left would be the reality of sex.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

Yeah, but based on what? How can I feel which gender mostly represents me?

Feelings. That's it, it doesn't need an explanation, just like if I asked why you liked a certain type of music the more I asked "Why?" about the specifics of your music preferences, it would become unexplainable.

there won' t be a need for self-id

Well that's up for society to decide, right, based on what social utility gender as a manner of identification offers people. I would say the impracticalities of having feelings-based gender would ultimately lead to it becoming less used over time (as you said, why have these labels if they aren't useful to socially classify individuals?).

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Feelings. That's it, it doesn't need an explanation, just like if I asked why you liked a certain type of music the more I asked "Why?" about the specifics of your music preferences, it would become unexplainable.

My preferences in music don' t need to be acknowledged or respected by anyone, though. Me preferring heavy metal over raggae doesn' t bring any kind of obligations or niceties coming from other people.

But a person identifying as a woman not only asks/requires third parties to play along, they also seek inclusion in social gatherings limited to women. I am sure you are the kind that goes "whatever, do what you want", but if I have to pretend that a man is a woman, I want an explanation about what makes him identifying as a woman, so that I can decide, based on that explanation, whether or not I am willing to play along. I can' t accept "because I say so" as an explanation. That' s the same thing they are doing now.

I would say the impracticalities of having feelings-based gender would ultimately lead to it becoming less used over time

But as I said, those impracticalities already exist, and in the past few years this insanity not only stayed, it decuplicated and reorganized on other subjects. Not to mention, it became even more militant than it was before. Why do you think this is going to change?

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

My preferences in music don' t need to be acknowledged or respected by anyone, though

Let's not pivot from the original point. You asked what it was based on, and I provided you the explanation: feelings. If it "feels right" for a person to identify as mayonnaise-gender, awesome. Socially speaking, let's regard them as such. No harm involved.

But a person identifying as a woman not only asks/requires third parties to play along, they also seek inclusion in social gatherings limited to women.

Well, I would advocate for spaces and gatherings exclusive to females, making it explicitly and clearly based on sex. Because a female could identify as mayonnaise-gender, and they still need a place to pee and would still need social support/resources for being female. In other words, a male identifying as a woman would not allow her to have access to exclusively female spaces/gatherings.

pretend that a man is a woman

Well no, if we live in a society which uses self identification as a basis for gender, then that "man" would indeed be a woman. No pretending involved.

I can' t accept "because I say so" as an explanation. That' s the same thing they are doing now.

Not really the same thing though. What's happening now is gender identity becoming part of law and sex being redefined, which is not my position.

Also, why can't you accept it? Perhaps it's because we live in a gendered society that places an expectation on individuals that you must be or act a certain way in order to be one gender or another.

I presume you're a gender abolitionist (essentially the only valid feminist position regarding gender). If that's the case, pragmatically speaking, it would be far better to live in a society with identity-based gender rather than one with expectation-based gender, as one is far closer to the goal of gender abolition than the other, and clearly offers a level of social utility to the happiness, well-being, and productivity of individuals. Gender abolition will take centuries. If that's the case, why not make it as useful as possible to people in the meantime?

Why do you think this is going to change?

The reason it has is because of the insanity over redefining sex and legislating self identification laws; in other words, things that are not intrinsic to self identification of gender.

Once again, I don't care what the current standard is, as that's not my current position. I've only advocated for the social transformation of gender to that of gender identity rather than gendered associations and expectations. I've said nothing about law or about redefining sex which are demands of TRAs and not myself.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Let's not pivot from the original point. You asked what it was based on, and I provided you the explanation: feelings. If it "feels right" for a person to identify as mayonnaise-gender, awesome. Socially speaking, let's regard them as such. No harm involved.

You' re the one who brought music into it.

But the point is, if feelings are the basis of it, then they are volatile, imprecise and subjective. Which means that while they can be true for the person who feels them, the people outside need an explanation for that. Someone identifying as something they are not because "it feels good for them" can bring lots of harm to others. Whether laws are involved or not. Cognitive dissonance is a thing that exists: I will never be able to just accept something that is visible incorrect and that I know it' s incorrect because "it feels good for that person".

Well, I would advocate for spaces and gatherings exclusive to females, making it explicitly and clearly based on sex. Because a female could identify as mayonnaise-gender, and they still need a place to pee and would still need social support/resources for being female. In other words, a male identifying as a woman would not allow her to have access to exclusively female spaces/gatherings.

Except the idea that "it feels good, so let me do it" can be applied to literally anything. Why exactly you think sex would be spared is beyond me. Once your mentality is that people are required to play along with complete bullshit because it feels good for someone, there is no limit.

Well no, if we live in a society which uses self identification as a basis for gender, then that "man" would indeed be a woman. No pretending involved.

Except womanhood is not a gender but a sex. Plus, even if it were, words exist to describe something. There is the need to have some basic characteristics associated to that word. So yes, it would be pretending, because the characteristics I associate with womanhood (biology) do not include anyone who is male.

Not really the same thing though. What's happening now is gender identity becoming part of law and sex being redefined, which is not my position.

But everything else is exactly the same. They just took the next step.

Also, why can't you accept it? Perhaps it's because we live in a gendered society that places an expectation on individuals that you must be or act a certain way in order to be one gender or another.

I don' t accept it because womanhood is intrinsically linked to being female. It has nothing to do with gender as far as I am concerned. This idea that womanhood is a gender is something I will never accept, support, or play along with.

I presume you're a gender abolitionist (essentially the only valid feminist position regarding gender). If that's the case, pragmatically speaking, it would be far better to live in a society with identity-based gender rather than one with expectation-based gender, as one is far closer to the goal of gender abolition than the other, and clearly offers a level of social utility to the happiness, well-being, and productivity of individuals.

No, the best thing would be to get rid of it entirely. Not to mention, the self-id gender doesn' timply the abolition of the expectation gender at all. As things are going now, both are going to be the norm and neither of them will be destroyed.

Gender abolition will take centuries. If that's the case, why not make it as useful as possible to people in the meantime?

Because it' s not useful for anyone except gender cultists. It is in fact incRedibly harmful for pretty much everyone.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

But the point is, if feelings are the basis of it, then they are volatile, imprecise and subjective.

Yes, you’re correct! Nothing about gender has or ever will be precise. It’s a bunch of made up, subjective bullshit. I absolutely agree.

Someone identifying as something they are not because "it feels good for them" can bring lots of harm to others. Whether laws are involved or not.

Even if you could provide concrete examples of harm induced by accepting a person (socially) as the gender they identify as, it would not outweigh the harm that gender (in its current form) has caused and will cause. Not only this, but I can point to the plethora of research which suggests that the well-being of transgender people is greatly improved when we accept them socially as the gender they identify as. Harm reduction is incredibly vital to the end goal of gender abolition.

The issue you seem to be experiencing here is not with an identity basis for gender, but with legal and legislative policy being changed to revolve around gender identity.

I will never be able to just accept something that is visible incorrect and that I know it' s incorrect because "it feels good for that person".

This sentence is incredibly problematic. Gender is not physiologically or biologically conceptualized, therefore there is not an objective basis to one’s gender and there is no “visible” incorrect nature of being one gender or another. Are you really unironically going for the feels-over-reals line of reasoning here? “I know it’s incorrect” is one of the most dogmatic things I have heard coming from a supporter of GC ideology.

Except the idea that "it feels good, so let me do it" can be applied to literally anything. Why exactly you think sex would be spared is beyond me.

“It feels good, so let me do it” is an oversimplification of my position, though. The primary reasoning for acceptance of one’s gender based on self identification is the social utility that it provides over gender based on expression/stereotypes.

Sex has a specific social utility that far outweighs any kind of benefit “self-identified sex” (???) might potentially offer. Gender does not offer any social utility as an oppressive force; however, because it is a social construction, we can shape it in such a way that is least harmful as we fight for gender abolitionist causes.

Except womanhood is not a gender but a sex.

I’d rather not get into the prescriptivist language aspect of this discussion. It doesn’t go anywhere. Long story short: Terms like “man” and “woman” wouldn’t exist in a postgenderist society.

Plus, even if it were, words exist to describe something.

Yes, words certainly are used to describe something, but they are also used for the purposes of social utility. If “woman” and “female” are the same, I would go as far to argue that having both terms is completely unpragmatic, and we should select one or the other in our social usage. I would be more inclined to believe “female” should be used over “woman” in the sense that “female” is more closely associated with biological and physiological phenomenon, and therefore would provide more social utility in a post-gender society.

But everything else is exactly the same. They just took the next step.

No, they extrapolated ideas from gender identity and are applying them to biological sex. Gender being replaced with gender identity and sex being replaced with “sex identity” (???) is not comparable, as I described above, based on social utility that each of these terms provides in separate contexts.

No, the best thing would be to get rid of it entirely

Right, that’s why I said:

“Pragmatically speaking, it would be far better to live in a society with identity-based gender rather than one with expectation-based gender, as one is far closer to the goal of gender abolition than the other, and clearly offers a level of social utility to the happiness, well-being, and productivity of individuals.”

I am not saying identity-based gender is the end goal, just that it is better than living in an expectation-based gendered society. This is the same issue I take with the whole “Trump vs Biden” debate I have with people on the left. We have two attainable choices right now and in this very moment. Evidently, Biden is objectively better than Trump. Similarly, identity-based gender is objectively better than expectation-based gender (because of social utility). Harm reductionism is incredibly vital to this discussion.

Not to mention, the self-id gender doesn' timply the abolition of the expectation gender at all

Yes it does. Self identification of gender is entirely rooted in “if you identify as X gender, you are X gender”. There is no implication of gendered associations in that. The goal is to replace expectation-based gender with identity-based gender. Right now, we’re in an awkward state of being in between these two conflicting bases of gender, because trans rights are only more recently hitting the mainstream.

Because it' s not useful for anyone except gender cultists.

As mentioned before, the social utility of accepting trans people as the gender they identify as far outweighs any kind of potential harm that might possibly come about from identity-based gender.

It is in fact incRedibly harmful for pretty much everyone.

What are some concrete examples of harm induced by identity-based gender, that outweighs the benefits it has compared to the current status quo regarding gender? Also, these concrete examples need to be something directly induced by identity-based gender, not something caused by the TRA desire to redefine sex or to make self-identification part of legislation and law, as those are completely separate issues.