you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 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 -  (15 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 -  (14 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.

[–]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?

[–]Chronicity[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Giving men the right to apply the word women to themselves means “woman” becomes a meaningless term. That alone takes power from us; a nameless group might as well not exist anymore.

What is the women’s restroom? Is it a place for people whose biology requires easy access to toilets (rather than urinals), sanitary bins, and privacy from the opposite sex? Or is it place for people who feel like calling themselves women?

What are women’s sports? Are they a division for people whose bodies are designed in a such a way that precludes fair competition against someone born with a male physique? Or is it a division for people who feel like calling themselves women?

What are women’s rights? Are they legal protections aimed at ensuring women are not disadvantaged due to sex-based discrimination, both presently and historically? Or are they rights granted to people who feel like calling themselves women?

When men use trans identification to claim space in women’s locker rooms, sports, and prisons, it doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination to see how they benefit from this. Women lose privacy, safety (real and perceived), and dignity. They lose money and prestige and access to careers.

Are you asking this in good faith or have you seriously not given it any thought how all this is impacting women?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Toilets, sports etc are divided however we as a society decide. That seems a totally different discussion to me than one about what the word 'woman' means. If we want there to be toilets for adult human females then we can make that the case, regardless of what word we are using to refer to them.

Some of your other points here I find a bit troubling. Am I misunderstanding you or do you really think that only adult human females should be protected from being disadvantaged by sex based descrimination?

Women lose privacy, safety (real and perceived), and dignity.

Why would it be a loss of privacy to share a space with a trans woman but not with a non trans woman? It feels like "privacy" isn't really what you mean here. Any shared space is not private.

How is women's safety affected here?

They lose money and prestige and access to careers.

How?

Are you asking this in good faith or have you seriously not given it any thought how all this is impacting women?

I am here in good faith, and I have given this a lot of thought, but I really don't see that the fact that the word "woman" doesn't refer to only adult human females can be seen to be having a negative impact on them. They are still a distinct group who deserve respect and protection. It seems like you're conflating the language issue with a lot of other things.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If we want there to be toilets for adult human females then we can make that the case, regardless of what word we are using to refer to them.

But none of us on the "GC" side have ever advocated for toilets solely for adult human females, nor would we. We advocate for sex-separate toilets for female humans of all ages. There is no reason to segregate by age in toilet provision. Moreover, most of us believe that it's reasonable and totally acceptable for baby boys and very young boys to be able to use toilets, change rooms, locker rooms, fitting rooms and shelters etc meant for women and girls when accompanied and in the care of their mothers, grans, sisters, female childcare workers.

Why would it be a loss of privacy to share a space with a trans woman but not with a non trans woman? It feels like "privacy" isn't really what you mean here. Any shared space is not private.

There you go again saying words have very different meanings to the meanings that are commonly understood by pretty much everyone else in society. How very Humpty Dumpty of you.

If it were true that "any shared space is not private," that would mean the only private homes are those inhabited by one and only one person. So no dwellings inhabited by families or roommates could be said to be private. No apartment buildings or bank of rowhouses could be said to be private or to contain private residences. And every person who lives alone would be said to no longer live in a private dwelling once he or she allows entry to guests, overnight visitors, cleaners or repair personnel. Similarly, there'd be no such things as private clubs, private schools, private property, private enterprise, the private sector, data privacy, medical privacy, private lives, private relations, privacy rights and so on.

I think you are confusing privacy with solitude. Contrary to what you claim, there are in fact a great many shared spaces that are private and offer all different kinds of privacy.

Moreover, there are many shared spaces which are used in ways that provide privacy to individuals, couples, families, small groups and select populations. For example, hotel rooms, voting booths, private dining rooms in restaurants, private lounges in public airports, private taxis/cars for hire.

When a couple shares a hotel room or takes a bath together, do really believe this makes the hotel room or bathroom they are in together not private? When a group of people gather for a hush-hush meeting behind closed doors to discuss matters they all have promised to keep in confidence, would you really say that the meeting was not private - and that everything said during it cannot possibly be called private because it was shared amongst the group?

Also, it's telling that in response to the statement that when males use spaces like women's restrooms

Women lose privacy, safety (real and perceived), and dignity.

You only commented on the privacy part. Are you conceding that women and girls (the female ones) lose safety and dignity when males use these spaces - or are you indicating that you don't care about the safety and dignity of women and girls (the female ones)?

The reason women and girls lose privacy, safety and dignity when "trans women" use women's communal restrooms and other female spaces is because "trans women" are males. As such, when they use women's restrooms, they behave very differently there to the way females behave.

https://youtu.be/zwUe7-4-_TY