Let's Hear It For the Girls

[krypton iodine sulfur]

No, they propose girls who are transgender compete with girls.

Transgender girls are boys.

You mean like gay men are liars who chose sin?

Um, no? What would gay men be lying about?

Being gay.

Sometimes gay men lie and pretend they're straight, I suppose.

I think you're misunderstanding what KrIS is saying here. KrIS does not appear to be talking about gay men actually lying, but instead appears to be alluding to a meme endemic to a subculture of conservative Christians that holds that there's really no such thing as gay people.

Yes.

KrIS appears to be expressing the opinion that your view, that M2Fs not really female but male, is analogous to those conservative Christians' view, that men who lie with mankind as with womankind are not really gay but rebellious.

A reasonable interpretation, but it's not about his personal view on transgender people. It's the idea that transgender rights advocates are arguing for the right of boys to compete against girls. They aren't. Even if he disagrees with the premise that transgender girls are girls, that doesn't provide a reason for altering the argument transgender rights advocates are actually making.

 

[Bomb#20]

I understand that there are trans-identified males who have gender dysphoria and who want to be women. Their dysphoria is a result of their biological sex (male) and the sex they wish they were (female).

This is at odds with scientifiC evidence and An insult that surprises me to come from someone who is homosexual.
It is not what they “wish” they were, it is what they are on a biological level. The parts of the body that concern genitalia, sexuality and gender identity are not i the same place, nor do they develop at the same time. They exist physically in different places in the body and brain. So if you want to discuss whether a person has a hormonal advantage in sports, you can do that without denying the biological reality of gender or sexual dysphoria.

This displays a misconception of what science is and of what science does and does not tell us. There is, and can be, no scientific evidence one way or the other as to whether the people in question are men or women, on a biological level. That is a question of categorization, which is to say, of labeling, and labeling is not the business the scientific method is in. Science can tell us what the brain differences typically are between M2Fs and cis-males, just as it can tell us what their uterine differences typically are; what science cannot tell us is whether brain differences are more or less important than uterine differences in determining proper categorization of individuals. That is up to each observer's personal subjective sense of "important". So if you want to assert -- or deny -- that M2Fs are men, you can do that too without denying the biological reality of gender or sexual dysphoria. To suppose that experts in biology can objectively settle whether M2Fs are men or women for the rest of us is no different from supposing that experts in astronomy can objectively settle whether Pluto is a planet for the rest of us -- it's a category error.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Of course it's not a lie. We've been using words to refer to sex for thousands of years.

We've been using them to delineate people who appear to be female and people who appear to be male. We didn't assign the words to individuals based on chromosomes or organs or any scientific biological principle through the majority of common usage.

Except for people disguising their sex, the terms 'man' and 'woman' have had a very good correspondence to people's biological sex.

They still do. That relationship is highly significant. It just isn't and never has been absolute. Increased understanding of human variability has just led us to acknowledge more exceptions to the norm.

We haven't referred to human 'gender' before the 20th century.

And even when we started referring to human gender, we weren't initially referring to something distinct from sex. This sex/gender divide is a very recent phenomenon. Our understanding of sex and identity has evolved. Our language had to evolve to. But this doesn't explain where the misguided biological Puritanism comes into play. We've never needed to verify biological sex to use the terms 'man' and 'woman'. When did that become the standard standard? When was it we ever verified biology as a requirement of ordinary usage of the terms?

 

[Bomb#20]

KrIS appears to be expressing the opinion that your view, that M2Fs not really female but male, is analogous to those conservative Christians' view, that men who lie with mankind as with womankind are not really gay but rebellious.

I don't think M2Fs are rebelling against anything. I think many of them have gender dysphoria. They're just not women. They're men.

As pointed out above, whether they're men or women is not a scientific matter; I therefore decline to take a position on this question. Divide people into categories as you please. But if your point is that KrIS's analogy is rather inapt, on that I agree with you.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

But if your point is that KrIS's analogy is rather inapt, on that I agree with you.

Inapt based on your interpretation? Save it. I didn't follow through with it and that is on me, but don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Bomb#20]

KrIS appears to be expressing the opinion that your view, that M2Fs not really female but male, is analogous to those conservative Christians' view, that men who lie with mankind as with womankind are not really gay but rebellious.

A reasonable interpretation, but it's not about his personal view on transgender people. It's the idea that transgender rights advocates are arguing for the right of boys to compete against girls. They aren't. Even if he disagrees with the premise that transgender girls are girls, that doesn't provide a reason for altering the argument transgender rights advocates are actually making.

Not seeing how Metaphor substantively altered the argument; he simply translated it from the trans activists' preferred terminology into his own preferred terminology -- the same way you just did when you changed what he wrote -- "trans activists" -- into the term you prefer: "transgender rights advocates". There is no requirement that everybody has to conform to your terminology in order to get to say why you're wrong. Metaphor is under no more obligation to use trans activists' preferred words when he's rebutting their argument than I am to never dispute Descartes' theory of dualism unless I can do it in French.

That's the general principle. As to specifics, Metaphor did not indicate that transgender rights advocates are arguing for the right of boys to compete against girls, full stop, as though that meant any boy who wanted to sign up for the girls' footrace should get to. His exact words were "Trans activists want high schools to let boys who have not had any cross-sex hormones or surgery to compete with girls - that is, identification alone." That part at the end, "that is, identification alone", makes it clear that he is not talking about cis-boys; he means the activists are arguing that any person who Metaphor classifies as a boy and who identifies as a girl should get to compete with the people Metaphor classifies as girls. As far as I can see, that doesn't misrepresent their position at all.

"the recommendation for K-12 inclusion of transgender students is for transgender youth to be allowed to play sports in their affirmed gender." (Source: www.transathlete.com)​

How is that position any different from what Metaphor said it was, once you take into account the different way he uses the words "boys" and "girls"?

 

[Bomb#20]

But if your point is that KrIS's analogy is rather inapt, on that I agree with you.

Inapt based on your interpretation? Save it. I didn't follow through with it and that is on me, but don't put words in my mouth.

What words am I supposed to have put in your mouth?

I think you're misunderstanding what KrIS is saying here. KrIS does not appear to be talking about gay men actually lying, but instead appears to be alluding to a meme endemic to a subculture of conservative Christians that holds that there's really no such thing as gay people.

Yes.

Sounds like I got that part right. You aren't denying that you were making an analogy between the above Christian meme and what Metaphor said, are you? Of course you were. And I get to think it's an inapt analogy. If you mean I didn't understand your analogy, so what? You indicated that what I missed is that you were making an analogy to Metaphor claiming "transgender rights advocates are arguing for the right of boys to compete against girls.", full stop. Well, Metaphor didn't claim that!. You're the one who put that period into the sentence, not him. So it's still an inapt analogy.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

[
Not seeing how Metaphor substantively altered the argument; he simply translated it from the trans activists' preferred terminology into his own preferred terminology

Altering the premise alters the argument. He was attributing that argument to others with an altered premise instead of challenging what he likely saw as a faulty premise. The reason for inclusion is that transgender girls are girls. That is the basis of the argument. Change that, and the argument changes. Honestly, formulate it as a logical argument with the substitution and tell me it doesn't change when you alter the premise.

You can't do it unless you equate 'girl' and 'boy', which we have little reason to believe Mataphor does.

the same way you just did when you changed what he wrote -- "trans activists" -- into the term you prefer: "transgender rights advocates".

An 'inapt' analogy. I was making a statement on my own behalf about what is incorrect. I was not attributing an argument to him.

There is no requirement that everybody has to conform to your terminology in order to get to say why you're wrong.

That wasn't my argument. It isn't implied or required for my argument to be made. There are numerous other wordings he could have chosen using his own characterization of what 'trans activists' are arguing for. He could have so much as added the word 'effectively'. Anything to avoid attributing an argument to a group which that group isn't making.

Metaphor is under no more obligation to use trans activists' preferred words when he's rebutting their argument than I am to never dispute Descartes' theory of dualism unless I can do it in French.

Another nonsensical analogy. This isn't an issue of a cosmetic change. He directly altered the premise of the argument with which he disagreed. He swapped an English term for a non-equivalent English term.

That part at the end, "that is, identification alone", makes it clear that he is not talking about cis-boys

It doesn't. While I don't believe it to be the case here, one of the more common arguments levelled against transgender rights is cisgender men identifying as women to gain benefits. We can assume, but it isn't clear, or at the very least, not as clear as what 'trans activists' advocate for.

"the recommendation for K-12 inclusion of transgender students is for transgender youth to be allowed to play sports in their affirmed gender." (Source: www.transathlete.com)​

How is that position any different from what Metaphor said it was, once you take into account the different way he uses the words "boys" and "girls"?

It properly specific in meaning. Are you under the impression those words where chosen whimsically with no meaning or purpose?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

What words am I supposed to have put in your mouth?

"KrIS appears to be expressing the opinion that your view, that M2Fs not really female but male, is analogous to those conservative Christians' view, that men who lie with mankind as with womankind are not really gay but rebellious."

Not something I said, but it's an interpretation so fine.

But now the analogy is being evaluated on your version of it? It's weird and off-putting. It's not something I actually said, so don't. I don't need your interpretations or to have you speaking on my behalf. You lack the necessary skill sets. It is unwanted. But certainly don't double down on it like you knew what the fuck you were talking about. It's dismissive and rude. I'm in the fucking thread. Just ask me for clarification instead of talking around me.

If you mean I didn't understand your analogy, so what? You indicated that what I missed is that you were making an analogy to Metaphor claiming "transgender rights advocates are arguing for the right of boys to compete against girls.", full stop. Well, Metaphor didn't claim that!. You're the one who put that period into the sentence, not him. So it's still an inapt analogy.

He did. Swap in the word 'trans activists' if it makes you more comfortable. I know you want to make a semantic swap with the word 'girls' and the word 'boys' and you've rationalized that as a reasonable thing to do, but it isn't. It isn't a neutral shift. The conversation as it unfolded makes that clear. Or is it that 'identification' got dropped? It was never a point of contention. I identified the specific thing with which I had disagreement and have been clear my issue is that he attributed an argument to others while altering the premise.

 

[Metaphor]

And even when we started referring to human gender, we weren't initially referring to something distinct from sex. This sex/gender divide is a very recent phenomenon. Our understanding of sex and identity has evolved. Our language had to evolve to. But this doesn't explain where the misguided biological Puritanism comes into play. We've never needed to verify biological sex to use the terms 'man' and 'woman'. When did that become the standard standard? When was it we ever verified biology as a requirement of ordinary usage of the terms?

I have no idea what you are asking me.

Nobody needs to "verify" biological sex to call a man, a man. It's understood that the term "man" refers to biological males. If you are not a biological male, you are not a man.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Nobody needs to "verify" biological sex to call a man, a man. It's understood that the term "man" refers to biological males. If you are not a biological male, you are not a man.

There is no actual biology in common usage. Common usage doesn't have that absolute criterion. I mean, it can't for practical reasons. The terminology predates most of our understanding of biology and sex. Currently, it's not practical to designate people 'man' or 'woman' based on their actual biology. It is factually not what we do. You say it 'man' means 'biological males' but that is not how it is applied in practice. We use a handful of phenotypes at birth to sort people into two buckets, often only investigating our actual biology when problems arise (though there are other reasons, admittedly).

We did eventually use biology to describe what we were labelling as men and women. It's obviously no accident that reproductive function mapped pretty well to those terms. They never perfectly aligned, mind you.

If 'man' and 'woman' were strictly biological, that would be a mess anyway. Contemporary biology recognizes that 'men' and 'women' are in many cases not so neatly summed up when looking at all primary and secondary sex characteristics. Not saying that in defence of transgender identities. Just saying, impractical and clunky.

 

[Metaphor]

Nobody needs to "verify" biological sex to call a man, a man. It's understood that the term "man" refers to biological males. If you are not a biological male, you are not a man.

There is no actual biology in common usage. Common usage doesn't have that absolute criterion. I mean, it can't for practical reasons. The terminology predates most of our understanding of biology and sex. Currently, it's not practical to designate people 'man' or 'woman' based on their actual biology. It is factually not what we do.

We do it all the time and we've always done it. A doctor identified your sex at birth and the words man and woman go on to identify that sex throughout your life.

You say it 'man' means 'biological males' but that is not how it is applied in practice. We use a handful of phenotypes at birth to sort people into two buckets, often only investigating our actual biology when problems arise (though there are other reasons, admittedly).

We did eventually use biology to describe what we were labelling as men and women. It's obviously no accident that reproductive function mapped pretty well to those terms. They never perfectly aligned, mind you.

If 'man' and 'woman' were strictly biological, that would be a mess anyway. Contemporary biology recognizes that 'men' and 'women' are in many cases not so neatly summed up when looking at all primary and secondary sex characteristics. Not saying that in defence of transgender identities. Just saying, impractical and clunky.

Intersex conditions do not negate the terms 'man' or 'woman'. The emergence of the gender/sex distinction in the 1960s does not mean 'man' or 'woman' mean something that they've never meant.

A woman is an adult human female. A person with the primary and secondary sexual characteristics of adult human males cannot be a woman. Hormones and surgery do not change a person's sex because sex cannot be changed (with current human technology). The term 'transgender' is also misleading, inasmuch as a transgender person doesn't change genders or sex.

Now, like any of the faithful, repeating mantras endlessly does make people into believers. So, it's true that if you repeat the incoherent phrase 'trans women are women' enough, some people will believe it. But that doesn't make the statement true.

Man and woman refer to the sexes of adult humans. A sex is not determined by the mental events of adult humans but by their physiological reality.

Sports are segregated by sex and not by gender. To segregate sports by gender is to negate the very reason sports are segregated in the first place.

"Trans women" are men.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

A doctor identified your sex at birth and the words man and woman go on to identify that sex throughout your life.

A doctor looked at a few phenotypes and made a designation. That is factually what happened. No one anywhere at anytime has assessed me biologically to determine I am man beyond a set of phenotypic expressions. People use a small set of phenotypic expressions (plus electrolysis) to label me as a woman now. That is an ordinary practice for using the terms 'man' and 'woman'. There is nothing incorrect about it.

The point here is not that transgender people and allies are arguing 'man' and 'woman' is defined strictly by appearance. The point is constantly repeating 'biology' is a nonsense dismissal. If you reject the concept that gender identity is meaningful and that the terms 'man' and 'woman' are meaningfully applied based on gender identity, so be it. But if you're going to keep up the routine that a doctor looking at my genitals as a baby is the reason why transgender women aren't women, you're not really making a relevant (or even true) argument.

When I go to see medical doctors, they address me as a woman because it is utterly fucking irrelevant to what they do. They mark 'F' under sex. I will at some point be screened for prostate cancer simply because I have one. I will be screened for breast cancer because I fall within female category of elevated risk. When I went to the ER after surgery, they went for the gynaecological cart because it had the appropriate equipment. There are more examples but it gets increasingly personal. All that practical biology without one fucking whit of care to whether I am designated a 'man' or a 'woman' because those terms do not matter. This wholesale 'man' or 'woman' is not relevant. They do what is specific to my biology which, if we generalize, includes treatment and care which is applicable to men, to women, to both, and in very limited cases what is specific to MtF transexual women.

The terms 'man' and 'woman' predate the biology you are using to define them. You have the relationship backwards. We used biology to describe the terms we had, not the other way around. Those biological descriptions do not perfectly align with how we label people. That is reality. You are talking anachronistic bullshit.

And when it comes to advantage in competition, it is variable to the individual. Not all transgender women have biological advantage. It depends on a number of variables. Some transgender women do have a biological advantage. Some cisgender women have a comparable advantage. If you want to regulate advantage, regulate advantage. NCAA, elite-level sports and professional sports, by all means.

High school is more complicated. I do not know what the correct solution is. But again, not all transgender girls even have an advantage in the first place, so banning transgender girls as a rule makes little sense. Such proposals aren't acknowledging biology--they're being conveniently selective.

 

[repoman]

You have a dog in this fight, so you can't be trusted to be unbiased.

 

[Trausti]

Well, doctors must have some sort of superpower. 99+% of those “assigned” male at birth turn out to be men as adults. Almost like nature is telling us something.

 

[Trausti]

Have we yet considered the rampant transphobia in forensic pathology/anthropology? They find some old bones and can determine it’s a male or female? Really?!? Based on a few phenotypes? Like humans are animals? FFS

 

[Trausti]

At this point it’s clear that nature made many (nearly all) species sexually dimorphic over millions of years of evolution. Whereas human sex differences exist for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Metaphor]

The point is constantly repeating 'biology' is a nonsense dismissal. If you reject the concept that gender identity is meaningful and that the terms 'man' and 'woman' are meaningfully applied based on gender identity, so be it.

Of course I'm rejecting the idea that the terms 'man' and 'woman' apply to gender identity. They never have. Doctors don't assign you a gender at birth because you don't have a concept of gender at birth. Doctors find out your sex at birth (and often before).

All that practical biology without one fucking whit of care to whether I am designated a 'man' or a 'woman' because those terms do not matter. This wholesale 'man' or 'woman' is not relevant. They do what is specific to my biology which, if we generalize, includes treatment and care which is applicable to men, to women, to both, and in very limited cases what is specific to MtF transexual women.

Every cell in your body is XY. For 95 per cent of medicine that probably isn't relevant. But it doesn't mean sex is irrelevant, nor that throughout history the terms man and woman applied to human males and females.

The terms 'man' and 'woman' predate the biology you are using to define them. You have the relationship backwards. We used biology to describe the terms we had, not the other way around. Those biological descriptions do not perfectly align with how we label people. That is reality. You are talking anachronistic bullshit.

Non. Humans knew there were two sexes and they knew how to distinguish between them. The phenomena predates language, because that's how the language arose.

High school is more complicated. I do not know what the correct solution is.

You segregate sports by sex, like we have always done.

Sports have never been separated on gender identity, because that would be nonsense.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It's understood that the term "man" refers to biological males.

There is no actual biology in the application of the label 'man' in the overwhelming majority of cases. That is the point of contention. Obviously there is a significant relationship, but you mistake the relationship between the two for some sort of rule. We apply the terms 'man' and 'woman' in ways which don't align with some neat and tidy corresponding biological definition.

Biology doesn't need 'man' and 'woman' as we apply them to people ordinarily.
We don't use biology to apply the terms 'man' and 'woman' ordinarily.

That is the literal basic truth of how we operate in practice, even without factoring in transgender people.

Nothing in these statements implies sex is irrelevant. Sex is relevant to why people call me a woman, typically. Because they identify my appearance with certain phenotypical expressions associated with women, not a great deal dissimilar from what the doctor did when I was born. The biological reality is more complicated. The fact that it is due to medical intervention isn't relevant. HRT effects biological change. Obviously that change is limited and there are many structures which are as male as they ever were. My genetics haven't changed. The biology is what it is, and 'man' and 'woman' are worth precisely fuck all in that.

This does not mean sex is irrelevant. It means biology is more complex than 'man' and 'woman'. This requires no third sex.

Recognizing transgender men as men and transgender women as women is a shift from what the overwhelming majority of the population has done, historically. You reject that change. So be it. But biology isn't crying out, 'STOP, YOU MUSN'T!'. It doesn't fucking matter to biology. 'Man' and 'woman' were categorizations which lack the complexity in human sexual variation biology had describes. We don't match the terms 'man' and 'woman' to keep them updated with our knowledge of biology. 'Man' and 'woman' do not march lockstep with science and they don't need to.

You segregate sports by sex, like we have always done.

Sports have never been separated on gender identity, because that would be nonsense.

Right, so you want the transgender boys who have undergone hrt to compete against cisgender girls?

Sports where never segregated by gender identity because most of society had minimal understanding of what it was to be transgender or why it was significant to matters of discrimination.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Have we yet considered the rampant transphobia in forensic pathology/anthropology? They find some old bones and can determine it’s a male or female? Really?!? Based on a few phenotypes? Like humans are animals? FFS

Humans are animals. We don't run the same genetic tests on babies that we do on bones. Some bones have sex chromosomes which don't align with gender-based burial customs which has led researchers to question the identity of the person buried.

Well, doctors must have some sort of superpower. 99+% of those “assigned” male at birth turn out to be men as adults. Almost like nature is telling us something.

I have never said there is no relationship. Reality is more complex than that relationship. Those of us who want to embrace reality don't feel the need to erase that complexity in favour of rigid normalization.

At this point it’s clear that nature made many (nearly all) species sexually dimorphic over millions of years of evolution. Whereas human sex differences exist for no reason whatsoever.

Again, you are arguing against something I simply am not saying. At no point have I once said reproduction is divorced from sexual differentiation.