The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Loren Pechtel]

But there are also those who are x,255-x,0. They are rare but they do exist. Most are close to red or green and are generally classified as the primary color, but some are closer to the middle and are harder to define. These are the intersexed.

Sure, but whether they are men or women depends of course of the meaning of "man" and "woman", and on their properties. They may be neither.

The real problem is that in addition to the obvious anatomy there's a mental wiring for red or green and it is far more common for this mental wiring to deviate from the 255,0,0 vs 0,255,0 dichotomy. These are the transgendered.

That does not seem to address my point, either. A question what that mental wiring actually is. Another is whether, going by the meaning of the words "man" and "woman", a person with the mental wiring you say, a vagina, ovaries, etc., is a man or a woman, and so on. But to make the usual claims true, the conditions I posted need to be met.

I don't think we know the answer to this yet.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

No, I am applying that the definition 'of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs ." Trans women clear relate to the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.

*giggle* I am pretty sure that the meaning of "relate" that you're using here is not the same meaning that Merriam-Webster is using. Which means we're back to square one.

It would be. We aren't out here saying, "Oh, those women seem oh so relatable. I'd ever so much prefer to hang out with them, and hey, while I'm at it, I might as well just assimilate." When we talk about, let's say, the neurology of transgender people aligning more closely with our identified sex (an oversimplification, but fine for now), we aren't talking about social constructs or feelings. We're talking about the relationship between neurological structures and sex. Ultimately, we are talking about the relationship between certain involuntary aspects of identity and sex.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You said "a woman is an adult human female" but wouldn't provide your definition of 'female'. That's like saying "A coelint is a dagg" and then not saying what a 'dagg' is.

This is an inane sticking point. It's arguing a nitpick for the purpose of arguing.

Here:

woman:
noun, plural wom·en [wim-in] .
1) the female human being, as distinguished from a girl or a man.
2) an adult female person.

female:
noun
1) a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.
2) an organism of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells.

And that same dictionary defines male as "a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei," which means that someone who has XXY is both male and female since they match female according to the first definition you gave and they match male in this second definition. Meanwhile, those dictionary definitions make ambiguous cases of mosaicism where m% have XX and n% have XY, leave undefined X0, and incorrectly determine other cases where the chromosomes are XY but the expression has the anatomy in question such as Caster Semenya, already discussed who is female.

 

[Arctish]

You said "a woman is an adult human female" but wouldn't provide your definition of 'female'. That's like saying "A coelint is a dagg" and then not saying what a 'dagg' is.

This is an inane sticking point. It's arguing a nitpick for the purpose of arguing.

Here:

woman:
noun, plural wom·en [wim-in] .
1) the female human being, as distinguished from a girl or a man.
2) an adult female person.

female:
noun
1) a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.
2) an organism of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells.

And that same dictionary defines male as "a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei," which means that someone who has XXY is both male and female since they match female according to the first definition you gave and they match male in this second definition. Meanwhile, those dictionary definitions make ambiguous cases of mosaicism where m% have XX and n% have XY, leave undefined X0, and incorrectly determine other cases where the chromosomes are XY but the expression has the anatomy in question such as Caster Semenya, already discussed who is female.

It also defines female as someone who retains a beardless face. That is a common characteristic of females but by no means definitive:



So again, the definitions of the words 'women' and 'female' are useful in general but not when discussing atypical individuals, as we are in this thread.

 

[Metaphor]

You said "a woman is an adult human female" but wouldn't provide your definition of 'female'. That's like saying "A coelint is a dagg" and then not saying what a 'dagg' is.

This is an inane sticking point. It's arguing a nitpick for the purpose of arguing.

Here:

woman:
noun, plural wom·en [wim-in] .
1) the female human being, as distinguished from a girl or a man.
2) an adult female person.

female:
noun
1) a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.
2) an organism of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells.

And that same dictionary defines male as "a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei," which means that someone who has XXY is both male and female since they match female according to the first definition you gave and they match male in this second definition. Meanwhile, those dictionary definitions make ambiguous cases of mosaicism where m% have XX and n% have XY, leave undefined X0, and incorrectly determine other cases where the chromosomes are XY but the expression has the anatomy in question such as Caster Semenya, already discussed who is female.

So what? Intersex individuals do not mean trans women are women.

In fact, the 'trans' part of trans women is the reason they are not women. Trans women are trans because they are men.

 

[ZiprHead]

You're right in that they weren't treated exactly the same as chattel. You're wrong in that they were viewed as the property of their husband. They had no independence, no right to own property, own money or incomes of their own, etc. If their husband beat them, that was his right. If their husband raped them, that was also his right.

Property can be bought and sold. Women as women were not bought and sold. It's true that in many Western jurisdictions up until the mid 19th century, married women's property converted to a husband's property upon marriage, but it is false to say women could not own property, because they clearly did. But the property conversion came with obligations. Women acted as agents of their husbands, and husbands were also responsible for the financial wellbeing of their wives, and any debts incurred by their wives.

 Dowry

A dowry is a transfer of parental property, gifts, or money at the marriage of a daughter (bride).[1] Dowry contrasts with the related concepts of bride price and dower. While bride price or bride service is a payment by the groom or his family to the bride's parents, dowry is the wealth transferred from the bride's family to the groom or his family, ostensibly for the bride.

 

[Politesse]

And that same dictionary defines male as "a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei," which means that someone who has XXY is both male and female since they match female according to the first definition you gave and they match male in this second definition. Meanwhile, those dictionary definitions make ambiguous cases of mosaicism where m% have XX and n% have XY, leave undefined X0, and incorrectly determine other cases where the chromosomes are XY but the expression has the anatomy in question such as Caster Semenya, already discussed who is female.

So what? Intersex individuals do not mean trans women are women.

In fact, the 'trans' part of trans women is the reason they are not women. Trans women are trans because they are men.

Even if we were to all agree with your analytically inadequate definition of "man" and "woman", how could you possibly know whether a given person was volitionally transgendered or simply sex-ambiguous for biological reasons, without violating that person's reasonable expectation of privacy?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And that same dictionary defines male as "a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei," which means that someone who has XXY is both male and female since they match female according to the first definition you gave and they match male in this second definition. Meanwhile, those dictionary definitions make ambiguous cases of mosaicism where m% have XX and n% have XY, leave undefined X0, and incorrectly determine other cases where the chromosomes are XY but the expression has the anatomy in question such as Caster Semenya, already discussed who is female.

So what? Intersex individuals do not mean trans women are women.

In fact, the 'trans' part of trans women is the reason they are not women. Trans women are trans because they are men.

So what? So what?

You are the person claiming sex and gender are not merely binary, but also easily categorized and you are by virtue of your op defending Rowling's statement that women are people who menstruate...even more of a nasty over-simplification and snide remark targeted at a group than you've been guilty of.

So, don't tell me pointing at snide, nasty over-simplifications has no relevance to your op.

 

[Metaphor]

 Dowry

A dowry is a transfer of parental property, gifts, or money at the marriage of a daughter (bride).[1] Dowry contrasts with the related concepts of bride price and dower. While bride price or bride service is a payment by the groom or his family to the bride's parents, dowry is the wealth transferred from the bride's family to the groom or his family, ostensibly for the bride.

Dowry and dowers did not mean women were bought and sold, nor that men owned them. I also already spoke about what happened to married women's property in the West and how automatic conversion ended in the mid 19th century. But both before and after that, women were allowed to own property. It's a persistent feminist myth that they were not.

 

[Metaphor]

You are the person claiming sex and gender are not merely binary,

Non. You haven't read what I've written.

I said gender can be anything, because gender is a feeling in your head. I used the analogy that gender is like asking somebody's favourite colour. It could any colour on the RGB spectrum, it could be 'I have no concept of colour', it could be 'I am colour fluid', it could be 'I have a favourite colour in the infrared spectrum that humans don't experience'. I have never asked about someone's gender because it isn't interesting or relevant.

but also easily categorized and you are by virtue of your op defending Rowling's statement that women are people who menstruate...

Women, as opposed to men, are people who menstruate. Men don't menstruate. Trans men might menstruate, because trans men are women.

even more of a nasty over-simplification and snide remark targeted at a group than you've been guilty of.

So, don't tell me pointing at snide, nasty over-simplifications has no relevance to your op.

Sex is functionally binary in mammals and humans can't change sex. These are facts.

 

[Metaphor]

And that same dictionary defines male as "a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei," which means that someone who has XXY is both male and female since they match female according to the first definition you gave and they match male in this second definition. Meanwhile, those dictionary definitions make ambiguous cases of mosaicism where m% have XX and n% have XY, leave undefined X0, and incorrectly determine other cases where the chromosomes are XY but the expression has the anatomy in question such as Caster Semenya, already discussed who is female.

So what? Intersex individuals do not mean trans women are women.

In fact, the 'trans' part of trans women is the reason they are not women. Trans women are trans because they are men.

Even if we were to all agree with your analytically inadequate definition of "man" and "woman", how could you possibly know whether a given person was volitionally transgendered or simply sex-ambiguous for biological reasons, without violating that person's reasonable expectation of privacy?

Analytically inadequate. Good god. I'm the only person in the thread who has provided any definition whatsoever.

Tell me, Politesse, what is a woman?

What does 'volitionally transgendered' mean?

 

[Politesse]

Analytically inadequate. Good god. I'm the only person in the thread who has provided any definition whatsoever.

Tell me, Politesse, what is a woman?

My definition of "a woman" would be someone who identifies as a woman.

If that is not sufficient, we might say a woman is someone who is identified socially by themselves and others by the characteristics of femininity to which they have been socialized to expect.

What does 'volitionally transgendered' mean?

I.e. the conservative fantasy of someone who is entirely and unequivocally male from some objective biological perspective, but chooses for some reason to upend their life and identify as female or vice versa. I'm trying to be polite. and accommodate the possibility of both cases, bizarre though it seems to me that a male-to-female transition would be desired under such circumstances. The reverse case seems more plausible, that a "biological" woman who considers herself female might socially assume the characteristics of the male gender, since doing so would connote social benefits for him. There are many historical and cultural precedents in that case, from Elizabeth I to the husband-wives of the Nandi.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Non. You haven't read what I've written.

I said gender can be anything, because gender is a feeling in your head. I used the analogy that gender is like asking somebody's favourite colour. It could any colour on the RGB spectrum, it could be 'I have no concept of colour', it could be 'I am colour fluid', it could be 'I have a favourite colour in the infrared spectrum that humans don't experience'. I have never asked about someone's gender because it isn't interesting or relevant.



Women, as opposed to men, are people who menstruate. Men don't menstruate. Trans men might menstruate, because trans men are women.

even more of a nasty over-simplification and snide remark targeted at a group than you've been guilty of.

So, don't tell me pointing at snide, nasty over-simplifications has no relevance to your op.

Sex is functionally binary in mammals and humans can't change sex. These are facts.

My wife doesn't menstruate. She's a woman.

A 12 year old girl who happens to menstruate is not a woman.

Without discussing situations even more complicated*, therefore, that claim can be thrown out.

Nice try though.

It becomes a nasty comment when placed into the context Rowling used it.

* ... like the XY (mosaic) people listed in the thread who might or might not be classified as male by thread-submitted dictionary definitions and may be non-binary and menstruate.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I'm the only person in the thread who has provided any definition whatsoever.

The customary definitions are largely fine until people start adding a rigidity to them which is at odds with reality. Before we account for gender, gender identity and specifically transgender identities, our usage of terms is roughly like this in reality:

• biological: Sex (noun) refers to a differentiation in living organisms with regard to sexual reproduction (the act of combining genetic information between individuals to give life to a new individual). Typically, the differentiation is between female and male counterparts.
• biological: Sex (noun) the characterization of an organism or individual aspects of an organism based primarily on the type of gametes it produces.
• civil and social: Sex (noun) a legal or customary categorization of individuals based on an assessment, assumption or approximation of their biological reproductive characteristics. Usage note: contemporary use differentiates sex from gender; however, some older and surviving usage may use the terms synonymously or without distinction
• biological: Female (adjective) a characteristic of gametes which are differentiated from their male counterparts.
• biological: Female (adjective) a characteristic of an organism or individual aspects of an organism based on its relation to producing female gametes
• biological: Female (noun) an individual of a species which has notably female characteristics or reproductive traits
• civil and social: Female (noun) a legal or customary categorization of individuals based on an assessment, assumption or approximation of having notably female sex characteristics or reproductive traits
• Civil and social: Female (adjective) a legal or customary quality or trait associated with the state of being female
• Civil and social: Woman (noun) an adult, human female

It may seem problematic that some of those definitions contain the word they are defining. But they weren't written to work independently. Mammals do have binary sex with the first definition provided. Our gametes are differentiated between male and female counterparts. That is something characteristics of humans as a species. But as you proceed through the list, the subsequent definitions tend to be more generalized, more bucketed, and more based on association to that initial binary concept. In reality, the place to stop with hardline thinking about the binary is gametes because the reality beyond that point is more varied and complex. The place to stop with hardline biological definitions is when we aren't discussing actual biology because common usage does not have the same needs and rigour of biology.

When we do introduce gender identity and specifically transgender identities into the conversation, we aren't changing that basic pattern where discussion of maleness and femaleness (and non-binary-ness) are heavily related to that initial, binary definition of gametes, but more by way of association, bucketing and generalization rather than some puritanical transference or upscaling of a strictly binary property.

Intersex conditions do get raised often in a way which amounts to people talking past one another. Many in these conversations are not saying no exceptions exist to XX/ XY. Conversely though, almost no one is saying biology is a myth and that gender identity issues negate that humans are a sexually reproducing species. The argument is more on how narrow we actually need to be with terms to have them remain useful and meaningful.

 

[ruby sparks]

I read that using a very broad definition of transgender, cross-dressers might arguably qualify for the term.

Which got me thinking, that one way for me (or any cis person) to gain clues about what it might feel a bit like to be a different gender (or be in the ‘wrong body’ or at least the ‘wrong outer cladding’) would be to dress up (and groom and make up) as the other gender, and possibly go about cross-dressed up in that way for an extended period of time.

It's worth a shot, but I am skeptical if that would give you any real idea of what it feels like to be a different gender, unless you can be quite convincing about it. If you can successfully pass, so that people treat you and interact with you as that gender, then you will have an idea of... how society treats that gender.

I suspect you'd have a lot of sympathy for women who hate high heels though. And bras. And pantyhose.

Sorry I missed this first time around. I referred to it afterwards without realising you had replied.

I agree with you that cross-dressing would give me at least some idea about gender roles, in the ways that you suggest. Regarding gender identity, I'm not sure. I had a gut feeling it might at least give me a small clue (because as a man, I would at least feel I was in the wrong 'coverings' or 'expressions', albeit they are not actual bodily expressions, they are a sort of extra, but non-biological skin, be it make-up, underwear or outer layers). It could not be the equivalent 'mismatch' to transgender, because there are no direct biological or neurological connections between my brain and the components of my cross-dressing, only psychological ones.

Like you I get confused about what the difference between 'wrong gender role' and 'wrong gender identity' would feel like. Note that I'm not saying or asking what the difference is (in, for example neurobiological terms). I'm (temporarily) not asking for two separate explanations, at this point. I'm assuming there are different underlying explanations. Krypton Iodine Sulphur touched on them.

My limited, specific question here, to try to untangle roles from identities (hey I'm sure they are interactive so I'm not looking for complete separation) is only, what is it that leads, let's say a young person, to feel that their body is the wrong one? I freely admit that I do not know enough about transgender and that that question might therefore seem dumb to someone who does.

You can see what I'm trying to untangle here. In the hypothetical complete absence of society, and thus gender roles, would such a young person still feel they were in the wrong body?

My guess is yes. I tend to assume transgender is usually at least partly inherent, or biological, or something one is born with (even if it does not express until a certain stage of development). With the caveat that there might be different types of transgender, obviously, and that some may have a different mix of factors than others. And that culture, learning and nurture may also often play a part.

But I would also guess that in the absence of social factors, the feeling of ‘wrongness’ would not be nearly as psychologically problematic, and I wonder if it would be psychologically problematic at all.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The points I am mostly interested in discussing are those you can find in my conversation with Bomb#20.

Ok well you might need to be more direct and specific, if you want to discuss with me, and possibly (temporarily) not use an analogy, because I’m not sure I understand your point, about gender or transgender.

But I’ll say this. If it’s suggesting that intuitions, in the form of intuitive language, should be the basis for labels, definitions or correct understandings, I’m not sure I’m going to buy it any more than I bought it about free will. ??????

Indeed, given your replies to me in the other thread, I am not attempting to persuade you of anything here.
I am replying to your posts because you replied to mine.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Sure, but whether they are men or women depends of course of the meaning of "man" and "woman", and on their properties. They may be neither.


That does not seem to address my point, either. A question what that mental wiring actually is. Another is whether, going by the meaning of the words "man" and "woman", a person with the mental wiring you say, a vagina, ovaries, etc., is a man or a woman, and so on. But to make the usual claims true, the conditions I posted need to be met.

I don't think we know the answer to this yet.

One can use one's own understanding of English in order to ascertain whether a person with such-and-such wiring would be a woman or a man. One can observe how others use the words as well. And one can make a probabilistic assessment about what sort of mind a person would have on the basis of what we know about them. It doesn't have to be that we have beyond a reasonable doubt evidence to make an approximate assessment.

 

[ruby sparks]

The points I am mostly interested in discussing are those you can find in my conversation with Bomb#20.

Ok well you might need to be more direct and specific, if you want to discuss with me, and possibly (temporarily) not use an analogy, because I’m not sure I understand your point, about gender or transgender.

But I’ll say this. If it’s suggesting that intuitions, in the form of intuitive language, should be the basis for labels, definitions or correct understandings, I’m not sure I’m going to buy it any more than I bought it about free will. ������

Indeed, given your replies to me in the other thread, I am not attempting to persuade you of anything here.
I am replying to your posts because you replied to mine.

Nicely evasive.

Kidding.

Even if you were being evasive, you might have had very good reasons, such as not wanting to get into a pointless, unproductive fundamental disagreement.

But you needn’t have worried about either you persuading me or the reverse (me persuading you) or even one of us thinking the other is trying to do that. We could have made persuasion, and the expectation of it, acknowledged non-options for both of us.

I would still have been curious to briefly see you set your stall out clearly and succinctly (and not only via analogy) as regards the OP issue specifically. I say that partly because I feel sure you would have a valid and interesting and thought-provoking point (including about intuitions and intuitive language) in at least some ways even if I did not agree with you completely.

 

[Metaphor]

Analytically inadequate. Good god. I'm the only person in the thread who has provided any definition whatsoever.

Tell me, Politesse, what is a woman?

My definition of "a woman" would be someone who identifies as a woman.

Non. You can't use a word to define itself. You can't define the word 'woman' by using 'woman'.

I splaplonka is someone who identifies as a splaplonka.

If that is not sufficient, we might say a woman is someone who is identified socially by themselves and others by the characteristics of femininity to which they have been socialized to expect.

That might be a definition, but it also seems inadequate. What if social 'identification' conflicts with 'self' identity?

I.e. the conservative fantasy of someone who is entirely and unequivocally male from some objective biological perspective, but chooses for some reason to upend their life and identify as female or vice versa. I'm trying to be polite. and accommodate the possibility of both cases, bizarre though it seems to me that a male-to-female transition would be desired under such circumstances. The reverse case seems more plausible, that a "biological" woman who considers herself female might socially assume the characteristics of the male gender, since doing so would connote social benefits for him. There are many historical and cultural precedents in that case, from Elizabeth I to the husband-wives of the Nandi.

Acting 'like a man' doesn't make you a man. Feeling like a man doesn't make you a man. Being the sex that produces sperm makes you a man.

 

[Politesse]

Non. You can't use a word to define itself. You can't define the word 'woman' by using 'woman'.

It's as good as one can do. People don't use the term in consistent ways. But if someone calls themselves by it, my assumption is that it more or less describes their social identity.

I splaplonka is someone who identifies as a splaplonka.

I'd agree with that one too, especially if that were a real term that a large social class routinely used.

That might be a definition, but it also seems inadequate. What if social 'identification' conflicts with 'self' identity?

That is, indeed, a very common situation wherever you are in the world. Culture is messy, welcome to the human race.

Acting 'like a man' doesn't make you a man. Feeling like a man doesn't make you a man. Being the sex that produces sperm makes you a man.

If you've not been paying attention to any part of the discussion on the biology of sex thus far, repeating the relevant facts probably can't help you. There's not really such thing as a "sex that produces sperm". There are certainly sex organs that produce sperm, but they do not by themselves equal "a man". Indeed, the same organs are present in both sexes, the question is how they develop at a certain stage, which requires a lot of often but not always associated physiological developments to occur.

It's also pretty silly, to me, to ascribe "manhood" to every sperm-producing organ. We do not generally refer to male squirrels as "men", for instance. "Manhood" is a cultural concept, and is only normally applied to human beings for that reason. It does not refer and indeed could not possibly refer to physiological processes that scientists have only understood at all for four centuries or so, and most people still know little about, despite routinely classifying one another as "men" and "women".