GC: How problematic is accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man if they pass well enough? And what problems does that bring?

submitted by Tea_Or_Coffee from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So what do you think? How problematic is accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man if they pass well enough?

Extremely problematic, because sex is biologically determined. Not problematic if we agree that trans women are trans women and trans men are trans men -- that's a social definition, not a biological one. (How we organize society around that understanding is a different and very long convo.)

Is it just a matter of opinion that people can not be born in the wrong sex or body?

Completely. It's a metaphysical argument.

Is there proof that people can not be born in the wrong sex or body?

No. It's still a metaphysical argument; we have no evidence that consciousness is "sexed."

Is it hateful, rude and disrespectful to call a man who identifies and passes as a woman a man, or a woman who identifies and passes as a man a woman?

Biologically, no -- if by "call" you mean "categorize." That's a scientific process.

Socially, yes -- if by "call" you mean "punitively misgender." That's a social convention.

Did accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man have any effect on what we see trans right activists do now?

Without question.

And what were these effects?

A dangerous denial of science.

ETA bonus considerations:

They also think gender is not problematic, it does not reduce people to sexist roles because humans are realistically bags of meat.

That's a materialistic interpretation of humanity. Compare with the metaphysical argument; they can't be held simultaneously.

Because there is no proof people can be born in the wrong sex, and there is no proof people can not be born in the wrong sex, believing people can or can not be born in the wrong body or sex is just a matter of opinion?

You've got it. It's an opinion, though it's sometimes advanced as a metaphysical argument.

Also, "passing" is a vague concept for them to be using. It's probably better to make a distinction based on self-ID ("I am whatever I say I am, and you must accept the assertion") and medical transitioning ("I am therapeutically presenting as the other sex in response to profound GD, and I ask you to socially support the presentation").

The commenters do not think that accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man has led to the current situation.

It absolutely has. Self-IDing and its aggressive support strategies have largely created the current situation.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Socially, yes -- if by "call" you mean "punitively misgender." That's a social convention.

Then everyone should socially call a man who identifies and passes as a woman a woman, or a woman who identifies and passes as a man a man because otherwise it would be rude, disrespectful and hateful?

Completely. It's a metaphysical argument.

No. It's still a metaphysical argument; we have no evidence that consciousness is "sexed."

I agree we have no evidence consciousness or brain is sexed, but if we have no evidence consciousness and brain are not sexed either, how do we move forward? We are stuck in the middle with no information.

A dangerous denial of science.

Can you elaborate more on this please? If you could, with analogies maybe?

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then everyone should socially call a man who identifies and passes as a woman a woman, or a woman who identifies and passes as a man a man because otherwise it would be rude, disrespectful and hateful?

"Should?" No. Several reasons:

In the U.S., that would be considered "compelled speech." There is also a critical question of Constitutional law (First Amendment) over the intersection of congressional mandates and the practices and conventions of a citizen's religion. This is currently playing out here in the courts.

Outside the U.S., that question will be determined by sovereign national governments and the membership-guided influence of international bodies. Law, policy, and response will vary widely -- consider the recent actions of policing bodies in Scotland censuring rudeness on social media. It's impossible to impose a global legal or political "should" on speech, and questionable at best to socially compel that across cultures.

I agree we have no evidence consciousness or brain is sexed, but if we have no evidence consciousness and brain are not sexed either, how do we move forward? We are stuck in the middle with no information.

That's the question, isn't it? We're operating on best evidence, and in some fields (consciousness studies) evidence moves slowly.

Can you elaborate more on this please? If you could, with analogies maybe?

Everything I've already said here about biology, medicine, and first principles of evidence covers that.

(ETA if anyone wants to poke around consciousness studies, my personal favorite program is at The Johns Hopkins University -- be warned, its orientation is clinical and therapeutic, not philosophical.)