you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chronicity[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (62 children)

Nope, I’m not using trans as a modifier of woman; that’s what you and others are doing when you assert TW are a subset of women.

The issue comes down to this question: what definition of transwoman allows someone to be a one without contradicting the idea that anyone can be a woman regardless of their physique or appearance?

Definition #1: Anyone who identifies as a transwoman is a transwoman. Problem: Can a human female be one? If yes, then trans is meaningless and there’s no reason to assign it any sociopolitical significance. If no, then this definition is wrong.

Definition #2: An adult human male who identifies as an adult human female. Problem: Can a human female be one? If yes, then this definition is wrong. If no, then this violates the tenet that anyone can be a woman regardless of physique and appearance.

You are saying “trans” is an adjective for woman, but it’s not. Compare how it works with the adjective “tall”.

“Tall woman” communicates “adult human female of above average height”. Take away the last four words and what do you have left? A woman.

“Transwoman” communicates “adult human male who identifies as a human female”. Take away the last six words and what do you have left? A man. All “trans” is doing is flipping the meaning to the opposite word.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (61 children)

Firstly, I would never use the word "transwoman". When I talk about a "trans woman" I am using the word "trans" which is a shortened version of the adjective, "transgender". To smash the two words together like that invites exactly the kind of misunderstanding that you seem to have here, but I'll see if I can clarify.

Because of this, the question:

The issue comes down to this question: what definition of transwoman allows someone to be a one without contradicting the idea that anyone can be a woman regardless of their physique or appearance?

Is a bit of a non starter. I would not use the word "transwoman" and I do not believe that anyone can be a "trans woman" regardless of their physique or appearance, except in the most technical sense.

To be a "trans woman" a person must (a) be trans, and (b) be a woman.

A person is trans if they identify with a different gender than the one that was assigned to them at birth. As for being a woman, I imagine that this is actually where we differ.

You are saying “trans” is an adjective for woman, but it’s not. Compare how it works with the adjective “tall”.

“Tall woman” communicates “adult human female of above average height”. Take away the last four words and what do you have left? A woman.

“Transwoman” communicates “adult human male who identifies as a human female”. Take away the last six words and what do you have left? A man. All “trans” is doing is flipping the meaning to the opposite word.

This seems to be a fundamental part of your misunderstanding. When I talk about a "tall woman" I am not talking about an "adult human female of above average height", I am talking about a person who identifies as a woman who is above average height.

Similarly, when I talk about a "trans woman" I am talking about a person who identifies as a woman and whose gender identity is different from the one that they were assigned at birth. The word "trans" doesn't change the meaning of the word "woman" at all.

The way that you are using the word "woman" (aka adult human female) a "trans woman" would be an adult human female whose gender identity is different from the one that they were assigned at birth.

[–]Chronicity[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (60 children)

This seems to be a fundamental part of your misunderstanding. When I talk about a "tall woman" I am not talking about an "adult human female of above average height", I am talking about a person who identifies as a woman who is above average height.

The problem with this is no one believes you actually do this. Because human beings don’t operate in the world in this way. When I describe someone as a woman or man, child or adult, tall or short, etc. I’m not basing my description on their self-identification. Identity is irrelevant. I’m basing it on how I perceive them empirically. Everyone does; it’s how our species has managed to survive for eons.

It is interesting that you seem to get how this works for “tall” but not for “woman”. Why is your concept of “tall woman” a person who identifies as a woman who is of above average height, rather than a person who identifies as a woman who identifies as above average height? You are treating height as a objective trait but not the status of being female or male/woman or man.

How do you not see you are erasing women’s existence as a biologically defined class that is materially distinct from men? What is stopping you from seeing how you’re only enabling misogynistic patriarchy by redefining womanhood into complete meaninglessness just so that men can take power from us? Do you just not care how dystopian your logic is to most people?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (59 children)

I’m basing it on how I perceive them empirically. Everyone does;

So am I, I thought that went without saying.

You are (supposedly) basing it on your perception of their sex. You can't actually perceive their sex, but you can intuit it with some level of accuracy. I am basing it on my perception of their identity. I can't actually perceive their identity, but I can intuit it with some level of accuracy.

It is interesting that you seem to get how this works for “tall” but not for “woman”. Why is your concept of “tall woman” a person who identifies as a woman who is of above average height, rather than a person who identifies as a woman who identifies as above average height?

Because "tall" isn't an identity and "woman" is. Not everything is an identity. Most things aren't.

How do you not see you are erasing {adult human female}'s existence as a biologically defined class that is materially distinct from {adult human males}?

Because I'm not. Those two classes don't stop existing because we don't use particular mouth noises to refer to them.

What is stopping you from seeing how you’re only enabling misogynistic patriarchy by redefining womanhood into complete meaninglessness just so that men can take power from us?

I'm not redefining anything. I don't get to choose how words are defined. I'm just describing the world as I experience it.

Do you just not care how dystopian your logic is to most people?

I really don't see how it is dystopian. Maybe you can help me understand.

[–]Chronicity[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (51 children)

You are (supposedly) basing it on your perception of their sex. You can't actually perceive their sex, but you can intuit it with some level of accuracy. I am basing it on my perception of their identity. I can't actually perceive their identity, but I can intuit it with some level of accuracy.

Of course we can perceive sex. All sexually reproducing animals can do this instinctively; it is what enables efficient procreation. Otherwise we’d be making babies by bonking each other indiscriminately. Lions wouldn’t know which lions to fight to the death and which ones to woo. Sorting people by sex is not even a skill, it’s just that basic. And I feel like I’ve lost 10 IQ points just explaining this.

Because "tall" isn't an identity and "woman" is. Not everything is an identity. Most things aren't.

A bunch of fetishists unilaterally decided “woman” is a identity that can be put on like an anime costume, meanwhile you ignore the viewpoints of billions of women that know they are such because of their reproductive biology and their history of being targeted for oppression because of that biology. And you struggle to see how this isn’t misogynistic patriarchy? You’re like that Somalian pirate saying “I’m the captain now”. No, you’re not; you’re just a pirate doing bad things.

You’re right that most things aren’t a matter of identity. Because it’s a faulty way of classifying people in a material world. I don’t have diabetes because I identify that way. I don’t have brown eyes because I identity that way. I’m not American because I identify that way. Im not a woman because I identify that way. I’m a woman because I’m an adult human in the female sex class.

You don’t have the right to redefine what it means to be a woman to suit male interests.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (50 children)

Of course we can perceive sex.

What do you think sex is if you think it can be perceived? How does a person perceive it?

meanwhile you ignore the viewpoints of billions of women that know they are such because of their reproductive biology and their history of being targeted for oppression because of that biology

How am I ignoring the viewpoints of millions of women and their history? What did I say to make you think that I am ignoring those things?

You don’t have the right to redefine what it means to be a woman to suit male interests.

On this we agree. No one has the right (or, indeed, the ability) to redefine words to suit their interests.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

No one has the right (or, indeed, the ability) to redefine words to suit their interests.

LOL, except throughout this thread you've been redefining words - particularly the word woman - to suit your interests and the interests of other gender vendors. I and many posters have repeatedly told you that since the word woman was invented, the universally agreed-upon definition has been that woman is a human being who is female. To wit:

The female of the human race.

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=woman

An adult female human being

https://www.oed.com/oed2/00286737

An adult female human

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/woman

But you keep insisting that everyone from Samuel Johnson to the OED to medical science are dead wrong. You keep saying that a woman can be either sex, because to you a woman is merely a chosen "identity" that has nothing to do with having a female body. You explicitly deny that the word woman refers to sex or can be connected to a person's physical sex:

If you interpret any statement that I have made about the word "woman" to be using it to refer to sex you are misunderstanding my intent.

In fact, to you it's actually easier for a misogynistic, sexist male with a sick male sexual fetish, mean male masturbation habit who has fathered children to be a woman than it is for feminist female who rejects sexist genderism to be a woman. According to you, females who reject genderism can't be women even if we have experienced pregnancy and given birth to children - but males who've fathered children like Jan Morris, Rachel Levine, Jennifer Finney-Boylan, C Jenner and oodles more, they're all women! Because according to you, being a woman has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, it's entirely based on believing in the sexist, misogynistic ideology you believe in and accepting and embracing a second-class social status:

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

I have no interest in redefining words. As I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread, what I am doing is describing my experience of how I have grown up using the word and how I see others around me use it. I have also been clear on the fact that this is not the only usage and that "adult human female" is another valid usage of the word.

According to you, females who reject genderism can't be women even if we have experienced pregnancy and given birth to children

I don't know what "genderism" is supposed to be, but I can assure you that I do not believe that a person has to have any particular belief system to be a woman.

according to you, being a woman has nothing whatsoever to do with biology

Being a woman is absolutely to do with biology. Both because there is another meaning of the word that refers exclusively to this, and because biology is one of the key things that defines the female social role.

it's entirely based on believing in the sexist, misogynistic ideology you believe in

What sexist, misogynistic ideology is that?

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

Oh c'mon, now you're just playing games. Pretending that you haven't said the absurd, incredibly sexist, misogynistic things you've said in multiple posts throughout this thread and putting on a faux naive act. You probably opened your eyes real wide, put a hand to your chest and made a point of batting your eyelashes in an OTT, theatrical way meant to denote feigned innocence and ignorance when you typed

I don't know what "genderism" is supposed to be

What sexist, misogynistic ideology is that?

The only thing you forgot is the UwU.

[–]rubberdubberd00 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I would suggest that you take this as an opportunity to reflect on the attitude that you've come into this discussion with.

The fact that you have a "feeling" that my ideas are misogynistic / sexist but can't find any examples of my having actually said anything that fits that profile suggests to me that you are reading my into my comments with some kind of pre-existing bias.

I sense we're done here, but something to think about.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

Can you give me one example of a thing that I said that was sexist?

[–]Chronicity[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

What do you think sex is if you think it can be perceived? How does a person perceive it?

Sex is what distinguishes variants of a species that have essential roles in sexual reproduction. Females are in the class that produce large gametes (ova) and males are members of the class that produces small gametes (sperm). Human bodies are organized differently depending on which sex class they are in, because female and male mammals play very different roles in reproduction. In addition to ova production, human females gestate and lactate. Human males produce sperm and insemminate. This makes human males and females quite different from one another morphologically, and this is apparent both internally and externally.

The question really isn’t “How do we perceive sex?” The better question is “Why wouldn’t we be able to perceive sex?” Sex is fundamental to life; none of us would be here if our ancestors couldn’t ascertain it by sight, smell, and sound. For most of our evolutionary history, early death was the rule not the exception. To offset high mortality rates, humanity evolved to reproduce as efficiently possible. We wouldn’t have been able to do that if we were bumbling around not knowing which member of the species possesses the gametes that complement our own. Primary and secondary sex characteristics (genitalia, developed breasts, facial hair, musculature, etc) are extremely reliable cues as to who has what gametes. In other words, sex.

So why wouldn’t be able to perceive sex when its foundational to reproduction? Do you doubt other animals have this ability?Here’s a study that shows this ability has a neurological basis in mice. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220121124421.htm

How am I ignoring the viewpoints of millions of women and their history? What did I say to make you think that I am ignoring those things?

By declaring “woman” an identity that is open to anyone of any sex, you erase the global population of women whose status as such rests entirely on biology. We have not been consulted on this “woman is a identity unlike height” way of thinking.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

To add to your points: another reason humans are hard-wired to be able to tell the difference between adult and adolescent males and females - and to do so instantly without any conscious thought or effort - is because of how utterly dependent humans babies and children are on adults for their survival, and how unusually long the period of human development, helplessness and dependency lasts after birth.

Fact is, humans can tell the difference between men and women starting in early infancy, pretty much from the moment of birth. Babies naturally gravitate to women because instinctively they "know" women mean food, care and comfort.

It's telling that rubberdubberd00 is now acting all shocked and perplexed at the idea that human sex is something real that human beings can perceive, and perceive easily and quickly without any conscious thought. Coz two days ago s/he asserted that

Most people have an idea of their gender identity by the age of 2, it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability.

LOL. So according to rubber, no one can perceive sex in humans, but most people have a good enough grasp of sex stereotypes and QT by the age of 2 to have "an idea of their gender identity" by then.

I've come to the conclusion that rubber is trolling. Because nobody can be this contradictory and disingenuous without it being intentional.

[–]Chronicity[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree it is a trollish thing to play dumb about. But it further underscores how contradictory trans identity is.

If sex isn’t perceptible, then why are we talking about trans people? It is as if there is a material difference between a transwoman and a woman who isn’t trans. Obviously the transwoman knows there is something about them that qualifies them as trans, or they wouldn’t be calling themselves trans. How have they perceived this thing about themselves? Could it be that they, just like every other human being on the planet, know that they are male? Of course they do.

So to turn around and act like we only guessing at this stuff is bullshit. But somehow they think the “no one really knows what sex anyone really is” helps the trans position.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see rubber has backtracked and is now saying something totally the opposite of what she or he originally said:

When I said that people cannot perceive sex what I meant was that there is no way to reliably know the sex of a person that is 100% accurate in all scenarios.

So we're supposed to believe that when rubber typed out "people cannot perceive sex" at all ever, what s/he really was saying is that every once in a while a situation will occur where someone doesn't correctly discern another person's sex - perhaps because the person being perceived has gone to great lengths to disguise his or her sex, or the perceiver has impaired or dulled senses and cognition.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Thank you for giving a real answer to my question, it's really appreciated!

We seem to be mostly on the same page when it comes to the extent to which sex can be perceived. You point out that sex characteristics are extremely reliable cues, which is true, but they are (a) not 100% accurate and (b) not always visible. If by "humans can perceive sex" you mean that a humans can intuit sex with a very high level of accuracy, then yes, that is true. When I said that people cannot perceive sex what I meant was that there is no way to reliably know the sex of a person that is 100% accurate in all scenarios.

By declaring “woman” an identity that is open to anyone of any sex, you erase the global population of women whose status as such rests entirely on biology.

In what sense are they erased?

[–]Chronicity[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Humans are not infallible, so yes sometimes it’s possible to missex someone. This tells us nothing about whether sex can be observed empirically . It most certainly can be, and over 99% of the time, we can clock someone at a glance without even thinking about it The shit is hardwired in us because of evolution. Anyone who doubts this hasn’t spent enough watching unneutered animals. If a male dog can sniff out a female in heat that is miles away, then its absurd to think human males can be easily fooled into thinking another male is actually the opposite sex just because of an identity claim.

In what sense are they erased?

Imagine if Trudeau unilaterally decided anyone in the world who identified as a Canadian was now a Canadian, and then entitled all “Canadians” to voting rights and free healthcare. But rather conveniently, the only people paying into the healthcare system and military defense are those whose status as Canadians meet specific requirements for official citizenship. This means citizens are carrying all the burden of living as an actual Canadian while the self-identifying Canadians only reap the benefits. Despite living in a democracy, the citizens have been denied the right to self-determination; they have not been given a say on how their group should be defined. Their existence as a people united by the criteria set forth in their charter/constitution has been erased; outsiders have now been allowed to colonize their identity and take power from them.

This is what is happening to women now. We are carrying all the burden that comes with being an oppressed class marginalized on the basis of sex, while men take pleasure in taking our name from us along with our legal protections.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Humans are not infallible, so yes sometimes it’s possible to missex someone. This tells us nothing about whether sex can be observed empirically . It most certainly can be, and over 99% of the time, we can clock someone at a glance without even thinking about it The shit is hardwired in us because of evolution. Anyone who doubts this hasn’t spent enough watching unneutered animals. If a male dog can sniff out a female in heat that is miles away, then its absurd to think human males can be easily fooled into thinking another male is actually the opposite sex just because of an identity claim.

It's especially absurd to think human females can be easily fooled into thinking a male is a female too. And it's cruel and sick for TIPs to expect girls and women to happily go along with their attempts to fool us about their sex, and their constant attempts to make us feel bad for caring about and being able to suss out other people's sex.

Fact is, for reasons of our own self-protection and the protection of our young, human females have developed an extremely sensitive, always switched-on "sixth sense" that enables us to size up and suss out the sex of others we come into contact with - particularly when those others are adolescents or older. It's part of being on the bottom of the food chain and the prey in the male-female/predator-prey relationship. Women and girls have to be hard-wired to be guard to protect ourselves personally from attack, impregnation and imprisonment against our will - and we have to be hardwired to be on guard to protect the offspring that are so often in the care of the world's women and girls, and all the unborn offspring that a good number of human females will be carrying within their wombs at any given time.

Much of women's natural alertness to sex and our ability to 'sniff it out" seems instinctual, but our instincts usually get sharpened after years and decades of "lived experience."

I've spent a lot of time around old women with a lot of sensory impairments - diminished sight, hearing, memory, cognition - in care homes and it's amazing how so many of them have an uncanny knack for instantly sensing with a high degree of accuracy when a male has come in their vicinity. The hazy outline of a body seen through blurry vision, the rough shape of the shadow they cast, the heaviness of their footfall, the manner of their gait, their obvious and imperceptible smells, etc - there are many cues and tells that even impaired women pick up subliminally and which cause the senses to go on alert and the hair on the back of the neck to stand up.

One of the big problems I have with the trans craze and the new trend of males radically altering their bodies so as to try to disguise their sex, and all the lying so many people are doing about their sex, is that it ultimately undermines the protective, sex-sensing instincts and abilities that girls and women have developed through evolution. Also, TRAs' claim that it's horribly impolite and bad form to recognize another person's sex turns an evolved strength that girls and women have into a drawback and a sign of rudeness. Plus, the constant claims that "you can never be sure" of another person's sex without doing a complete medical and genetic workup causes women and girls to doubt our perceptions and basic instincts. Which is an essential part of gaslighting.

This whole movement is about disempowering, shaming and disadvantaging women and girls in myriad ways.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So in this analogy that you are making, what do the voting rights and free healthcare represent? What power and legal protections are being taken away from people by the fact that the word woman is not used to refer solely to sex?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why is woman an identity but tall isn’t? What indicates a persons gender identity, given that feelings are invisible?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You might as well ask "why is a cat an animal but a government isn't?" Those words refer to different things. Why would they be the same?

What indicates a persons gender identity, given that feelings are invisible?

Lots of things. The way they present themselves, how they self describe, etc.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So gender is half made up of clothes, hairstyles, and internet pronouns?

How on earth am I asking something so ridiculous? What makes one descriptor so different from another?

How can you imply that nobody has ever identified themselves as tall with such certainty? What makes this an absurd concept?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So gender is half made up of clothes, hairstyles, and internet pronouns?

No, gender is identity. Those are examples of things that might be indicative of a person's identity. As I said.

What makes one descriptor so different from another?

They're two different words. There isn't any reason that they should be similar.

How can you imply that nobody has ever identified themselves as tall with such certainty? What makes this an absurd concept?

When I use the word "tall" I am not describing an identity, so it is not possible for a person to identify as the thing that I mean when I say "tall". It's not absurd, just a logical impossibility.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Like talking at a brick wall. I give up with this pomo bs

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you didn't want to talk semantics this is the wrong thread for you I'm afraid. Personally I find this kind of thing interesting.