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 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 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 -  (3 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.