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 →

[–]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.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

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.

If it' s bullshit, then it should be treated as such. It shouldn' t be used as the basis of social interactions.

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.

So trans people first, fuck all the others. Who cares if saying things you don' t believe brings harm to anyone, the well being of trans people comes first!!!!!

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.

No, the issues I would be experiencing would be based on having to say things I don' t want to say. And pretending to believe things I do not believe in. ALl of this for the sake of other people who couldn' t give a lesser shit about my well being.

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.

I am not talking about gender, I am talking about sex. A woman is a person who belongs to a certain sex category. A male who identifies as a woman is not a woman.

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.

Do you think a male who identifies as a woman is female?

“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.

It only brings social utility to the 0, 6% of the population.

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.

If we can shape it, then it means that every single person can behave in regards to it however they want. I choose to shape it in a way in which gender is considered bullshit and treated as such, instead of something that should be played along with.

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.

Yes, they would: they would describe what they have always described, which is an adult human fe/male.

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.

They aren' t the same: female is used to describe non-adult and non-human individuals who belong to the female category.

“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.”

The productivity and happiness you are talking about are limited to the ones of people who would give a damn about this. I would definitely not be happy in a world where I have to call a man a woman.

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.

You are talking to someone who doesn' t vote in AMerican elections, but if she did, she wouldn' t vote for either candidate. I don' t believe harm reductionism should be a goal in these specific cases. Destroying both systems and replacing it with something else would be better, and I would fight for that.

Yes it does. Self identification of gender is entirely rooted in “if you identify as X gender, you are X gender”.

What I meant is that using one doesn' t mean that the other is going away. Just that some people will use it.

As mentioned before, the social utility of socially 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.

And I said before, this is your own opinion based on the fact that you want it to happen.

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?

You don' t have concrete examples of it being beneficial either. All you have is a bunch of trans people saying that they are happy. Which is not concrete, not provable, not measurable and not objective. It is all based on feelings, and if it is based on feelings, then the feelings of the people who would be happy to not follow your plan are as valid as the feelings of trans people following it.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

If it' s bullshit, then it should be treated as such. It shouldn' t be used as the basis of social interactions.

Right. But unfortunately, we live in a gendered society, not a postgenderist one. Gender abolition is going to take centuries. In the meantime, we should be modifying the social construction of gender to be least oppressive, and least harmful.

So trans people first, fuck all the others. Who cares if saying things you don' t believe brings harm to anyone, the well being of trans people comes first!!!!!

Given your inability to provide concrete examples thus far, you aren’t able to make this argument. Transgender people would benefit from an identity-based gendered society, GNC people would benefit, natal women and natal men would benefit, literally everyone would benefit from a transition away from expression-based gender to identity-based gender.

No, the issues I would be experiencing would be based on having to say things I don' t want to say. And pretending to believe things I do not believe in.

Why are you so triggered right now? Good grief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Like I said several times, I’m against self identification legislation, which includes things like compelled speech/misgendering. You can do whatever you want, you can choose to misgender trans people if you’d like, however, you’d be epistemologically incorrect in a world which accepts gender is rooted in self identification.

I am not talking about gender, I am talking about sex. A woman is a person who belongs to a certain sex category. A male who identifies as a woman is not a woman.

Got it. Unironic feels-over-reals. “Woman” would not exist in a postgenderist society. “Man” would not exist in a postgenderist society. They are entirely products of a gendered society.

Do you think a male who identifies as a woman is female?

No. A male who identifies as a woman, is a woman, but not female.

It only brings social utility to the 0, 6% of the population.

Is your argument really “minorities don’t matter”? Really? Given your inability to show how it negatively impacts the other 99.4% of the population, I absolutely support something which brings social utility to 0.6% of the population.

I choose to shape it in a way in which gender is considered bullshit and treated as such, instead of something that should be played along with.

That’s good, fuck gender. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a gender-free society, and it matters to almost the entirety of the population. These labels matter significantly to people. Hence why gender abolition is centuries away. Furthermore, why harm reduction through identity-based gender should be undertaken in the meantime.

Yes, they would: they would describe what they have always described, which is an adult human fe/male.

I’m not interested in GC prescriptivism. Moving on from this aspect of the discussion.

They aren' t the same

Perfect. You can stop right there! You’re right.

The productivity and happiness you are talking about are limited to the ones of people who would give a damn about this.

I’m sick of repeating myself, so see above points on social utility.

I would definitely not be happy in a world where I have to call a man a woman.

I am strongly against compelled speech, so we can end this aspect of the discussion. My position does not include demanding people by force to gender trans people correctly. That being said, I don’t care, sorry. The “harm” of your limited unhappiness does not override the harm induced by not accepting transgender individuals in the social sense, as well as the transition to identity-based gender.

You are talking to someone who doesn' t vote in AMerican elections, but if she did, she wouldn' t vote for either candidate. I don' t believe harm reductionism should be a goal in these specific cases. Destroying both systems and replacing it with something else would be better, and I would fight for that.

I’m inclined to agree that a brand new system is ideal; however, we don’t have that option right now. We have to look at the material conditions of this very moment, not some utopian future. While we can hope for a better world, we have to accept the conditions we are a part of, and that includes understanding that harm reduction in electoralism is the only thing we can do in that regard. Of course, I’m for direct political action and the like, but it is self evident that Trump is a worse candidate than Biden. Therefore, we can do both: harm reductionism and fighting for something better. I appreciate your consistency, though.

What I meant is that using one doesn' t mean that the other is going away. Just that some people will use it.

Oh no, it absolutely does. Gender being the binary of men/masculinity and women/femininity is not compatible with gender identity. Identity-based gender is not a binary. And of course only some people will use it at first. You think it’ll be easier to detach people completely from gender right away? Of course not.

And I said before, this is your own opinion based on the fact that you want it to happen.

It’s a fact-of-the-matter that the social utility of socially accepting trans people as the gender they identify as outweighs any kind of potential harm that might come from identity-based gender. Of course, you have yet to provide a concrete example of “harm” induced by gender identity which is inflicted upon most people.

You don' t have concrete examples of it being beneficial either.

I love how your argument has now succumbed to “no u”.

You have 0 concrete examples, 0 data backing your claims. Meanwhile, if you’d like to, I can provide you a plethora of research which directly shows that trans people are positively impacted by being socially accepted. Meanwhile, you’d need to present evidence that there is evident harm against everyone else that somehow outweighs the harm not accepting trans people would cause.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Right. But unfortunately, we live in a gendered society, not a postgenderist one. Gender abolition is going to take centuries. In the meantime, we should be modifying the social construction of gender to be least oppressive, and least harmful.

That' s your prerogative, I refuse to do it. I will keep acting like gender and self-id are idiotic and dangerous and I will keep not respecting them and criticizing at any given chance.

Given your inability to provide concrete examples thus far, you aren’t able to make this argument. Transgender people would benefit from an identity-based gendered society, GNC people would benefit, natal women and natal men would benefit, literally everyone would benefit from a transition away from expression-based gender to identity-based gender.

You can' t prove anything either. And again, I wouldn' t benefit from it, so it' s not "literally anyone".

Why are you so triggered right now? Good grief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Awesome!

Like I said several times, I’m against self identification legislation, which includes things like compelled speech/misgendering. You can do whatever you want, you can choose to misgender trans people if you’d like, however, you’d be epistemologically incorrect in a world which accepts gender is rooted in self identification.

Thankfully that world will never exist. So I won' t have to worry about being "epistemologically" incorrect.

Got it. Unironic feels-over-reals. “Woman” would not exist in a postgenderist society. “Man” would not exist in a postgenderist society. They are entirely products of a gendered society.

Nope.

No. A male who identifies as a woman, is a woman, but not female.

Great: my definition of woman cannot exist without female biology. So a male cannot be a woman.

Is your argument really “minorities don’t matter”? Really? Given your inability to show how it negatively impacts the other 99.4% of the population, I absolutely support something which brings social utility to 0.6% of the population.

Well, I don' t. Not this. We aren' t talking about something that can indeed bring benefits, no matter how much you cry about it, or something that is literally not a big deal. This is both a huge deal and something that will bring problems.

I am strongly against compelled speech, so we can end this aspect of the discussion. My position does not include demanding people by force to gender trans people correctly. That being said, I don’t care, sorry. The “harm” of your limited unhappiness does not override the harm induced by not accepting transgender individuals in the social sense, as well as the transition to identity-based gender.

So, just to make it clear, you don' t care about the harm you are going to bring, but I should care about the harm I am going to bring. Got it.

Oh no, it absolutely does.

Wow, you see the future? That' s an awesome super-power!!!!

You have 0 concrete examples, 0 data backing your claims. Meanwhile, if you’d like to, I can provide you a plethora of research which directly shows that trans people are positively impacted by being socially accepted. Meanwhile, you’d need to present evidence that there is evident harm against everyone else that somehow outweighs the harm not accepting trans people would cause.

The only data you have is reports of trans people' s words. That is not objective or concrete in the fucking least. Just because it was written on a study, it doesn' t mean it' s true when it' s literally based on feelings. Even if it were true, just because it' s better for trans people it doesn' t mean it' s better in general. You can' t know it because it' s never happened, so you can' t have anything to compare your utopic ideas with what would indeed happen.

That said, let' s make it easy: I am not going to use your system or support your ideas. Ever. I don' t care if it hurts trans people, I prefer being able to call a man a man. So go on trying to make that world happen: I am glad that, if it ever happens, I will be long dead and I won' t have to live in it.

Good night.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The only data you have is reports of trans people' s words. That is not objective or concrete in the fucking least.

I have more than just reports of trans people's words. I have mortality rates, literal statistical facts seen continuously across the vast majority of academic literature.

Now, where is your data showing harm against everyone else? You cry about being "harmed" but can't exemplify a single example. Your data doesn't exist, your entire argument is based in feelings. You are the epitome of the feels-over-reals caricature.

I don' t care if it hurts trans people

Awesome. According to you "minorities don't matter" just as I mentioned earlier. Mask off. Or not really, you've been this way the whole conversation.

You can' t know it because it' s never happened

Wait this works in my favor. You're admitting to having no data on the claim you're making. Therefore, the social utility brought about to 0.6% of the population is justified, unless you can prove that there is more harm done to everyone else.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have more than just reports of trans people's words. I have mortality rates, literal statistical facts seen continuously across the vast majority of academic literature.

All of those are still based on feelings. You can' t be sure that those mortality rates were caused by these people being trans.

Now, where is your data showing harm against everyone else? You cry about being "harmed" but can't exemplify a single example.

As I already said, if the basis of it is feelings, I can tell you that I feel harmed. You keep asking for data that describes feelings and refuse to accept the data I am directly providing about myself. Proof that it' s only certain people' s feelings you care about. It' s the same for me, by the way, but the fact that you act like you' re the one on the high horse and you' re saving the World by doing it is grating to be generous.

Awesome. According to you "minorities don't matter" just as I mentioned earlier. Mask off. Or not really, you've been this way the whole conversation.

I actually care about minorities when the issues they have are not "Uééééééééééééé, I become suicidal if you don' t pretend reality doesn' t exist for my sake!". In that case, yeah, I don' t care.

Wait this works in my favor. You're admitting to having no data on the claim you're making. Therefore, the social utility brought about to 0.6% of the population is justified, unless you can prove that there is more harm done to everyone else.

I have no idea how you managed to make that leap. So I will make it even easier here: neither of us knows whether the change we are advocating for will bring benefits or not because, since neither social scenario has ever happened, we cannot make premonitions about how it is going to turn out. Both of us have opinions on what would happen: one of us might be right, both of us could be wrong, we simply do not know.

All we know is that you will keep whining about how that 0, 6% needs to be prioritized, and I will keep saying that I don' t give a damn about their feelings. And we will keep acting accordingly.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Given your inability to provide concrete examples thus far, you aren’t able to make this argument.

I feel like the only examples needed are that sex-based oppression is real and happens because of sex and sex-based socialization. If you remove the ability to discuss sex by taking the words away to describe an adult female or a female child, we aren’t able to talk about the problem and organize against it. That seems like an obvious harm to women. It also obscures who is doing the harm and who is being harmed.

Transgender people would benefit from an identity-based gendered society, GNC people would benefit, natal women and natal men would benefit, literally everyone would benefit from a transition away from expression-based gender to identity-based gender.

Please explain how anyone other than some subset of trans people (and I say subset because I don’t see how it would benefit me or others like me) would benefit. Why can’t people just be how they are rather than have to assign themselves a box?

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If you remove the ability to discuss sex by taking the words away to describe an adult female or a female child, we aren’t able to talk about the problem and organize against it.

If "woman" is about sex there wouldn't be so much talk about "socialization" playing such a heavy role in what it means to be a woman. My position is that terms such as "woman" and "man" would not exist in a postgenderist society, because they are solely dependent upon the sociocultural and historical understanding of gender which exists in one place or another. Therefore, it would be not only more pragmatic, but also more accurate to use "female" in relation to sex and sex-based oppression.

It also obscures who is doing the harm and who is being harmed.

Not really? What specifically can I not accurately explain about the concept of sex-based oppression from the perspective of QT which is an obscurity compared to that of the GC perspective? (Aside from personal experience, which I do not have with regard to sex-based oppression)

Please explain how anyone other than some subset of trans people (and I say subset because I don’t see how it would benefit me or others like me) would benefit. Why can’t people just be how they are rather than have to assign themselves a box?

We live in a heavily gendered society, I don't think anyone disagrees with this. This is due to the fact that gender is expression-based and expectation-based. This is harmful to everyone who lives under it, because we are restricted from being who we are. That being said, gender abolition should be a long term end goal; however, the ends don't always justify the means.

Culturally speaking, society is not ready to let go of gender in its entirety. This is why we have this clash of identity vs expression in gender right now, and confusion around gendered language and conflations of these ideas with biological realities. Most people in society currently would not be willing to drop the social construction of gender because they have been socialized to believe we need it. Therefore, an adverse reaction to things such as gender abolition.

Wouldn't it be easier to work with identity-based gender, where anyone can be who they are and ascribe whichever label they wish for themselves, to reach the long term goal of gender abolition? Pragmatically and from a harm reduction perspective, this seems to be most ideal.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If "woman" is about sex there wouldn't be so much talk about "socialization" playing such a heavy role in what it means to be a woman. My position is that terms such as "woman" and "man" would not exist in a postgenderist society, because they are solely dependent upon the sociocultural and historical understanding of gender which exists in one place or another. Therefore, it would be not only more pragmatic, but also more accurate to use "female" in relation to sex and sex-based oppression.

Woman is about sex. Like everything else, society makes assumptions about people based on what they are, but that is just baggage attached to a word that means nothing other the fact that someone is a female and an adult. Trying to get rid of the baggage seems like the better thing to do rather make it only about the baggage. Unless you think somehow the majority of female people would stop identifying as women in your scenario, you would be actively making things worse for them, by naturalizing that females who don’t identify out of womanhood accepting the baggage (especially since you’ve previously said you think there is a biological cause for gender dysphoria).

Not really? What specifically can I not accurately explain about the concept of sex-based oppression from the perspective of QT which is an obscurity compared to that of the GC perspective? (Aside from personal experience, which I do not have with regard to sex-based oppression)

If anyone can be a woman and it’s just an identity then male violence perpetrated by males who identify as women will not be seen as the sex-based violence that it is. It is something that is already happening. When transwomen commit violent crimes and sexual crimes against women or children, they are often reported as a woman committing a crime against another women or a child. We won’t be able to accurate statistics about these type of violence and be able to correctly identify is because of changing theses words to be about identity rather than sex.

Wouldn't it be easier to work with identity-based gender, where anyone can be who they are and ascribe whichever label they wish for themselves, to reach the long term goal of gender abolition?

I don’t think so because the categories will still be prescribed for most people. If you try to make woman about something other than being a female it will make it harder for females (unless you think they all will de-identify, which seems unlikely if not impossible). Same for males (especially GNC ones). I feel like the goal of abolishing gender would be better served by making any sort of baggage around sex less naturalized rather than more naturalized. Women and men, boys and girls, can come in millions of varieties and that is fine. I feel like I would have had an easier childhood if that had been the message. If someone really feels like they want a label for their gender, they can make one up that isn’t already a sex word.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

baggage attached to a word that means nothing other the fact that someone is a female and an adult.

Do you think words can change meanings, or are there specific definitions we should follow prescriptively speaking?

Trying to get rid of the baggage seems like the better thing to do rather make it only about the baggage

My position is the removal of both physiological and socialized concepts attached to gendered terminology. I don't think there's a pragmatic usage to gender as a concept outside of its sociocultural expectations, nor terms such as "man" or "woman," which only exist as a result of living in a gendered society.

especially since you’ve previously said you think there is a biological cause for gender dysphoria

I don't believe there is a biological cause to gender dysphoria, if I said that previously I mistyped. Gender dysphoria is entirely a product of an individual being socialized in a gendered society. I would contrast this with "sex dysphoria" which is more rooted in physiological phenomenon, but might also have some socialized/learned causes as well.

We won’t be able to accurate statistics about these type of violence and be able to correctly identify is because of changing theses words to be about identity rather than sex.

Use "male" and "female" as a means to classify crimes and violence. My position is for identity-based gender in the social context, not in the legal context. There are ways to aggregate this data appropriately under this proposition, and I don't see how this is any more or any less accurate or more obscure than any GC take on this particular issue.

If you try to make woman about something other than being a female it will make it harder for females

But the question is how? I've mentioned in previous comments on this thread that I do not support self-id based legislation and I strongly advocate for using terms such as male or female in specific contexts (medical, crime stats, violence, prison systems, etc). Only in the social context would these terms (like man and woman) be based in identity. I'm failing to see where things become more obscure in terms describing sex-based oppression.

That being said, I'm not female so I will never have a complete understanding of such oppression; however, in the sense of describing it as an issue, I don't see how QT is more or less accurate than GC in this particular position I have taken.

I would go further to argue that GC actually obscures the oppression many trans individuals face in society, in the sense that their oppression is analyzed from the birth sex of the individual, which isn't always reflective of the lived experiences of said individual. Therefore, if we're talking about obscurity and inaccuracies, I would argue QT does a better job at avoiding such obscurities.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Do you think words can change meanings, or are there specific definitions we should follow prescriptively speaking?

I feel like words can change meanings, but I’m speaking about what the word means now and how it is used.

I don't think there's a pragmatic usage to gender as a concept outside of its sociocultural expectations, nor terms such as "man" or "woman," which only exist as a result of living in a gendered society.

I agree with the first part, but not the second part. Man and woman are words that describe adult human beings of a certain sex the same way buck and doe describe deer of a certain sex.

Use "male" and "female" as a means to classify crimes and violence. My position is for identity-based gender in the social context, not in the legal context. There are ways to aggregate this data appropriately under this proposition, and I don't see how this is any more or any less accurate or more obscure than any GC take on this particular issue.

I feel like the problem is that these things don’t exist in a vacuum. If you change the social meaning of words, it will change the way things are recorded, like in the examples I provided. We are already seeing this both formally and informally. We can wish it wasn’t the case, but if you say that someone is a woman because they identify as one and it helps if you treat them and address them that way, you can’t expect people not to codify those things. I don’t think you can just separate those things and say you support one and not the other because one leads to the other.

But the question is how?

I feel like it’s naturalizing gender roles. If you take an existing word like woman that means adult human female but also has behavioral expectations and stereotypes attached to it and say that this male person is also that, the only conclusions that makes sense, because the person is male, is that they are a woman due to fitting into some other part of the definition (the baggage). It emphasizes the importance of that baggage to being a woman and works against the long term feminist goal of our sex just being a neutral thing that has nothing to do with behavior, personality, career choices, etc. I feel like butch and gender nonconforming women are already experiencing being asked their pronouns or pressured to identify as trans in a way they weren’t years earlier because of the way trans identities reinforce stereotypes. If someone wants to define themselves with a gender word, I think that is fine, but they should choose one that isn’t already forced onto half the population.

GC actually obscures the oppression many trans individuals face in society, in the sense that their oppression is analyzed from the birth sex of the individual, which isn't always reflective of the lived experiences of said individual.

That could true, but I don’t think it makes sense to harm females just so aspects of my life would be understood slightly better.