Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[TomC]

the surprise of literally nobody.

It's no surprise to me. It's standard operating procedure in many threads, particularly the ones concerning transsexuals.

It's not just Gen55 and Meta. You and Politesse do it a lot as well. It's the norm in here.
Tom

I don't post threads seeking "to understand" (more accurately: to disingenuously claim a desire while holding in reserve a perspective to play to). I respond to them, usually to lay them naked as such, and occasionally post threads (more often blogs) to discuss stuff that actually interests me.

What I'm referring to is:

So you've just descended to mockery, and tidbits from the outrage machine? And you're proud of that? You really shouldn't be.

You and many other posters do exactly what Politesse is referring to here.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

the surprise of literally nobody.

It's no surprise to me. It's standard operating procedure in many threads, particularly the ones concerning transsexuals.

It's not just Gen55 and Meta. You and Politesse do it a lot as well. It's the norm in here.
Tom

I don't post threads seeking "to understand" (more accurately: to disingenuously claim a desire while holding in reserve a perspective to play to). I respond to them, usually to lay them naked as such, and occasionally post threads (more often blogs) to discuss stuff that actually interests me.

What I'm referring to is:

So you've just descended to mockery, and tidbits from the outrage machine? And you're proud of that? You really shouldn't be.

You and many other posters do exactly what Politesse is referring to here.
Tom

I don't misrepresent my positions or my intent. And I don't post anything I'm not ready to defend rationally. I get that you don't care for my politics, but I'm getting very tired of these vague personal attacks in thread after thread.

 

[Emily Lake]

I do agree that I used "old man" figuratively to refer to him, and I definitely am not trying to say that trans folks are the gender they are in a figurative sense, so you have noted that accurately.

What I would say is that I actually think trans folks are already covered under the definition for their respective genders anyway, actually, but I didn't want to go on a whole tangent on how one does tests to work out the semantics of words and I didn't feel like that would be the way to maximally edify the person I was replying to on the questions they asked.

But for you, I'll try to summarize my semantic argument. The short version is something like this: I have a good friend who is a trans man, who I met long after he transitioned. Before my friend came out to me, it never occurred to me to describe him using anything other than the word "man" anyway, because I don't go around pulling down people's pants to figure out whether I should call them a man or a woman, and I've never seen anyone else try to do that either. So, at the very least all of the native English speakers who I know who know my friend were already using "man" in a non-figurative way to refer to a trans individual before any of them knew he was trans, and, speaking as a native English speaker who knows him, it feels just as deeply inaccurate to use any other word than "man" now as it did before I knew about him being trans. In semantics, that is empirical evidence that the word "man" covers a trans person in the speech communities I am a member of.

Generally speaking, it's easier for a female person taking testosterone to pass as a man than for a male person taking estrogen to pass as a woman. Testosterone is a one-way street in terms of the effects it has on the body, specifically with respect to the growth of facial and body hair, and the lowering of the voice.

There's also a broader spread of tertiary sex characteristics among males than among females - things like foot and hand size, height, orbital socket shape, jaw shape, etc. Things that are correlated with, but not driven by sex. The proportion of naturally feminine men in the distribution of men as a whole is larger than the proportion of naturally masculine appearing women in the distribution of women. The height of the means and the breadth of the standard deviations are larger for characteristics associated with men than for women.

To your broader point, in social situations it doesn't really matter. I treat people how they wish to be treated. In more private situations (including restrooms and changing rooms) it's a bit squishier, but generally speaking if a person is even moderately passing, they won't be challenged. There are a few situations where I believe that sex is significantly more important a factor than gender identity, but even then I'm perfectly willing to allow exceptions based on specific cases, as well as the degree of physical transition. For example, when it comes to prisons, I start from a principle of "no penises in the women's prison". But I'm willing to make exceptions for any transwoman who has had genital surgery, and I'm willing to consider exceptions for transwomen who haven't had surgery based on their ability to fit in and a lack of violence in their criminal history.

The problems arise in cases where a person is obviously of a particular sex, but demands that they be treated as if they're indistinguishable from the opposite sex. It's when a 6', 200lb, broad-shouldered, bearded person in a skirt insists that nobody can tell they're a man, and that they feel like a woman and therefore should be entitled to access to women's changing rooms, locker rooms, and lesbian get togethers, and that if lesbians refuse to date them then those lesbians are transphobic bigots who need to unlearn their genital fetishes, that there's a considerable pushback. Vice versa with respect to females and transmen of course.

It's also things like transgender advocates and allies taking political action to force rape and domestic violence shelters to accept male-bodied, male-appearing people on the basis of self-declaration, regardless of how much harm is done to the females seeking help there.

 

[Emily Lake]

This definition is also going to turn out imperfect in some way, and that will prove to be precisely as non-deadly to my overall points about the fuzziness of word definitions as past objections were, and there will still be exactly zero justifications at the end of the day for saying "We shouldn't use the gender words for trans folks that trans folks would like us to use".

What's your thoughts on cases where a female human was raped by a male human, but that male human identifies as a transwoman... and the court demands that if the victim of rape doesn't refer to the person who violently penetrated her with their penis as "she", then the victim could be faced with criminal charges?

 

[Emily Lake]

XX: No make-a-dick message is sent.
XY: The make-a-dick message is sent:
Swyer syndrome: The person is insensitive to all types of testosterone. The result is apparently female but likely with fertility issues.
5α-Reductase 2 deficiency: The person is insensitive to dihydrotestosterone but responds normally to testosterone. The result is they look nearly female at birth but will grow a dick at puberty.
Neither of these: born with a dick.

None of that has anything at all to do with transgender discussions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To your broader point, in social situations it doesn't really matter. I treat people how they wish to be treated. In more private situations (including restrooms and changing rooms) it's a bit squishier, but generally speaking if a person is even moderately passing, they won't be challenged. There are a few situations where I believe that sex is significantly more important a factor than gender identity, but even then I'm perfectly willing to allow exceptions based on specific cases, as well as the degree of physical transition. For example, when it comes to prisons, I start from a principle of "no penises in the women's prison".

Drink!

But I'm willing to make exceptions for any transwoman who has had genital surgery, and I'm willing to consider exceptions for transwomen who haven't had surgery based on their ability to fit in and a lack of violence in their criminal history.

The problems arise in cases where a person is obviously of a particular sex, but demands that they be treated as if they're indistinguishable from the opposite sex. It's when a 6', 200lb, broad-shouldered, bearded person in a skirt insists that nobody can tell they're a man, and that they feel like a woman and therefore should be entitled to access to women's changing rooms, locker rooms,...

Drink!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This definition is also going to turn out imperfect in some way, and that will prove to be precisely as non-deadly to my overall points about the fuzziness of word definitions as past objections were, and there will still be exactly zero justifications at the end of the day for saying "We shouldn't use the gender words for trans folks that trans folks would like us to use".

What's your thoughts on cases where a female human was raped by a male human, but that male human identifies as a transwoman... and the court demands that if the victim of rape doesn't refer to the person who violently penetrated her with their penis as "she", then the victim could be faced with criminal charges?

Is a rape victim going to give a fuck about pronouns?

 

[Jarhyn]

the surprise of literally nobody.

It's no surprise to me. It's standard operating procedure in many threads, particularly the ones concerning transsexuals.

It's not just Gen55 and Meta. You and Politesse do it a lot as well. It's the norm in here.
Tom

I don't post threads seeking "to understand" (more accurately: to disingenuously claim a desire while holding in reserve a perspective to play to). I respond to them, usually to lay them naked as such, and occasionally post threads (more often blogs) to discuss stuff that actually interests me.

What I'm referring to is:

So you've just descended to mockery, and tidbits from the outrage machine? And you're proud of that? You really shouldn't be.

You and many other posters do exactly what Politesse is referring to here.
Tom

And my discussion notes that Politesse's argument relies on an unstated element which is apparent but apparently not for you: where it descended from.

The starting point is germane.

 

[Emily Lake]

People keep bringing it up for two simple reasons:

1. Trans-skeptics posit that it's so utterly important to link the pronouns and gender terms one uses for a person with what sex chromosomes/genitalia they have that it's important to ignore a trans person's preferences when it conflicts with said chromosomes and/or genitalia.
2. People like my friend, who you would not consider a man but who nonetheless so closely resembles one such that all the people I know who know him have never once questioned whether he has the right downstairs equipment for the word man, exist and get treated as the gender they identify as rather than the one traditionally required to correspond to his genitalia.

If 1. is so important, then it must be imperative that 2. get resolved, and there's only one clear, if very intrusive, way to do that. Alternatively, if it's not so important to link pronouns to the dangles in one's pants that we must violate their privacy, then why do we need to make it an issue at all?

I think you're missing an element of this.

If it were the case that every transgender person passes very well, there would be far less of an issue. What you're leaving out is:

3. People like Alex Drummond, who are obviously male-bodied, male-appearing, men who like to wear makeup and dresses, and who do NOT pass, and who do NOT get assumed to be women

Which causes me to rephrase item 1...

1. Gender Skeptics who posit that there is no justification for demanding that people be forced to use wrong pronouns for someone who is obviously and unquestionably the opposite sex.

So, for instance, I have no problem referring to Buck Angel as "he". I doubt anyone does. But I struggle with Page, because to me they still look like an Ellen, and not at all like an Elliot. Removal of breast tissue and donning of a suit doesn't negate the clearly feminine look of Page's face and general body shape. Give them some time on testosterone and that may change.

Similarly, I have no problem referring to Debbie Hayton or Lavern Cox as "she", but I don't feel I should be obligated to refer to Eddie Izzard or Rachel McKinnon as "she" because neither of them look female, both are perceptibly male in shape and facial structure. McKinnon's exogenous-hormone-induced breast growth just makes them look like a dude with boobs ala Robert Paulson. Izzard looks exactly the same as he did when identifying as a transvestite, he looks like a man in traditionally women's clothing.

 

[Emily Lake]

(And I think it's even more the case with sexual alignment. I'm in the camp that doesn't think there really is such a thing as homosexuality--or heterosexuality. There is no internal concept of being attracted to the same gender or the opposite gender. Rather, it makes much more sense if there is an attracted-to-males system and an attracted-to-females system. A model with one control being heterosexual/homosexual and one being intensity does a much poorer job of explaining bisexuality and asexuality than two independent systems, one for attracted to men and one for attracted to women, each with an intensity control.)

Non.

Nobody is attracted to the same "gender". People are attracted to zero, one, or both sexes.

I'll give you "pan" as part of that list, for people who are attracted to any combination of parts, both organic and facsimile.

 

[KeepTalking]

I will try, let's see how open those ears of yours are. You said "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female.""

That is simply incorrect. Merriam Websters, provides one such definition for man:
Merriam Websters - man
d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Merriam Websters is in the business of defining words, so if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for this discussion.

By this definition, it is perfectly fine to refer to any transwoman who doesn't pass for a woman as a man, regardless of which gender they self-identify as since the definition makes no reference to gender self-identification whatsoever.

Simple reference to a definition does not in any way imply that usage of that definition is 'perfectly fine' in any given context. Those usages would need to be examined on their own merits.

It's not perfectly fine to refer to a man as a man?

I don't believe I made any such statement. Neither did I claim that it is 'perfectly fine', or not, for any one to be referenced by any specific noun. I very clearly stated that such usages would need to be examined on their own merits, and this would include taking into account the context in which they were used.

It may be that sometimes it is not perfectly fine to refer to a man as a man?

Please clarify. What exactly is potentially wrong with saying that a non-passing transwoman is a man?

Is there some factual inaccuracy in the statement?

If someone who you are inclined to call a man has asked you not to call them a man, and you intentionally call them a man regardless, that is exceedingly rude, and is not "perfectly fine" from the perspective of the person to whom you are being exceedingly rude. It is often considered rude to comment on things that are factually correct.

 

[Emily Lake]

I use they often in certain context to refer to somebody of unknown gender. I don't have a particular problem with it, or indeed any polite fictions. But what about 'demonself'? Please note I am not making any of these neopronouns up.

I also use "they" in cases where a person identifies as transgender, but don't reasonably pass (often including very sex-linked behaviors), and I cannot force myself to believe they're the opposite sex. So... at present Elliot Page is a "they", as is Rachel McKinnon.

But there's only so far I can force my brain to bend, even for polite fiction. If I were directly interacting with them, I would use female pronouns out of courtesy for Alex Drummond and Eddie Izzard... but when they're unlikely to be reading anything I post, they're both firmly "he". Neither of them is in any way passing, and to me they are both clearly male transvestites.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I use they often in certain context to refer to somebody of unknown gender. I don't have a particular problem with it, or indeed any polite fictions. But what about 'demonself'? Please note I am not making any of these neopronouns up.

I also use "they" in cases where a person identifies as transgender, but don't reasonably pass (often including very sex-linked behaviors), and I cannot force myself to believe they're the opposite sex. So... at present Elliot Page is a "they", as is Rachel McKinnon.

But there's only so far I can force my brain to bend, even for polite fiction. If I were directly interacting with them, I would use female pronouns out of courtesy for Alex Drummond and Eddie Izzard... but when they're unlikely to be reading anything I post, they're both firmly "he". Neither of them is in any way passing, and to me they are both clearly male transvestites.

"Executive Transvestite"

 

[Emily Lake]

What you just said there is a big part of why this discussion is very important. It doesn't feel right on a gut level to allow trans women to compete with cisgender women. In the Guinness Book of World Records in 2010, there was a transgender man named Thomas Beatie who became known as "The Pregnant Man" and went into the records books......and this is a real quote.....as ""World's First Married Man to Give Birth." Does this sound like a worthy headline? I can't imagine you guys actually agreeing with this quote as the same thing as a man actually giving birth. This is why we need definitions of the words. Do you guys agree with the Guinness Book of World Records here?

For example, if a trans women were to impregnate a trans man, I can write the headline, "Woman impregnates man." Is it really possible you guys can read this with a straight face and agree with it? This is why this subject is so important. It makes it seem like the words "man" and "woman" are losing all meaning. They can mean everything and nothing at the same time.

Can any of you guys try to explain this?

The explanation is Newspeak

 

[Emily Lake]

Now: if instead you will allow my sexual preference but want me to say "I want to fuck only adult human males", well, I find that odd that I would have to change my language to suit some females who want to call themselves men.

Here's where things get wonky too: If you take gay to mean "only wants to fuck adult human males"... does that include transgender identifying males who have either surgically added or grown breasts through exogenous hormone therapy? For example, is Laurel Hubbard part of the category of people that you consider fuckable, even if they specifically are not attractive to you?

 

[Emily Lake]

Blame it on Disney. This is strongly related to why women can have such unbelievably poor taste in men.

Oh yes, we poor silly women, no original thoughts in our heads, all just programmed by the world around us... Totally without agency, totally without evolutionarily-driven sexual-selection parameters...

I'm always a bit taken aback when a person who 'identifies as a woman' proceeds to make denigrating comments about women.

 

[Emily Lake]

\What has you confused is ideology. I do not care a rodent's rectum about it. I am telling you that my brain is physically different, and I really preferred being called "she" and "her" when you talk about me in conversation, bitte-danke. Beyond that, I believe that most of the ideology about gender, either way, is stupid. I cannot be bothered to provide you with several years' worth of education about neuroanatomy, and getting my gender right, whenever you talk about me with others, is probably the easiest way that you will ever make friends with somebody.

Furthermore, I disagree with the deconstructionist approach. According to Nick Haslam, it is a counterproductive approach, and when fighting back against essentialism, we are better off focusing on entitative essentialism, which is the kind of stereotyping that denies diversity within a group or intersectionality with other groups. For instance, a transgender man can also be a misogynistic conservative Protestant that likes to watch football. Not all of them are like that, but they can be. Transgender women can be like that, too. Some trans-women are also rednecks that like to go deer-hunting in the autumn. A surprising number of them are fat and lazy computer programmers that have not actually looked believably feminine since middle-school. Only a few of them actually look like the glamorous models off of RuPaul, and a truly amazing number of them just look like normal, everyday people. The point is that we come in all possible flavors. You might even like some of us.

See Essentialist beliefs about social categories, by Nick Haslam.

I have given you the neurobiological explanation for why I am the way that I am. If you need sources, then I am happy to provide them for you, but you could always look them up on your own if you prefer. Also, I have given you simple instructions for how to make a good start on turning me into a friend if that were ever your inclination: just call me by the gender that I prefer to be called.

I am not complicated. Life is complicated, but I am not. When you get right down to it, I am the easiest person ever.

I'm of the mind that gender ideology is idiotic in the extreme, and is generally highly regressive. It foists off limiting expectations of behavior and presentation as being somehow innate and beneficial. It takes the trope of "girls a sugar and spice, boys are snips and snails" and assumes that it is a reflection of reality.

I'm quite happy to abolish gender altogether. What one likes, how one prefers to present, the behaviors and tendencies one presents to the world do not DEFINE whether a person is a man or a woman. The class of behaviors associated with men should, in my opinion, expand to include liking princesses and pink and sparkly things, nail polish, make-up, and twirly dresses and kittens. The class of behaviors associate with women should expand to include steel-toed boots and buzz-cuts, monster trucks, trousers, engine noises, and competitive sports. Being a feminine male doesn't make one any less of a man, being a masculine female doesn't make one any less of a woman.

On the other hand, however, sex is a biological reality. And at present, that fact has extremely real and profound impacts on the lives of people across the globe, including their ability to participate in society. Until such time as women and girls across the planet are no longer subjected to genital mutilation, corrective rape, selective abortion, and being beaten or stoned for talking to a man they're not related to... until women are actually treated as equal in society and judged on the content of our character rather than our looks or our choice in "pantsuits", until rapes are no longer 95% perpetrated by males and no longer 98% visited upon females, until the rate of sexual assault and intimate partner violence approaches within spitting distance of equilibrium between the sexes... I'm not willing to pretend that sex doesn't matter. And I'm not willing to surrender sex-segregated spaces without considerably more discussion than it's currently being given.

 

[Emily Lake]

My life is very simple. People like me, or they dislike me. If they like me, then most of them would call me whatever I asked them to call me. If they disliked me, then I would be shocked if they did not do the opposite just because it annoyed me.

You can't please all the people all the time.

That seems like an eminently reasonable position.

 

[Emily Lake]

Transgender people are genuinely born with their brains connected a little bit differently. I can support this point-of-view with tungsten-hard scientific research if you want to go there.

I am actually interested in some references. I'd also appreciate your personal opinion on whether this applies to all people who currently fall under the "trans umbrella", or whether some of the current crop of transpeople might be responding to a social construct as a panacea for ills unrelated to gender dysphoria.

 

[Emily Lake]

@Metaphor It is substantially less complicated if transgender girls are put started on HRT at the beginning of puberty, rather than after its completion. I sensed that I was transgender at the very start of my puberty, and that was during the mid-1990's, when that kind of thinking might have actually gotten me expelled for being a disgusting pervert and therefore somehow a threat to other kids. I still knew. A transgender girl that starts transitioning at the same age as the normal age, for girls to go through puberty, cannot be easily distinguished from cis-girls. Their performance ought to be commensurate with that of their female peers.

This is a difficult topic for me. On one hand, I agree that if a person is unambiguously transgender prior to the onset of puberty, and there is extremely high confidence that they will persist in their gender identity, I have no objection to cross-sex hormones in extreme cases, despite the risks to health and long-term side effects.

On the other hand, there's been a dramatic increase in the number of teenagers identifying as trans, especially young females. And there is some evidence to suggest that many of those don't have a history of dysphoria, and have not previously exhibited any transgender tendencies. Many of the males who profess to be transgender during puberty are neuro-atypical, frequently autistic, but also a high proportion of ADHD.. Those are conditions that frequently present with delayed or otherwise non-typical maturation of emotions, and frequently create delays in forming sexual and romantic relationships. Many of the females who profess to be transgender exhibit the same mental and emotional patterns that have been associated with cutting, anorexia, etc. in past eras. For both the males and the females, a large number of them are people whose family and friends perceived them as 'likely to be gay". So I'm skeptical of whether the diagnostic criteria is being robustly applied for these young people. And when you add in countries and states that have taken the approach of "self-declaration", that removes any opportunity for a redirection to a less invasive treatment when it would be appropriate.

And on the gripping hand... The number of people who have gone through puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones during puberty over the last decade, and have since desisted and said that they were misdiagnosed and were never actually transgender is growing. And it's growing fast. These are people who have experienced permanent changes to their bodies that cannot be undone. Boobs don't disappear when you stop taking estrogen. Beards don't ungrow when you stop taking testosterone. And one a health body part has been removed, it can't be put back on.

At the end of the day, I don't want cross-sex treatment for teens to be banned... but I do want very clear and strictly used diagnostic criteria in order for it to be accessed.