Trans Bills

[yossarian22c]

Why are the two highest priorities on the Republican agenda in states restricting voting and laws targeting trans youth?

The sports bills are a law in search of a problem. High school sports just aren't high enough stakes for anyone to be pretend to be trans in order to participate. When there is some form of compensation for participating then you need to start having some restrictions but each sport should be able to police their own rules without the state passing heavy handed laws about youth sports.

The bill in Alabama that would ban medical treatment for trans kids recommended by their doctor, approved by their parents is just horrendous.

[JoshuaD]

A highschool girl should be able to play field hockey or soccer versus other girls without a boy -- with his tendency to have a naturally stronger body -- on the field competing against her.  If she wants to play in a mixed-gender league, she can do that. If she wants to play in a woman's only league, she should be able to actually do that.

The laws don't "target" trans youth. The laws protect trans youth from having their bodies permanently damaged by the ill-concieved ideas of their parents and of society. A kid should not be pumped full of hormones to suppress puberty. If he thinks he's a woman, we should help him see that he is not a woman as soon as possible, not play fantasy along with his confusion.

These children who are being encouraged in transgenderism are being abused. It's good that the law not give doctors carte blanche to pump them full of chemicals that harm the body.

[NobleHunter]

A Reasonable Man: All human life is precious and should be preserved even if we have to mutilate a woman's body to avoid "intentionally" killing a small number of cells that would eventually die anyways.

Also a Reasonable Man: Except trans kids. They should be psychologically tortured until they agree with me or kill themselves. I know this because Reason offers simple and easily defined categories for me to put people into.

[edgmatt]

@Noblehunter -

If a person is experiencing a psychological disorder where he perceives reality different than what it is (a million examples come to mind: they believe they are in war in a battle, they don't know who their children are, they think they have money they already spent, they think the wrong house is theirs, etc etc), should the rest of us change our reality to match their perceived reality?  Should we pretend that house really is theirs, should their children act as if they dont know their own parent, should we start shooting at him to simulate the war he thinks he's in?

Or do you recognize that would do more harm not only to the rest of us but also harm the person with the disorder further?

[edgmatt]

A Reasonable Man: All human life is precious and should be preserved even if we have to mutilate a woman's body to avoid "intentionally" killing a small number of cells that would eventually die anyways.

Also a Reasonable Man: Except trans kids. They should be psychologically tortured until they agree with me or kill themselves. I know this because Reason offers simple and easily defined categories for me to put people into.

Also: What a horrible representation of the side you don't agree with.  If you attack the absolute worst argument of the "other" side, of course you'll always think your right.  It's even worse if you make up the "worst" argument yourself.  :/

[Aris Katsaris]

@Noblehunter -

If a person is experiencing a psychological disorder where he perceives reality different than what it is (a million examples come to mind: they believe they are in war in a battle, they don't know who their children are, they think they have money they already spent, they think the wrong house is theirs, etc etc), should the rest of us change our reality to match their perceived reality? 

Trans people don't have a false perception of reality. Trans people with penises still acknowledge they have penises, still expect that a medical examination of their chromosomes will reveal XY chromosomes. The reality they perceive is still the factual reality. (Much more so than religious people btw)

Their disagreement with you is about how society should treat the categories man and woman in regards to their person, and whether they should be allowed to join a different category than what society assigned to them at birth.

[Fenring]

Their disagreement with you is about how society should treat the categories man and woman in regards to their person, and whether they should be allowed to join a different category than what society assigned to them at birth.

Except that the most typical form of the argument is that transgenderism isn't a social construction, but rather a statement of fact about their nature. The 'category' you mention is, according to the argument, the socially constructed thing, which should bend to the reality being presented. To the extent that they are arguing a fact pattern that is supposedly beyond dispute, this is indeed an issue of a "reality", which at bottom would have to be scientific to mean anything. To the extent that the disagreement about the categories "man" and "woman" are in dispute, this is indeed a difference of opinion on whether those categories are social constructions or simple biological realities (i.e. your 'birth state'). From the perspective of someone who believes that "man" and "woman" are not social constructions, there could be no question of agreeing to 'allow' someone to change categories, any more than one could agree to 'allow' changing categories from human to minotaur. Obviously from the perspective of social construction, it is a mere matter of updating the obsolete definition of the categories.

Logically speaking it's not off the table to discuss someone being deluded about reality if one believes the reality to be essentially immutable. Functionally speaking at this point in time it is indeed off the table to discuss it. And indeed there are probably better ways to discuss it, if one were going to, than to put it that way anyhow.

[Aris Katsaris]

Except that the most typical form of the argument is that transgenderism isn't a social construction, but rather a statement of fact about their nature. The 'category' you mention is, according to the argument, the socially constructed thing, which should bend to the reality being presented. To the extent that they are arguing a fact pattern that is supposedly beyond dispute, this is indeed an issue of a "reality", which at bottom would have to be scientific to mean anything. To the extent that the disagreement about the categories "man" and "woman" are in dispute, this is indeed a difference of opinion on whether those categories are social constructions or simple biological realities (i.e. your 'birth state'). From the perspective of someone who believes that "man" and "woman" are not social constructions, there could be no question of agreeing to 'allow' someone to change categories, any more than one could agree to 'allow' changing categories from human to minotaur. Obviously from the perspective of social construction, it is a mere matter of updating the obsolete definition of the categories.

Logically speaking it's not off the table to discuss someone being deluded about reality if one believes the reality to be essentially immutable. Functionally speaking at this point in time it is indeed off the table to discuss it. And indeed there are probably better ways to discuss it, if one were going to, than to put it that way anyhow.

That's lots of babble to just say "But some people, on both sides, think that it's about immutable fact-based categories"

Come people, learn to be concise.

[Fenring]

That's lots of babble to just say "But some people, on both sides, think that it's about immutable fact-based categories"

Come people, learn to be concise.

No, I think you missed it, then. It's that there are two categories: gender, and personal self-construction. One set of people believe the first is a fact of nature and the second is a social construction; the second set believes the inverse. So it's not just an argument about whether anyone will "let" people move from one category to another. It's about disagreement on whether it is even coherent to say that one can do that, which in turn is contingent on which categories are movable and which are not. That is not really something you can be concise about and make clear. From your answer, I conclude that my last post should have included more information, not less.

[JoshuaD]

A Reasonable Man: ...

Also a Reasonable Man: ...

In the thread you are referencing, I was accused of making statements of faith when I was not doing so. I wasn't referencing the Pali Canon or the Bible and my arguments didn't depend on scripture. So, when people claimed I was arguing from faith based positions, I pointed out that that wasn't true, but that my reason is rooted in the senses and the and intellect. Is that somehow offensive to you?  If so, why bring it up again here in an indirect way, as a sort of cheap dig? Why not just tell me your problem in a direct way in the other thread?

In either case, I'm here talking with you. I've offered some reasons for my beliefs. In this thread, so far, I've just said the conclusion of what I think. If you're interested in hearing the reasoning, please feel free to ask about a particular point or two. I'm not going to write a 20-paragraph book for my first post, but I'm glad to expand on what I think and why for you to examine and criticize. Similarly, when you put forward your own ideas and reasons, I may offer my thoughts in response.

That's what this place is for, right?

A Reasonable Man: All human life is precious and should be preserved even if we have to mutilate a woman's body to avoid "intentionally" killing a small number of cells that would eventually die anyways.

Yes, we should never murder our children. Yes, in extreme and rare circumstances that may seem hard. It is always better.

We can see it here on this debate about abortion, as one example of many.  Wayward(?) brought up that extreme example that was clearly cherry picked by NPR and then by him to make the best possible case for abortion, and then seemingly concludes ... all abortions before three months should be elective, and after three months they can be practically elective. 

It's like, yea, the edge cases can seem hard. The most common case is not hard at all. A woman hires a doctor to murder her child, and the doctor tells her it's not murder don't worry. Everyone is deeply wounded by this, and the child is killed.  We have killed millions of our children. We just need to stop.

Also a Reasonable Man: Except trans kids. They should be psychologically tortured until they agree with me or kill themselves. I know this because Reason offers simple and easily defined categories for me to put people into.

It's not psychological torture to tell children to make peace with the nature of their bodies. We aren't infinitely malleable clay. Reality does not bend itself to our whims and preferences. The job of parents and society is to teach children the truth.

Anytime a young boy claims to be a girl, it is false. It simply isn't true. He is a boy. That is what he is. He is not a cat. He is not a tree. He is not a girl. He is a boy.

I am sure that the child is suffering some psychological pain. I think it's horrible that society has told that pumping himself full of hormones and undergoing surgeries will fix that pain. It's a really terrible thing to do to children and to adults. It's rooted in a false belief, and it harms these people.  It does not help them. History will prove what I am saying is true. They will look back at this barbarianism as incomprehensibly backwards and confused, while (just like us) propagating their own confused abuses on their own children.

[Aris Katsaris]

Anytime a young boy claims to be a girl, it is false. It simply isn't true. He is a boy. That is what he is. He is not a cat. He is not a tree. He is not a girl. He is a boy.

Most people in your category of "boys" acknowledge themselves a boy, so your hypothetical example already has one aspect (self-identification) which makes them different than most other members in that group.

I disbelieve in the word "is". Categories can be useful, or harmful. They can promote understanding ot hinder it. But they aren't real in a fundamental level.

Cis women and trans women have at least some characteristics in common: They call themselves women, want to be considered such, want female pronouns used when referring to them, etc.

So for social reasons, the useful categorisation is to group them together as women, because otherwise you'll use a pronoun they don't want. For medical reasons this will differ, as then chromosomes become more important.

Btw this perspective makes me sympathetic to people who argue that trans girls shouldn't be competing with cis girls. But I'd resolve the issue by simply renaming the categories as "heavy" and "light" or some such.

[NobleHunter]

JoshuaD, you realize we've tried it your way, right? That we've tried everything up to and including torture to make trans people think that they're delusional or sick and they just need to "make peace with the nature of their bodies." The result is dead children. Until you recognize that and allow experience to change your reason, you're on team dead children just like the abortionists.

[edgmatt]

Trans people don't have a false perception of reality. Trans people with penises still acknowledge they have penises, still expect that a medical examination of their chromosomes will reveal XY chromosomes. The reality they perceive is still the factual reality. (Much more so than religious people btw)

Their disagreement with you is about how society should treat the categories man and woman in regards to their person, and whether they should be allowed to join a different category than what society assigned to them at birth.

They feel themselves to be something other than they are.  The man who feels strongly enough that he is a woman that he has his penis removed is suffering from a false perception.  They "are" a man, but they think they are a woman.  This is diagnosable.  The same way dimensia and host of other psychological impairments.

Their disagreement with you is about how society should treat the categories man and woman in regards to their person

Well no, it goes far, far beyond that.  We've created new genders to accommodate these people (instead of helping them), and are now, in this very thread, discussing the idea of pumping children full of chemicals.

and whether they should be allowed to join a different category than what society assigned to them at birth.

And here's, to me, the crux of the problem.  Society doesn't "assign" genders.  Your body assigns it, we observe and then label it.  That's a huge difference than what the transgender movement is saying, which seems to see it in reverse: that assigning the term creates the gender.  "Male" and "female" are terms we use to identify the differences in the two genders, it's a scientific, identifying thing and a language thing, not a social thing.

Male and female aren't social constructs.  Society doesn't make them what they are, nature does.  Society can and does construct other things as either female or male, and that can be problematic in some cases (and good in others.)

Obvious examples of social constructs: 
- The color pink is feminine.
- unicorns and rainbows are feminine
- trucks are for boys
- dresses and long hair are for girls
- pants and shaved heads are for boys

These things are made up by us for whatever reason, good or bad, and each person can decide for themselves if they agree with it or not.  But its not objective and there is nothing scientific about it other than statements like "girls tend to like pink and boys tend to like trucks".   A boy with a pink shirt isn't transformed into a girl and a girl with a shaved head driving a truck isn't transformed into a boy.

Another good example of a social construct would be the idea that a person can think or feel what gender they are.  It's subjective, it's made up and isn't scientific.

Examples of things that are NOT social constructs:

- Boys, in general, are taller and stronger than women
- The bone density of African Americans is higher than in other races
- Bone density in men is (generally) higher than women.

And another one, the important one for this thread, is that gender is decided by your body and nature and nothing else.  It's observable and demonstrable.  A child is born and any one observing can point and say "boy" or "girl". 

Categories can be useful, or harmful. They can promote understanding to hinder it. But they aren't real in a fundamental level

Once again you are looking at it backwards.  Being in the category doesn't make the thing, the thing being what it is puts it into a category.  Categories *are" real, once again scientific and observable.  You and I can look a fish and say "that isn't a plant, put it in the 'animal' category" and we can do the same thing with male and females.

That we've tried everything up to and including torture to make trans people think that they're delusional or sick and they just need to "make peace with the nature of their bodies." The result is dead children. Until you recognize that and allow experience to change your reason, you're on team dead children just like the abortionists.

Oh stop it.  We may not have the technology here and today to cure gender dysphoria, but that doesn't make it less of a diagnoseable psychological problem.  We can't just say "well, we tried and it's not working yet, so go ahead and be whatever gender/race/age/species you want, the rest of society will just have to deal with it."

What a horrible way to think.

[NobleHunter]

Go ahead and define male and female in a way that doesn't exclude people who are obviously women or obviously men.

Oh stop it.  We may not have the technology here and today to cure gender dysphoria, but that doesn't make it less of a diagnoseable psychological problem.

I'm not sure I would say that people who transitioned have had their dysphoria "cured" but it's gotten a great deal closer than anything else we've tried.

[Aris Katsaris]

Obvious examples of social constructs: 
- The color pink is feminine.
- unicorns and rainbows are feminine
- trucks are for boys
- dresses and long hair are for girls
- pants and shaved heads are for boys

Before all these comes the initial social construct which is that "people with penises belong to a category called boys/men and we assign them male name and male pronouns, people with vaginas belong to a category called girls/women and we assign them female names and female pronouns. Afterwards in their life, because as a society we don't allow people to display penises/vaginas in public, and yet we greatly care about WHETHER they have penises/vaginas, and we want to treat these groups of people differently, we use labels, pronouns, names, modes of dress, and secondary physical characteristics (like beards and the like) to distinguish between the two groups without them needing to show us their genitals in public all the time".

It'd be the social construct you'd have to explain to an agender alien civilization that comes down to Earth and which doesn't have any understanding why we're separating ourselves in two subgroups like that.

We don't have a separate set of labels, pronouns, or names for people who are born blonde and people who are born black-haired.
We don't have a separate set of labels, pronouns, or names for people who are born right-handed and people who are born left-handed.
But we have a separate set of labels, pronouns and names for people who are born penised and people who are born vaginaed.

Now let's leave aside for a sec the issue of whether a trans person who describes themselves as a particular gender is that gender from the start or not, and let's examine someone who's gone through treatment. Please go and look at a photo of a trans man like e.g. Pat Manuel. Would you call Pat Manuel a woman? I mean in the absense of an actual medical examination, or him showing you what's in his pants, there's no way you'd identify him as such if you saw him.

Once again you are looking at it backwards.  Being in the category doesn't make the thing, the thing being what it is puts it into a category.  Categories *are" real, once again scientific and observable.  You and I can look a fish and say "that isn't a plant, put it in the 'animal' category" and we can do the same thing with male and females.

For ANY thing and any category, when we ask "Is thing X of category Y?" what we're actually asking is "Should we treat thing X as we treat things of category Y?" It's not really some sort of ontological/epistemological question, it's a normative/utilitarian question about "how should we act towards thing X"?

In regards to trans women, we are calling them women, because we believe you should act towards them like you'd act towards women, including using female pronouns and letting them use women's bathrooms.

I strongly recommend reading the following article called "Disguised Queries". It's not ABOUT trans people specifically, it's a more general argument about categories:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4FcxgdvdQP45D6Skg/disguised-queries

[edgmatt]

Go ahead and define male and female in a way that doesn't exclude people who are obviously women or obviously men.

What?

We don't have a separate set of labels, pronouns, or names for people who are born blonde and people who are born black-haired.

We do, you just used them.  You called it "blonde" and "black".  Those are labels.  It's an identifier.  It's part of the language we use to effectively communicate with each other.

Right, though, we don't have blonde restrooms and dark haired restrooms, because there is nothing about being blonde or black haired that is significantly different enough to warrant a separate bathroom, or anything else (except maybe shampoo).

Men and women are fundamentally different, right down to the chromosome.  And yea, a whole host of social practices have arisen, but not because society just arbitrarily decided it, but because men and women are fundamentally different and require (in a lot of cases) different sorts of things.

It'd be the social construct you'd have to explain to an agender alien civilization that comes down to Earth and which doesn't have any understanding why we're separating ourselves in two subgroups like that.

No, it'd be the scientific difference between two different genders we would have to explain.  Not the social constructs.  Once this agender alien sees that the thing we call man is physically different, down to the chromosome, from this thing we call woman, it would go "oh, gj on that, that makes perfect *censored*ing sense, I can't believe there's a whole host of you who think you should do otherwise."

[NobleHunter]

How do you define "male" and "female"?

[Aris Katsaris]

We don't have a separate set of labels, pronouns, or names for people who are born blonde and people who are born black-haired.

We do, you just used them.  You called it "blonde" and "black".  Those are labels.  It's an identifier.  It's part of the language we use to effectively communicate with each other.

Those are just descriptions of what their hair looks like at the moment, not immutable categories. If a black-haired person goes grey-haired when they age, they are no longer black-haired, they're gray-haired. If they dye their hair they are no longer black-haired, they're whatever color-haired they chose.

Right, though, we don't have blonde restrooms and dark haired restrooms, because there is nothing about being blonde or black haired that is significantly different enough to warrant a separate bathroom, or anything else (except maybe shampoo).

Men and women are fundamentally different, right down to the chromosome.  And yea, a whole host of social practices have arisen, but not because society just arbitrarily decided it, but because men and women are fundamentally different and require (in a lot of cases) different sorts of things.

Hard to explain why different chromosomes would fundamentally require different pronouns, or different sets of baby names.

Again I direct you to google a photo of Pat Manuel and would ask you to tell me if you'd categorize him as a woman if you saw him on the street one day.
Unless it's explicitly about baby-making purposes, you'd have no reason to do so.

[edgmatt]

Male - of the two genders, the one with the potential to produce sperm.  At birth has testicles and a penis.  XY chromosome.

Female - of the two genders, the one with the potential to produce ova. At birth has a vagina.  XX chromosome.

[edgmatt]

Hard to explain why different chromosomes would fundamentally require different pronouns, or different sets of baby names.

Its not hard to explain at all, what are you talking about?

Since, as Aris pointed out, we cover our genitalia, we wear certain clothes and use certain names to identify ourselves as either male or female, most commonly to signify to the opposite sex what gender we are.

But wearing the clothing or taking a name of a different sex doesn't change the underlying reality.

I can perfectly understand someone of one sex giving a name or wearing the traditional clothing of another sex for a host of reasons.  But this doesn't change their sex.

[edgmatt]

(This is the part where you find some example, somewhere, where my definition doesn't apply, and therefore everything I've ever said on the subject is now void, right?)

[Fenring]

Before all these comes the initial social construct which is that "people with penises belong to a category called boys/men and we assign them male name and male pronouns, people with vaginas belong to a category called girls/women and we assign them female names and female pronouns.

It's about as much of a "social construct" as anything else that is observably testable. It is literally just naming a thing we see as we see it. It's a social construct only insofar as it requires human minds to do the observing, but that's about it. To the extent that man/women is a 'construct' of social agreement, you more or less have to take the position that all observation of any kind is a social construction, meaning science is nothing more than an agreed upon opinion.

Feminists through the 20th century argued that while biology was obviously a fixed concept, what was a social construction was the idea of women being 'pretty and dainty', 'weak and vulnerable', and all of the other stereotypes. They sought to remove the concept of stereotypical behaviors of women from the concept of "woman", without sacrificing "woman" itself. The gender was fixed by biology, but the extrinsic characteristics of dress and manner were purely socially driven and could go. Your argument ironically inverts the fixed group: you take the biological status of "woman" to be the social construction, while the behaviors and manners are the fixed category.

So I just thought I'd make mention that while you try to make all of this sound easy and obvious, every one of your positions on this topic is a repudiation of feminism until fairly recently. It is not much of a surprise that classic feminists have run afoul of the newer thought-circles of activists: their beliefs and fundamental understandings of life are directly contrary and in fact antithetical to each other. In this sense one would have to pick between them outright, as they both cannot fit within a single coherent world view.

Afterwards in their life, because as a society we don't allow people to display penises/vaginas in public, and yet we greatly care about WHETHER they have penises/vaginas, and we want to treat these groups of people differently, we use labels, pronouns, names, modes of dress, and secondary physical characteristics (like beards and the like) to distinguish between the two groups without them needing to show us their genitals in public all the time".

They are different, in very obvious ways. This is not exactly rocket science. What you are talking about is whether they are different in terms of, let's say, temperament and self-assessment. Assuming these can converge (which of course they can), they are nevertheless a subset of the possible span of differences between men and women. They are not nothing, but they are also not everything.

We don't have a separate set of labels, pronouns, or names for people who are born blonde and people who are born black-haired.
We don't have a separate set of labels, pronouns, or names for people who are born right-handed and people who are born left-handed.
But we have a separate set of labels, pronouns and names for people who are born penised and people who are born vaginaed.

Your argument seems to lead directly to the elimination of all pronouns, toward perhaps a neuter pronoun for all people. Your analogies certainly don't lead in the direction of increasing the number of pronouns.

For ANY thing and any category, when we ask "Is thing X of category Y?" what we're actually asking is "Should we treat thing X as we treat things of category Y?" It's not really some sort of ontological/epistemological question, it's a normative/utilitarian question about "how should we act towards thing X"?

Actually, this concept is a throwback to sexist America of the 50's. The classic feminist argument is that despite being in group XX women should (in some circumstances such as in the workplace) *not* be treated differently. So the question of how should we act toward thing XX would actually be an inappropriate question in the sense of treating a women co-worker differently for being a woman. The correct answer (outside of dating, etc) is to eliminate the normative/utilitarian (whatever that means) question and just treat them the same in those scenarios. So to the extent that you think asking whether someone is in category X or Y means asking how to treat them differently, that is exactly the issue feminists raised. Their answer is that you keep the categories, but stop making it imply you need to know them because you want to treat women differently. This argument does not require the elimination of the idea of categories. The pronoun use would remain while otherwise treating them the same, and if I had to guess I would suggest it's in order to respect the nature of the person (rather to respect their life choices or beliefs, which indeed you might not).

In regards to trans women, we are calling them women, because we believe you should act towards them like you'd act towards women, including using female pronouns and letting them use women's bathrooms.

How should one act toward women, then, other than pronoun usage and bathroom access?

[Aris Katsaris]

Male - of the two genders, the one with the potential to produce sperm.  At birth has testicles and a penis.  XY chromosome.
Female - of the two genders, the one with the potential to produce ova. At birth has a vagina.  XX chromosome.

I'll comment that the "at birth" distinction is bizarre, because you're adding something about the *history* of a creature, rather than their current state of existence, it seems. And the XY/XX chromosome is something humanity didn't know about until very recently, it's the scientific causal explanation about the difference between 'men' and 'women', but not actually something anyone really cares about.

Make the distinction between man/woman as about having testicles, penis or a vagina at the present time -- and atleast then we're getting somewhere: But then you'd have to atleast take the position of the Iranian Islamic Republic and let people reassign their genders if they do gender reassignment surgery.

If I get your position correctly, you believe that "men remain men" and "women remain women" even after they've done gender reassignment surgery?

As a sidenote, if you ever upload your mind to a computer, will you be objecting to still being called a "he", since you'll no longer have chromosomes?

Before all these comes the initial social construct which is that "people with penises belong to a category called boys/men and we assign them male name and male pronouns, people with vaginas belong to a category called girls/women and we assign them female names and female pronouns.

It's about as much of a "social construct" as anything else that is observably testable. It is literally just naming a thing we see as we see it. It's a social construct only insofar as it requires human minds to do the observing, but that's about it. To the extent that man/women is a 'construct' of social agreement, you more or less have to take the position that all observation of any kind is a social construction, meaning science is nothing more than an agreed upon opinion.

Stop talking about "science" and such, because we have already agreed that trans-rights activists agree with every single testable observable fact that science speaks about them. They're not having a different perception of reality, trans men acknowledge that they have XX chromosomes, and trans women still acknowledge they have XY chromosomes.

Your argument seems to lead directly to the elimination of all pronouns, toward perhaps a neuter pronoun for all people. Your analogies certainly don't lead in the direction of increasing the number of pronouns.

Um, yes? I never said I support an increase in pronouns. I don't.

How should one act toward women, then, other than pronoun usage and bathroom access?

Well, obviously the answer will differ if you ask a a trans-friendly male chauvinist homophobe of the Iranian Islamic Republic, but since you're asking me who am a progressive gender egalitarian: the only thing I can think of is letting them identify as women without objection.

Being trans-friendly is easy for a gender egalitarian, exactly because we treat genders equally. Hence why in the west there's only an issue in areas where we still keep segregated spaces and areas of endeavour. Restrooms and sports (and marriage for those countries that don't yet have SSM).

[DJQuag]

Eh.

You all have good points worthy of thought.

If we're to separate women's sports due to women being physically lesser in sports, I'm really not seeing why this is an issue.

If you let someone who has an entire lifetime of genetic and metabolic BS tune their entire body into being a man, and then at the end point we all decide that they're actually a woman, it doesn't change the fact that they're coming in swinging with the body of a man.

[NobleHunter]

Male - of the two genders, the one with the potential to produce sperm.  At birth has testicles and a penis.  XY chromosome.

Female - of the two genders, the one with the potential to produce ova. At birth has a vagina.  XX chromosome.

What about people who don't match either of those two set of criteria? Either by not having all three or by having conflicting standards?

[edgmatt]

I don't know what you mean by "conflicting standards", can you elaborate?

And those definitions are off the top of my head.  A biologist could certainly give you more "criteria" that make humans male or female.  As for hermaphrodites and mixed gonadal dysgenesis, from what I understand, in those cases, one aspect of the genders functions and the other does not. (Usually the female parts work, iirc).

And anyone can find someone who, for whatever reason, were born with non-functioning genitalia, or the inability to make eggs or sperm,or missing a womb, or whatever one or two "criteria"  are missing. 

But very, very rare cases of "anything" shouldn't be used to form a argument against a standard of generality, right?  It'd be a poor argument to say: *that* person's testicles don''t work, so even though billions of other men....99.9% of them, do have working testicles, we won't use that as part of the definition of "male".

[Fenring]

But very, very rare cases of "anything" shouldn't be used to form a argument against a standard of generality, right?  It'd be a poor argument to say: *that* person's testicles don''t work, so even though billions of other men....99.9% of them, do have working testicles, we won't use that as part of the definition of "male".

This is that Ayn Rand principle again: don't begin a basis of definitions beginning with extreme or edge cases. Now if there are no normal cases and the facts on the ground point to edge cases actually being the ignored norm, then that's a different story. But that certainly doesn't seem to be the case in the subject of sex at the time of birth. But NH, I am all for eliminating stupid artificial boxes that do not in fact represent reality. The question isn't whether one is open to that (in fact I'm strongly in favor of it) but in which cases it should and shouldn't apply.

[edgmatt]

They're not having a different perception of reality, trans men acknowledge that they have XX chromosomes, and trans women still acknowledge they have XY chromosomes.

Why did you use the term "trans-men" and "trans-women" when you wrote this sentence?

I'll fast-forward a bit:  To properly identify the sort of person you were talking about, so that the reader could effeciently understand you.  The word trans-man has a very specific, identifying definition.

So do the words "Male" and "Female".

If you used the word "female" to describe the "trans-man"  and vice-versa:   "They're not having a different perception of reality, women acknowledge that they have XX chromosomes, and men still acknowledge they have XY chromosomes."  Then the sentence no longer makes sense.

Do you get that?  (Im asking in a sincere tone, not a sarcastic, mocking one)   This is why people like me insist on using terms for what they mean, not for inclusive purposes, or being nice, or for feelings, or anything else.

[Aris Katsaris]

They're not having a different perception of reality, trans men acknowledge that they have XX chromosomes, and trans women still acknowledge they have XY chromosomes.

Why did you use the term "trans-men" and "trans-women" when you wrote this sentence?

Because we're talking about trans people and whether they are delusional or not? So no, I don't understand your question.

If you used the word "female" to describe the "trans-man"  and vice-versa:   "They're not having a different perception of reality, women acknowledge that they have XX chromosomes, and men still acknowledge they have XY chromosomes."  Then the sentence no longer makes sense.

Do you get that?  (Im asking in a sincere tone, not a sarcastic, mocking one)   This is why people like me insist on using terms for what they mean, not for inclusive purposes, or being nice, or for feelings, or anything else.

No, I don't get what you mean. I did use the words for what they mean, and I don't know what you mean by "the sentence no longer makes sense".

I'll note however that though I've answered your question, you haven't answered a single one of mine. We can't have a discussion until you at least try to show reciprocity and answer some of those. Here, let me quote them again, for your convenience.

Please go and look at a photo of a trans man like e.g. Pat Manuel. Would you call Pat Manuel a woman? I mean in the absense of an actual medical examination, or him showing you what's in his pants, there's no way you'd identify him as such if you saw him.

If I get your position correctly, you believe that "men remain men" and "women remain women" even after they've done gender reassignment surgery?

As a sidenote, if you ever upload your mind to a computer, will you be objecting to still being called a "he", since you'll no longer have chromosomes?

[edgmatt]

Gotta read everything.  I was clear in what I said just now, you're either skipping some of the post, or deliberately playing dumb.

Your questions:

1 - Looking like a man doesn't make you man.  "In the absence of a medical examination....".  Well yea, duh.  If you don't take off the costume, it will look like the thing you made it look like.  key word there is "look".  You didn't actually change anything other than the appearance.

2 - Yes, that is accurate.  It is accurate in that I believe that, and it is also accurate because it's true.

3 - Hard to answer, that sort of thing is bit beyond my comprehension.  I'd say, here and now, if I uploaded my mind into a computer, I would no longer be human, and no longer have a gender.

[Aris Katsaris]

Gotta read everything.  I was clear in what I said just now, you're either skipping some of the post, or deliberately playing dumb.

I didn't skip any of your post, and I'm not playing dumb.

1 - Looking like a man doesn't make you man.  "In the absence of a medical examination....".  Well yea, duh.  If you don't take off the costume, it will look like the thing you made it look like.  key word there is "look".  You didn't actually change anything other than the appearance.

2 - Yes, that is accurate.  It is accurate in that I believe that, and it is also accurate because it's true.

"Looking like a man doesn't make you man."

And yet, it's looking like a baby boy and looking like a baby girl (aka the presence of penis or vaginas) that people use to assign babies into "male" and "female" in the first place, so I I find this a bit of a contradiction in your rhetoric.

There are people born with vaginas and yet possessing XY chromosomes: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis, so they look like women, were assigned female at birth, and generally consider themselves women. They don't have ovaries and can't produce eggs though.

Are these people (a) men because they have XY chromosomes, or (b) women because that's what they were assigned at birth, that's what they look like, and that's what they've always considered themselves to be?

I mean, you hopefully realize that at any point of history before the discovery of chromosomes, these people would have been identified as just women who for some mysterious reason are incapable of conceiving. It is the observable phenotype, not the non-observable genotype that always made the categorization. But I think your position is that they should be labelled men instead, and that it was a mistake that these vaginaed people were labelled women. Because of their chromosomes.

[Fenring]

@ Aris,

Why do you keep referring to extremely rare medical cases in order to define an entire potential category of human nature?

@ edgmatt,

One thing I would suggest you keep in mind when discussing with Aris in particular is that he has already said he's a transhumanist. Meaning, when you have a statement like this one it may not play out how you expect:

I'd say, here and now, if I uploaded my mind into a computer, I would no longer be human, and no longer have a gender.

A transhumanist (at least in the typical definition) doesn't really care what counts as human or not, and in fact essentially tends to believe that changing away from what is traditionally called human is not only ok but desirous. From that standpoint the "started as female" argument wouldn't stand, because a pre-existing status (including being born a human in the first place) doesn't hold any weight. That humanity used to be defined as two arms, two legs, etc etc, becomes instead transmuted into "we can be anything we choose, technology allowing." That may change what sorts of arguments you think are obvious. Sorry Aris if I stated a position that isn't yours, but I think your basic worldview needs to be taken into account when edgmatt for instance is making claims that are supposedly clear.

[edgmatt]

And yet, it's looking like a baby boy and looking like a baby girl (aka the presence of penis or vaginas) that people use to assign babies into "male" and "female" in the first place, so I I find this a bit of a contradiction in your rhetoric.

No, you're playing words games.   Having a penis (at birth and not attached later) is partly what makes the thing a boy.  If you attach a penis later (to someone that didn't have one to begin with), that will make that person 'look like a boy'.

The phrase "looks like" is used to mean something appears to be other than what it actually is, or if one is unsure.

You don't use the phrase "looks like" when you are either completely or very sure of what it is.  And when a baby is born, and there is a penis, we don't say "looks like a boy" (which would indicate we need to investigate further) we say "it's a boy", because we are very, very sure it is.

I already addressed gonadal dygenisis.

Stop pointing to these 0.0000001% cases as proof that we can't categorize men and woman as men and women.  It's inane.

[edgmatt]

@Fenring - noted, thank you.  That actually clears things up a bit (assuming that is Aris's position).

[NobleHunter]

Because trans people are an edge case. The statement "All humans are men or women based on these characteristics," is false based on other well known edge cases. It also goes to show that simplistic models of gender that exclude trans people are insufficient to represent the breadth of human experience.

[Fenring]

Because trans people are an edge case. The statement "All humans are men or women based on these characteristics," is false based on other well known edge cases. It also goes to show that simplistic models of gender that exclude trans people are insufficient to represent the breadth of human experience.

Just for the sake of argument - since I'm trying to clarify terms more than argue that I'm right in some particular way - how are trans people an edge case in reference to gender/sex being identifiable based on a chromosomal/genetalia standard?

[Aris Katsaris]

A transhumanist (at least in the typical definition) doesn't really care what counts as human or not, and in fact essentially tends to believe that changing away from what is traditionally called human is not only ok but desirous. From that standpoint the "started as female" argument wouldn't stand, because a pre-existing status (including being born a human in the first place) doesn't hold any weight. That humanity used to be defined as two arms, two legs, etc etc, becomes instead transmuted into "we can be anything we choose, technology allowing." That may change what sorts of arguments you think are obvious. Sorry Aris if I stated a position that isn't yours, but I think your basic worldview needs to be taken into account when edgmatt for instance is making claims that are supposedly clear.

@Fenring - noted, thank you.  That actually clears things up a bit (assuming that is Aris's position).

The position matches with mine, yes.

This sort of thing what I've been trying to say. Leaving aside for the moment any issue about gender-as-social-construct (or the belief that gender-dysphoria means that brain and body are differently gendered), if you tell me that a penis at birth is (part of) what makes male "male", then I'll inherently see acquiring a penis *after* birth as a (partial) transformation into male. You seemed to think it not just currently technologically unfeasible but inherently contradictory that someone could be born a woman and become a man, or vice versa. Which is just very weird to me.

 
The part where you go:

No, you're playing words games.   Having a penis (at birth and not attached later) is partly what makes the thing a boy.  If you attach a penis later (to someone that didn't have one to begin with), that will make that person 'look like a boy'.

just doesn't make sense to me. It's not a word game. Where I said "look like a boy", I could have said "has the typical phenotype of boy" or "has the bodily characteristics of a typical boy".

Why do you keep referring to extremely rare medical cases in order to define an entire potential category of human nature?

For the same reason I refer to science-fictional examples that don't exist at all in the real world at all. I think it promotes understanding to investigate extreme or hypothetical cases.

There's nothing preventing edgmatt from saying any of "It's male" "It's female" "It's neither" "It's both" "I'm uncertain" or even "That one's example is on a fuzzy line where it could be considered either, but the handful cases don't matter for the categorization of 7 billion other people"). Either answer provides a tidbit of information, which will at least help realize where the *censored* edgdmatt is coming from, because I don't really get it.

I've now gone back over the thread to see where he addressed them (I missed it initially), but as far as I can tell edgmatt still hasn't clarified whether those XY assigned-women-at-birth women are simply men who's maleness simply doesn't quite work, if they're women who's femaleness doesn't quite work, if he thinks it a fuzzy example, or if he thinks it a clear-cut example and the rest of us "playing dumb". Because he regulardly clamps down, points a finger at me, and calls me dishonest for even asking questions. I find that rather annoying. He's not explaining his position, he thinks we already know it.

No, his position isn't clear and self-evident, no matter if he wants to present it as common sense. For example it's still not me clear at all for example why a penis at birth is more important than a penis acquired after birth. Right now, I'd guess something like "he wants to use male/female to categorize an organism and their entire life-history as an organism, not just their present state", but it'd be just a guess, and I don't want to put words in his mouth either.

[Fenring]

Come on, Aris, of course edgmatt's position is clear and self-evident. It's been the standard definition for eons, and it's obvious why that definition could be said to make sense. Denying this would be little more as far as I can tell other than further a personal agenda by pretending that no other side makes sense. His side obviously makes sense. However you have a different interpretation of life, one that is essentially radical and very new to history, which is totally fine for you to have. But it won't help communication to pretend like your view is somehow the obvious one and that other people aren't making sense. Let's be a bit more reasonable here.

[Aris Katsaris]

Come on, Aris, of course edgmatt's position is clear and self-evident. It's been the standard definition for eons, and it's obvious why that definition could be said to make sense.

You come on.

Chromosomes were discovered in the 1880s. A definition that includes chromosomes has NOT been a "standard definition for eons". It's really not clear that people in past centuries would have defined e.g. Patricio Manuel as a woman either. It's just as likely that they'd have said "wow, a woman that became a man, amazing" instead.

I make no pretense that my own position is self-evident, but I'm going out of my way to explain my position.

[Aris Katsaris]

Now, to get back on arguing at an object level, instead of the meta level of which position is obvious and which isn't obvious, I'd like you to consider another thing which has been a biological reality for ages.

Parenthood.

And what some people might believe to be "fake parenthood", also known as adoption.

This is why people like me insist on using terms for what they mean, not for inclusive purposes, or being nice, or for feelings, or anything else.

So, I ask you edgmatt. Do you refuse to call adoptive parents with the word "parents", because they aren't actually the biological parents of the kid?

Or do you accept that parenthood is a *social construct*, and therefore though there exist biological parents where the social role matches the underlying biological facts, there are also adoptive parents where the social role doesn't match the underlying biological truth?

Are the adoptive parents delusional for thinking themselves "parents", though the kid isn't biologically theirs? Do you insist on using terms for what they mean, not for inclusive purposes, or for being nice, or for feelings, in the case of parenthood, and thus you call them "guardians" or something such, rather than parents?

[oldbrian]

Neanderthal: 'boys don't play with dolls. boys don't wear make-up. boys don't wear dresses'

Confused Lad: 'okay. since I enjoy all of those things, I guess I am a girl then.'

N: '*censored* no! you fall into the category of boy, so you are a boy'

CL: 'but ... you said ...'

N: 'learn to accept your socially defined place!'


This would be the societal definitions mentioned earlier.  If we as people would allow edge case children to express their preferences without shaming them for not fitting in, there would probably be a lot less gender dysphoria.  When there are only a very few choices available, a lot of people have to make poor choices.


And the edge cases are being brought up because these laws are AIMED at edge cases.  Does anyone remember the female runner a few years ago that almost got banned from competing because her body naturally produces 10x more testosterone than the average woman?  Turns out it was a chromosomal thing.  XXY or something like that.  Fully functional ovaries and uterus.  Where would she go, Matt?

[oldbrian]

Fenring:

It's been the standard definition for eons, and it's obvious why that definition could be said to make sense.

So the sun still orbits the Earth?  So mentally ill people are actually possessed by demons?  So the Earth is really flat after all?

We like simple answers, and simple choices.  Left or Right.  Male or Female.  Good or Evil.  With us or Against us.  Red or Blue.
We don't like having to consider a spectrum.  That doesn't mean the spectrum isn't there.  And if we enact laws that try to deny the existence of the spectrum, we just look stupid.

[Fenring]

So the sun still orbits the Earth?  So mentally ill people are actually possessed by demons?  So the Earth is really flat after all?

I find it absurd that you're saying that biological definitions of male and female are the equivalent of superstition. There is no way to argue with such a solipsism.

[Fenring]

Neanderthal: 'boys don't play with dolls. boys don't wear make-up. boys don't wear dresses'

Confused Lad: 'okay. since I enjoy all of those things, I guess I am a girl then.'

N: '*censored* no! you fall into the category of boy, so you are a boy'

CL: 'but ... you said ...'

N: 'learn to accept your socially defined place!'

I think you're missed the irony of the scenario that you painted here. This was something like what the vista showed in the 1950's and 1960's, where an artificial designation of male/female tastes, colors, hobbies, and mannerism was objected to by feminists, and thus was the argument for a good while. The main objective was, among other important issues like getting women accepted in the workplace, undoing gendered divides in areas that are really just a question of personal taste. It should not make a woman "masculine" to play sports, dislike knitting, or want to wear something other than a dress. A woman, it was argued, it not defined by what she wears, and by whether she acts dainty and demure. Femininity was something real, but something other than what a commercial society tells a woman it is. One of the common concepts was the feminine experience - having that body, menstruation, and all the rest. There were no doubt various accounts of what "feminine" might mean, but universally the undoing feminists desired was around "girls must play with dolls, wear dresses, and stay at home."

So to the extent that you're framing the scenario as problematic that girls should be told they wear pink, play with dolls, and all the rest, the feminists would agree. However your proposed solution (or at minimum the one we're discussing) argues to in fact keep the artificial gender stereotypes but to simply re-assign who fits into masculine and who into feminine. I understand the logic, but it is 100% contradictory with the original (and to an extent current) feminist mission to actually stop perpetuating these nonsensical stereotypes.

[Aris Katsaris]

Fenring, the people who have a problem with people identifying with the other gender than what they were assigned at birth, usually also tend to be the same ones who have problems with people like Conchita Wurst. Who is a cis man, but is told by the same gang of transphobes that he should decide whether he's a man or a woman. He's a man, just seems to like dresses, makeup and a feminine stage persona/name.

By contrast the LGTBQ+ community would generally be supportive of the T portion in the acronum as both "Transgender" and "Transvestiste", both people who identify as the opposite gender than what they were assigned, and people who don't but grossly violate the gender norms in dress. (and also agender or genderfluid people who would like to identify as neither)

This harkens back to what I said: If it wasn't for the "social construct" part of man/woman, if it just literally meant "people who have penises/people who have vaginas" and was thus truly a pure physiological label, there'd probably be no issue be there. Same way that if "parent" only literally meant "person who's given you half of your DNA", there'd be no such thing as adoptive parents.

But society builds connotations and roles around the word. And so people who want the connotations and roles, will also assume the word.

[Aris Katsaris]

Is there any counterargument in regards to the adoptive/biological parenthood analogy that I brought forward?

Do you guys believe that adoptive parents are also a type of parents, or is this one of the things that biology and science in general supposedly disproves, since parenthood has a specific biological meaning?

[Fenring]

Is there any counterargument in regards to the adoptive/biological parenthood analogy that I brought forward?

Do you guys believe that adoptive parents are also a type of parents, or is this one of the things that biology and science in general supposedly disproves, since parenthood has a specific biological meaning?

I don't know that there can be a clear-cut counterargument in the case of what "parent" means in various cases. To see if it fits as an analogy might require a historic view of how that English word was used, since that's what's on the table in regard to "man" and "woman." The problem is that the analogy is going to invariably end up fraught with complications, at least in part because across various cultures (even in the West) the situation about parents and heirs has many parts to it. There is the aspect of inheritance, which has to do with estates and continuation of a dynasty. The Ancient Romans very much had in their culture that any heir could be named and formally adopted, but of course they would not have pretended that this was akin to the patriarch being a "daddy" to the new heir. Across other and newer cultures inheritance would still be an issue, but would come with other complications; for instance recent the Western tradition (actually law) that the eldest was the inheritor of the estate and the others had to have other roles. The various possible roles for children was dictated again by issues of money and continuity, but this time structurally peculiar to that type of society. And of course nowadays an adoptive parent can raise a child as their own, loving them as if their own blood. So this sense of parenthood involves the strong familial bonds and emotional ties, as well as the taken-upon role of raising the child as its new guardians. But between all of these uses the word "parent" will obviously mean different things in different situations.

In the case of adoption, I suspect the word "parent" is in some sense used to convey the interpersonal relationship, and possibly the legal status as well. I don't think it carries the slightest connotation that it's "as if" they had given birth to the child. They love the child as if that was so, but the title doesn't confer the equivalent of "like we gave birth to them." In fact I suspect that the fact of the adoption remains quite present in the minds of most families that have adopted, perhaps kept secret, perhaps revealed, but not 'just like' if it was their biological child. It would be different, I expect, in most cases. Still close, but different.

I think your point is something like - if the word "son" or "daughter" simply conveys a familial relationship and is divorced from the notion of biological birth, then it may be the same as "man" and "woman" in the case of trans people. The birth conditions are irrelevant, but the present condition is what matters. But I do think we run afoul of language-based assumptions either way. Using the word "son" for example to mean "the child we took parental responsibility for" means something very different from "the child we birthed." It's so different, in fact, that the scenario of deadbeat bio parents when contrasted with great adoptive parents should settle that the term "son" doesn't have even remotely the same meaning in both cases. In one usage it's genetic with no connotation of responsibility or quality, where in the other it's the actual responsibility taken and love that is meant by the use of the word. So in this sense they may as well be totally different words, since they mean different things. That they are referred to by the same word is, if anything, a linguistic stumbling block.

[oldbrian]

Me: People prefer easy to package definitions rather than having to think about context and a spectrum of meanings.

Fenring:  Solipsism!

Also Fenring: 3 paragraphs about how we should use different words for adoptive parents because thinking about context and a spectrum of meaning is just too confusing.

[Fenring]

Me: People prefer easy to package definitions rather than having to think about context and a spectrum of meanings.

Fenring:  Solipsism!

Also Fenring: 3 paragraphs about how we should use different words for adoptive parents because thinking about context and a spectrum of meaning is just too confusing.

Why put forward this kind of straw man? It's also circular logic: you are assuming, without having to demonstrate it, that your point is already correct that these two are analogous, and by me explaining how they are potentially not analogous, you conclude that it proves that I'm being inconsistent. Well that's only so if you were absolutely correct in the first place. Which I already claimed you were not.

[Aris Katsaris]

The Ancient Romans very much had in their culture that any heir could be named and formally adopted, but of course they would not have pretended that this was akin to the patriarch being a "daddy" to the new heir.

One wonders then why they used the word "son" and "father".

Notably Augustus gave himself the title "Divi filius' (son of a god) after his adopted father Julius Caesar was deified.

Across other and newer cultures inheritance would still be an issue, but would come with other complications; for instance recent the Western tradition (actually law) that the eldest was the inheritor of the estate and the others had to have other roles. The various possible roles for children was dictated again by issues of money and continuity, but this time structurally peculiar to that type of society.

Yeah, let's discuss inheritance laws in feudal society, as if they have anything to do with anything. /s

Or let's not. This is what I mean when I say you ought learn to be a bit more concise.

That they are referred to by the same word is, if anything, a linguistic stumbling block.

A mere "linguistic stumbling" block affects only one language, or at most a handful related languages. A linguistic stumbling block is a thing like the word "woman" containing the syllable "man" -- it's just something that happens in one language, other languages are different.
 
As far as I can tell, adoptive parents are adoptive parents throughout the world. Because it's not a linguistic issue. It's about the societal construct of parenthood being widespread around the world, as it originates from the universal biological fact of parenthood. But because it originates from that fact, and yet is not *limited* to that fact, adoptive parents lay claim to the word as well.