The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

I'm afraid I no longer have an interest is a long debate with those who would be my opponents on that point. I'm sufficiently familiar with their views. That kind of confrontation would be stressful and I think not productive, so I have chosen not to start it. Since I posted, I will address replies to my posts, but I'd rather keep it short.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Irrelevant. She is of the sex that produces the larger gametes. Only women menstruate and no men do.

Also, 'only women menstruate' does not equal 'all women menstruate all the time'.

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

That's correct. That's why a woman is an adult human female, and a girl is a juvenile human female.

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

Non. But: congratulations on trying.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

The raising of intersex is at best a furphy and ultimately harmful to trans rights, because nobody on any side thinks that trans rights (whatever they may be) should be available only to the intersex. Trans activists want a person of any sex to be able to be elect an identity to be treated as if it were their sex.

Now, I happen to think that that is in some cases okay and in other cases entirely unreasonable.

 

[Metaphor]

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

No. My definition of splaplonka tells you nothing about what a splaplonka is, except perhaps that it can only be a quality of a sentient being that has thoughts about itself.

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".

Yes, there is. In mammals, it's the male.

There are certainly sex organs that produce sperm, but they do not by themselves equal "a man".

Indeed not.

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.

They're not the same organs. If they were the same organs, there wouldn't be sex.

It's also pretty silly, to me, to ascribe "manhood" to every sperm-producing organ.

I didn't. Adult human males are men.

We do not generally refer to male squirrels as "men", for instance. "Manhood" is a cultural concept,

A man is an adult human male. The difference between adult and juvenile isn't clearly defined, but maleness has a biological meaning.

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".

Of course it refers to those physiological processes, even when people didn't or don't understand them, because the signifiers of malehood (in humans, the external genitalia at birth) generally correspond to sex very well.

Just like when people had no concept of light and its wavelengths, they knew what 'red' meant.*

*Indeed, sex is on surer footing than colour, which is partly culturally defined and the words we use for colour actually changes our perception of them.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The raising of intersex is at best a furphy and ultimately harmful to trans rights, because nobody on any side thinks that trans rights (whatever they may be) should be available only to the intersex.

Perhaps in contexts where the hand is overplayed. But the landscape is one where many people are not aware of or deliberately ignore the level of variation and complexity in primary and secondary sex characteristics. In the case of people who deliberately ignore it, what can you do? But for those not aware, I've definitely seen cases where learning more helps them understand how much diversity really exists. That it's not all a matter of chromosomes and what we once called hermaphroditism.

The point is merely to open people to the understanding that greater diversity exists in human sexual development and expression, and that doggedly arguing hardline binary definitions of sex doesn't actually make sense in the first place. It's not a useful argument against transgender rights because it's not an argument which stands up on its own in the first place.

In fewer words, it's about undercutting a bad argument rather than presenting a positive argument.

Trans activists want a person of any sex to be able to be elect an identity to be treated as if it were their sex.

In civic and social matters, I suppose. Some arguments amongst transgender rights advocates aren't consistent. For example, self-identification: A lot of advocacy for the right to self-identify is in response to gatekeeping and the limitations of diagnostic methods. Some seem to be arguing a broader and more basic right to self-identify not out of necessity, but basic principle.

 

[ruby sparks]

.... I'd rather keep it short.

No problem. So you're sort of making your underlying point but not really, explicitly or openly.

Which, as a very thorough thinker, you will appreciate is not the same as avoiding getting into a long debate about it, since a very short summary, or even better a brief statement (of the full, main claim, not a watered-down version of it) of how you think it's relevant to the OP specifically (ideally without analogy in the first instance) wouldn't involve that, since you could bow out at any time thereafter.

So you are not even 'keeping it short', you are just 'keeping it to yourself'.

Seriously though, I do respect your reasons entirely. Go in peace.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here's a famous clip from a 1979 satirical comedy film. The scene content may or not be considered quite so allowably funny or politically correct today. One for the overly-woke censors, perhaps?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Politesse]

No. My definition of splaplonka tells you nothing about what a splaplonka is, except perhaps that it can only be a quality of a sentient being that has thoughts about itself.



Yes, there is. In mammals, it's the male.

There are certainly sex organs that produce sperm, but they do not by themselves equal "a man".

Indeed not.

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.

They're not the same organs. If they were the same organs, there wouldn't be sex.

It's also pretty silly, to me, to ascribe "manhood" to every sperm-producing organ.

I didn't. Adult human males are men.

We do not generally refer to male squirrels as "men", for instance. "Manhood" is a cultural concept,

A man is an adult human male. The difference between adult and juvenile isn't clearly defined, but maleness has a biological meaning.

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".

Of course it refers to those physiological processes, even when people didn't or don't understand them, because the signifiers of malehood (in humans, the external genitalia at birth) generally correspond to sex very well.

Just like when people had no concept of light and its wavelengths, they knew what 'red' meant.*

*Indeed, sex is on surer footing than colour, which is partly culturally defined and the words we use for colour actually changes our perception of them.

See, just sort of stamping your foot and insisting that "science" agrees with you, doesn't make it so. You're obsessed with sex differentiation, yet apparently have never given even a cursory look into how it occurs during gestation.

 

[Bomb#20]

Assuming for the moment that we interpret biological sex to refer to one's chromosomal makeup, a biological male with androgen insensitivity syndrome who was classified as female at birth will not have to transition if they want to live their life as a woman.

I've seen that assumption a lot. Why? How the heck is androgen insensitivity syndrome an iota less biological than the number of X chromosomes? ...

I agree it's arbitrary, but so is using the superficial morphology of the genitals, or the fine structure of the gonads, or the shape of the gametes (if any). But it seems to be what most of the "you're either a man or a woman and that's the end of it" crowd come up with when pressed.

And in every case, whatever you chose as the most important dividing criterion, there will be ambiguous cases - if nothing else, true hermaphrodites with mosaicism do exist. And my only point, at this point, is that "assigned male at birth" is a more accurate descriptor in the particular context than "biologically male". A hermaphrodite with XY/XX mosaicism isn't in any meaningful sense "biologically male" (at least not at the exclusion of being biologically female). Yet, if, and only if, they were assigned male at birth do they have to transition to live as a woman.

Right; but true hermaphrodites with mosaicism are rare enough that we'll have the tail wagging the dog if we let that control our thinking about typical cases.

It seems to me the source of the arbitrariness is not the existence of ambiguous cases but rather the whole approach to biological classification that comes so naturally to most disputants on all sides of this issue. "Whatever you chose". "The most important dividing criterion". "Using the superficial morphology of the genitals, or the fine structure of the gonads, or the shape of the gametes". That is so 18th-century. Has everyone missed out on the revolution in taxonomy that Linnaeus instigated?

Natural philosophers used to divide organisms up on the basis of the most important dividing criterion, because that's the first thing people typically think of when we contemplate categorization in the abstract -- it's intuitively obvious that that's how categories work. But biologists don't do that any more, because it's bad science. It's bad science because the goal of science is truth, and the route to truth is systematically weeding out false hypotheses, and "most important" is not falsifiable. To be falsifiable a claim has to be objective and tests of it have to be repeatable. Linnaeus and his 19th-century successors tried classifying plants based not on the most important dividing criteria but on the least important dividing criteria, such as trivialities about the shapes of small parts of flowers; and they found out this ultimately led to repeatable results. Three researchers could use this approach on plants A, B and C and all group them as ((A B) C); but if they paid attention to the most important criteria and were dividing plants into trees, shrubs, herbs and so forth, then one was liable to get ((A B) C), another would get (A (B C)) and the third might get ((A C) B), because they'd all have different notions of what's important.

So if we're going to be post-18th-century-scientific, we don't get to decide "biological sex" using "the superficial morphology of the genitals, or the fine structure of the gonads, or the shape of the gametes". We have to decide using the superficial morphology of the genitals AND the fine structure of the gonads AND the shape of the gametes -- AND a hundred other minor details that come in bimodal spectra and that correlate with one another over the population. If we do that, "biological sex" won't be arbitrary, because we won't be subjectively deciding whether menstruation is more important than beards. We'll just be observing that some non-menstruating person has 1 male characteristic and 102 female characteristics.

When I hear it claimed that M2Fs have been shown to have neurologically female brains, I'm skeptical as to whether what the arguer claimed is actually the same thing as what the researchers showed. The researchers presumably made a measurement of some aspect of brain anatomy or chemistry that comes in a bimodal spectrum and that correlates with other sex-linked traits, and they observed that M2Fs tend to land in the normal "female" range of that aspect of brains. But this is not sufficient to imply the subjects have "female brains". To have shown that, the researchers would need to have also studied a hundred other measurable properties of brains.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So you are not even 'keeping it short', you are just 'keeping it to yourself'.

No, I mean I'm keeping the replies to your replies to my posts raising some issues, short.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

That is my point - definitions do matter.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I still don't see any real harms being presented. Ironically white-knighting women's sports and the idiotic "someone's in the bathroom!" fake boogeyshman aren't legitimate harms. Did I miss someone presenting an even remotely compelling harm to society in any of this nonsense, because those two non-arguments don't even begin to cut it?

As far as I can tell, the only theme here is that some women--JK among them--think that their own sexual/gender identity is somehow being taken away from them. Is that it, because that's as idiotic as the argument against taking down Confederate statues resulting in destroying history?

 

[Emily Lake]

Trimming for length...

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.

Honestly, I remain skeptical on this point. I am perfectly happy to treat trans people with respect and dignity and use whatever pronouns are requested. I just can't really manage to get my mind over the hurdle wherein the only people who are capable of experiencing what it feels like to be a woman inside, in a way that is separated from biology or social gender roles... are all people who are males. That strikes me as having questionable validity as an entire concept. If feeling like a woman on the inside is a legitimate thing that isn't related to reproductive sex, body type, etc. and is not a simple result of how society treats a person based on gender roles, then it seems like people who are female women and have always been should be capable of feeling that same thing and expressing it somewhat.

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.

On this, I have an entirely unpopular opinion, which is highly likely to piss off a bunch of people.

Being unhappy with one's body or looks is a known thing. It happens. It happens to almost everyone to a very mild degree. I don't like my hair, and I wish it were thicker and fuller and I didn't have a five-head. I wish I had nice strong fingernails that didn't delaminate constantly, and didn't grow crooked. It's very common to experience this kind of dissatisfaction and discomfort during puberty, when one's body is changing. It's natural to compare oneself to those around one, and to wish that one looked more like this person or that.

For some people, it's a bit worse. They really strongly dislike or are uncomfortable with how they look. They feel like the flaw is wrong, it makes them self-conscious and anxious. Some people have clear reason for their feelings, if they are far outside the norm, or have an obvious divergence from expected human conformation (being cross-eyed for example, or having a speech impediment). For some people, it's not so clear... but it still happens. Some people resort to surgery to augment their bodies or faces to more closely resemble how they feel it should be. Some fall into anorexia or bulimia in an effort to force their body to look like their idealized internal view of themselves.

I wouldn't treat someone who got fake boobs as a pariah. I wouldn't abuse or harass someone dealing with body dismorphia. I would do my level best to accommodate and support them instead.

On the other hand, however, I wouldn't accept the position that anorexia is "normal human variation". And I wouldn't accept as true the claim that someone was born into a body with the wrong boob size.

Brains are surprisingly plastic. The things that we spend a lot of time thinking about, especially if we attach strong emotion to them, change the wiring in our brains.

Try the experiment. Over the course of the next week, when you get up in the morning, look at yourself in the mirror naked. Tell yourself that you look wrong, and that your penis is wrong. Tell yourself that you are supposed to be curvier and rounder, and you're supposed to have breasts. Construct a mental image of what you would look like as a woman, and focus on that in contrast to what you see in the mirror. Find every variance, and focus on how it should look. Repeat this a few times a day. When someone mentions your outfit or your looks or glances at your body, tell yourself that they're judging you for how wrong you look. Tell yourself they're not seeing the real you. Imagine how they would treat you if you looked like the woman that you're supposed to be, how they would interact with you differently. Make this a repeated mantra for one week.

Then come back next week and let me know how you feel about your actual body.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Honestly, it sounds like begging the question. You start out with the assumption that the wiring is materially and meaningfully different, in a way that dictates behavior and feelings and identity. Then you make predictions about what kind of wiring a person must have, based on your observations of how well they conform to the as-yet-unspecified wiring dictates that you've assumed exist.

I mean, it's nice that you include an element of stochasticism in there, so you're not subject to black-and-white thinking, but you're still assuming that your conclusion is true at the beginning.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I identify as a purple housecat with wings who eats only brie cheese with fresh figs.

 

[Emily Lake]

Here's a famous clip from a 1979 satirical comedy film. The scene content may or not be considered quite so allowably funny or politically correct today. One for the overly-woke censors, perhaps?

Lol, I'm going to miss Monty Python when it all gets removed because it's too offensive to... well... everyone at some point or other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

I identify as a purple housecat with wings who eats only brie cheese with fresh figs.

I've read that story. Harry Potter fanfic? But it wasn't figs, was it goblin-dates?

 

[Emily Lake]

So if we're going to be post-18th-century-scientific, we don't get to decide "biological sex" using "the superficial morphology of the genitals, or the fine structure of the gonads, or the shape of the gametes". We have to decide using the superficial morphology of the genitals AND the fine structure of the gonads AND the shape of the gametes -- AND a hundred other minor details that come in bimodal spectra and that correlate with one another over the population. If we do that, "biological sex" won't be arbitrary, because we won't be subjectively deciding whether menstruation is more important than beards. We'll just be observing that some non-menstruating person has 1 male characteristic and 102 female characteristics.

When I hear it claimed that M2Fs have been shown to have neurologically female brains, I'm skeptical as to whether what the arguer claimed is actually the same thing as what the researchers showed. The researchers presumably made a measurement of some aspect of brain anatomy or chemistry that comes in a bimodal spectrum and that correlates with other sex-linked traits, and they observed that M2Fs tend to land in the normal "female" range of that aspect of brains. But this is not sufficient to imply the subjects have "female brains". To have shown that, the researchers would need to have also studied a hundred other measurable properties of brains.

Of the research into brain differences that I've read, they're doing bad science by your definition (which makes a lot of sense). They identify, ferinstance, 4 very specific elements that seem to be more similar to those specific elements in the brain of a female than a male. But they ignore the other 46 that are more similar to those same elements in the brain of a male. And they completely ignore the 9,950 other elements that show no observable difference between males and females at all. Furthermore, of the 50 out of 10,000 elements that show some degree (albeit minor) of measurable difference between males and females, they can't consistently distinguish between which of those elements are a biological results (driven by hormones or other sex-differentiated attributes) and which are a result of brain plasticity reflecting prior experience and the reality of social gender roles.

 

[Emily Lake]

I still don't see any real harms being presented. Ironically white-knighting women's sports and the idiotic "someone's in the bathroom!" fake boogeyshman aren't legitimate harms. Did I miss someone presenting an even remotely compelling harm to society in any of this nonsense, because those two non-arguments don't even begin to cut it?

I love how it always seems to be men who don't care about women's sports who so stridently decry that women's sports aren't a big deal and no harm is done. For fuck's sake, just because it doesn't affect you and you don't care about it doesn't mean it's not a big fucking deal! This is the kind of bullshit that women have been dealing with since forever. It's an incredibly common oversight by privilege. It's something that doesn't matter to men, men don't think it's important... therefore it can't possibly be important to women, and they're just overreacting. It's just one more case of men shutting down women's voices as not mattering.

It's no different than when I tell my husband that he did something that I don't like, and that makes me mad... and he responds with "Sheesh, calm down, it's not that big a deal!". Well guess what, it IS that big a deal TO ME, or I wouldn't fucking bring it up in the first goddamned place!

So yeah, go ahead and just dismiss the concerns that females raise - the impact on sports and sports-related scholarships and sponsorship; the impact of the feelings of safety, security, and privacy in areas that are designated as female only; the risk of housing male-bodied transwomen in women's prisons. Those aren't "real" arguments, and don't represent "real" harm to society... because they only affect females, and that's just not important.

What's really important is making sure that males don't feel put out in any way, even when they're identifying as women. It's far more important that males get their way than that the concerns and challenges that females place get a seat at the fucking table.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I identify as a purple housecat with wings who eats only brie cheese with fresh figs.

I've read that story. Harry Potter fanfic? But it wasn't figs, was it goblin-dates?

Yeah, well, some goblin-dates identify as figs, so...