This week in trans: The Lancet, the ACLU, the Guardian

[Trausti]

I tend to doubt any of the the posters on either side of the ... disputes taking place here even understand what sort of evidence would support their assertions.

Hmm.
I, for one, do not understand what evidence would be necessary for my position.
I mean, someone presents as a woman, i'll accept them as a woman. I don't need evidence for this, i really don't care about whether or not she's wearing a penis. So what evidence would you expect me to cite?

When Rachel Dolezal says she’s a black woman, I accept her as thus.

 

[Jarhyn]

I tend to doubt any of the the posters on either side of the ... disputes taking place here even understand what sort of evidence would support their assertions.

Hmm.
I, for one, do not understand what evidence would be necessary for my position.
I mean, someone presents as a woman, i'll accept them as a woman. I don't need evidence for this, i really don't care about whether or not she's wearing a penis. So what evidence would you expect me to cite?

Exactly my point: Trausti is making up a red herring about "nature" here, as are others.

They are pretending anything they are discussing matters to the question.

As soon as Trausti can adequately delineate what bearing "penis/vulva" has on "treating them in a way during normal social interactions", I will care what they say; until then I do not, nor should I, nor should anyone.

 

[Elixir]

I tend to doubt any of the the posters on either side of the ... disputes taking place here even understand what sort of evidence would support their assertions.

Hmm.
I, for one, do not understand what evidence would be necessary for my position.
I mean, someone presents as a woman, i'll accept them as a woman. I don't need evidence for this, i really don't care about whether or not she's wearing a penis. So what evidence would you expect me to cite?

Evidence is only evidence when it's evident to someone. The evidence of evidence is subject to personal acceptance and interpretation. This is the New Right Wing Science.
Better than the old science because it embraces freedom of thought instead of acceptance of dogma.

 

[Trausti]

I tend to doubt any of the the posters on either side of the ... disputes taking place here even understand what sort of evidence would support their assertions.

Hmm.
I, for one, do not understand what evidence would be necessary for my position.
I mean, someone presents as a woman, i'll accept them as a woman. I don't need evidence for this, i really don't care about whether or not she's wearing a penis. So what evidence would you expect me to cite?

Exactly my point: Trausti is making up a red herring about "nature" here, as are others.

They are pretending anything they are discussing matters to the question.

As soon as Trausti can adequately delineate what bearing "penis/vulva" has on "treating them in a way during normal social interactions", I will care what they say; until then I do not, nor should I, nor should anyone.

Being kind to someone’s gender dysphoria does not change biological reality.

 

[Trausti]

I tend to doubt any of the the posters on either side of the ... disputes taking place here even understand what sort of evidence would support their assertions.

Hmm.
I, for one, do not understand what evidence would be necessary for my position.
I mean, someone presents as a woman, i'll accept them as a woman. I don't need evidence for this, i really don't care about whether or not she's wearing a penis. So what evidence would you expect me to cite?

Evidence is only evidence when it's evident to someone. The evidence of evidence is subject to personal acceptance and interpretation. This is the New Right Wing Science.
Better than the old science because it embraces freedom of thought instead of acceptance of dogma.

Only women have a cervix.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I tend to doubt any of the the posters on either side of the ... disputes taking place here even understand what sort of evidence would support their assertions.

Hmm.
I, for one, do not understand what evidence would be necessary for my position.
I mean, someone presents as a woman, i'll accept them as a woman. I don't need evidence for this, i really don't care about whether or not she's wearing a penis. So what evidence would you expect me to cite?

The part of my post that you did not include in your quotation said "((transmen are women vs. transmen are men) and (transwomen are men vs. transwomen are women))". Are you a part of those disputes?

In other words, you say someone "presents" as a woman, and that you will "accept" them as a woman, but do you claim that a person with those properties is a woman? Do you make an assertion implying that those who say that, for example, Veronica Ivy is not a woman (if Veronica Ivy counts as "presents as a woman"), are making a false statement?
If you answer the above questions with a "no", it seems to me that you are not a person on either side of the ((transmen are women vs. transmen are men) and (transwomen are men vs. transwomen are women)) disputes taking place here, even if you for some reason condemn the people who affirm that Veronica Ivy is not a woman (or similar statements), and then my post simply do not apply to you. You would be a person who apparently believes it is morally wrong to say in this threads that Veronica Ivy is not a woman, but takes no stance on whether Veronica Ivy is a woman.

On other other hand, if you answer at least one of the above questions with a 'yes', please let me know, and I will let you know what sort of evidence you would need to support your claims.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The part of my post that you did not include in your quotation said "((transmen are women vs. transmen are men) and (transwomen are men vs. transwomen are women))". Are you a part of those disputes?

Not in this thread, but aren't we all in these disputes? If someone comes up to you and says they're 'Mrs. Smith' would you accept that or would you want to see into their pants, first?

 

[Trausti]

The part of my post that you did not include in your quotation said "((transmen are women vs. transmen are men) and (transwomen are men vs. transwomen are women))". Are you a part of those disputes?

Not in this thread, but aren't we all in these disputes? If someone comes up to you and says they're 'Mrs. Smith' would you accept that or would you want to see into their pants, first?

Isn’t the difference that it’s polite to go along with someone’s desired outward appearance but politeness does not negate reality?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The part of my post that you did not include in your quotation said "((transmen are women vs. transmen are men) and (transwomen are men vs. transwomen are women))". Are you a part of those disputes?

Not in this thread, but aren't we all in these disputes? If someone comes up to you and says they're 'Mrs. Smith' would you accept that or would you want to see into their pants, first?

By "these disputes" I mean in the context of these threads. I most certainly did not mean to say that none of all people who take a stance on these matters except for me do not know what sort of evidence would support their assertions. In fact, I made it clear that I was excluded because I was not debating in current threads.

If someone comes up to you and says they're 'Mrs. Smith' would you accept that or would you want to see into their pants, first?

That is not what "these disputes" was about.

Other than that, what do you mean by "accept"?

I would not want to see their pants first, but as always, I evaluate claims people make when speaking to me intuitively and on the basis of the information available to me. If I think about them later, I might recalculate. The fact that a person implies that she is a woman provides good evidence that she is a woman. But another relevant piece of evidence is what the person looks like. So, it depends on the case. Usually, I would not need further evidence that their saying 'Mrs. Smith". Usually, though, I would not need that piece of evidence, either: I would make a justified assessment just by looking at the person. But it depends on the case, and the evidence available to me. As with any other claim.

On the other hand, I would probably call them 'Mrs. Smith', though that also depends on the case. But that is an entirely different matter from whether I would believe that that person is a woman. Sometimes, lying is justified.

So, I answered your question. Could you please answer mine?

In other words, you say someone "presents" as a woman, and that you will "accept" them as a woman, but do you claim that a person with those properties is a woman? Do you make an assertion implying that those who say that, for example, Veronica Ivy is not a woman (if Veronica Ivy counts as "presents as a woman"), are making a false statement?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If someone comes up to you and says they're 'Mrs. Smith' would you accept that or would you want to see into their pants, first?

That is not what "these disputes" was about.

Sure it is.

All these discussions boil down to which criteria you choose to accept for determining gender/sex/or whatever.
I'm willing to stipulate that somewhere, somehow, there's an ultimate standard for figuring this shit out. Something an omniscient being would use to point and say "That's a (wo)man." Sure.

But we don't have omniscience, or access to an omniscient point of view. Just people throwing different choices of criteria at each other.

So the actual dispute is why would you use any criteria other than their self-identification to determine how YOU treat THEM?

There was a transgender Playmate. If she's ULTIMATELY a male, that still doesn't change that i would expect her to use the ladies' room rather than the men's.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If someone comes up to you and says they're 'Mrs. Smith' would you accept that or would you want to see into their pants, first?

That is not what "these disputes" was about.

Sure it is.

All these discussions boil down to which criteria you choose to accept for determining gender/sex/or whatever.
I'm willing to stipulate that somewhere, somehow, there's an ultimate standard for figuring this shit out. Something an omniscient being would use to point and say "That's a (wo)man." Sure.

But we don't have omniscience, or access to an omniscient point of view. Just people throwing different choices of criteria at each other.

So the actual dispute is why would you use any criteria other than their self-identification to determine how YOU treat THEM?

There was a transgender Playmate. If she's ULTIMATELY a male, that still doesn't change that i would expect her to use the ladies' room rather than the men's.

No, what I meant by "this disputes" is not what you thought I meant. And I certainly did not mean what you thought you mean. In particular, I most certainly did not mean to say that none of all people who take a stance on these matters except for me do not know what sort of evidence would support their assertions. In fact, I made it clear that I was excluded because I was not debating in current threads.

And no, of course there is no need for an omniscient being. There is a standard, or more than one. That is the meaning of the words (there might be more than one). And yes, people are throwing claims at each other, apparently without understanding what would constitute evidence of their claims. You have not yet answered my questions.

So the actual dispute is why would you use any criteria other than their self-identification to determine how YOU treat THEM?

No, that is not the actual dispute. That is one dispute you choose to focus on, but it is not the disputes I am talking about, which are not about how you treat them, but about whether transmen are men or women or neither, and whether transwomen are women or men or neither. Not about how you treat them, or about how I treat them, or even about how each person should treat them and under which circumstances, but about what the fact of the matter is.

Are you a part of the disputes I am in fact talking about? (not about another dispute you prefer to talk about, but about the disputes I was talking about when you chose to reply to my post; otherwise, you are just changing the subject, not replying to what I actually said). Again, you say someone "presents" as a woman, and that you will "accept" them as a woman, but do you claim that a person with those properties is a woman? Do you make an assertion implying that those who say that, for example, Veronica Ivy is not a woman (if Veronica Ivy counts as "presents as a woman"), are making a false statement?
If you answer the above questions with a "no", it seems to me that you are not a person on either side of the ((transmen are women vs. transmen are men) and (transwomen are men vs. transwomen are women)) disputes taking place here, even if you for some reason condemn the people who affirm that Veronica Ivy is not a woman (or similar statements), and then my post simply do not apply to you. You would be a person who apparently believes it is morally wrong to say in this threads that Veronica Ivy is not a woman, but takes no stance on whether Veronica Ivy is a woman.

There was a transgender Playmate. If she's ULTIMATELY a male, that still doesn't change that i would expect her to use the ladies' room rather than the men's.

I do not know what you mean by "ULTIMATELY" a male. But the disputes I'm talking about are not about any "ultimate" thing. They're not necessarily about whether that person is a male (though whether that person is a man counts, and so a related dispute would be whether all adult human males are men). They are partially about whether that person is a man, etc., whether someone who asserts that that person is a man (or not a woman, etc.) is making a false assertion, or a true assertion, or there is no fact of the matter.

 

[Jarhyn]

I tend to doubt any of the the posters on either side of the ... disputes taking place here even understand what sort of evidence would support their assertions.

Hmm.
I, for one, do not understand what evidence would be necessary for my position.
I mean, someone presents as a woman, i'll accept them as a woman. I don't need evidence for this, i really don't care about whether or not she's wearing a penis. So what evidence would you expect me to cite?

Exactly my point: Trausti is making up a red herring about "nature" here, as are others.

They are pretending anything they are discussing matters to the question.

As soon as Trausti can adequately delineate what bearing "penis/vulva" has on "treating them in a way during normal social interactions", I will care what they say; until then I do not, nor should I, nor should anyone.

And as Trausti has been put to question, and failed to produce, he is on ignore until word reaches me they have accomplished either backing down from a stupid position or delineate what bearing the presence of any particular configuration in someone's pants has on how you treat them in the course of normal social relations.

Unless Trausti wants to admit what I've been hinting at and which I suspect which is that this IS how they interact with women in a social capacity: seeing them as nothing but a vagina + uterus attached to some "unimportant stuff".

Personally, I choose to see "human", and let "some unimportant stuff" be "what they choose not to show publicly".

I don't have any trouble with not knowing what is in any given woman's pants, just like I have no trouble being unaware of the contents of any man's pants. And while I could assume and be right 99% of the time, I could as easily not assume and be right 100% of the time (right about "I don't really know and it does not affect anyone").

 

[Trausti]

I am a big black beautiful disabled woman in a wheelchair. Why won’t people accept me for who I pretend to be?

 

[Trausti]

Do trans women go to gynecologists for pap smears? At what point is it acceptable to decline participation in someone else’s sexual fantasy?

 

[TomC]

Every age has its war on reality, I guess. This is ours.

Honestly, no.
Sex and gender issues are tiny and unimportant compared to our war on reality concerning the biosphere. We humans aren't willing to recognize that we've pushed the carrying capacity of earth past it's ability to sustainably supply resources. But we keep pushing harder and harder.

That's the modern war on reality.
Tom

Uh, you mean the West’s incessant self-flagellation on the issue while pretending that China and India don’t exist? Don’t mean to be OT.

It's OT, for sure. Probably should avoid the derail.
But the fact remains that Indian and Chinese people remain at a small fraction of the per capita environmental footprint of westerners.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Uh, you mean the West’s incessant self-flagellation on the issue while pretending that China and India don’t exist? Don’t mean to be OT.

It's OF, for sure. Probably should avoid the derail.
But the fact remains that Indian and Chinese people remain at a small fraction of the per capita environmental footprint of westerners.
Tom

To derail!

We live on one planet. Mother Nature doesn’t care about our political borders. China and India (and most other countries) pollute far more than the West. The swirling plastic/garbage patch in the Pacific is not due to the West. Yet, only the West is scolded. Western people are WEIRD.

End derail.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not to mention that Emily is begging the question by saying only women have menses... She'd have to take that up with my husband, who has menstruated a few times. And probably also with that one guy who was "peeing blood" from the penis... Which turned out to be menses from his ovaries and incomplete uterus.

Your husband is a woman who lives as a man. Your husband has ovaries and a uterus. The male-appearing person with a deleterious disorder had ovaries and a uterus. And while they may not have conformed to the normal phenology of a female, they were in fact an adult human female.

And see, this is the reason your participation I these threads earns you derision and ire: you have one position and that position is to demand that for all humans, "woman = ovaries/vagina/uterus."

This is the point in contention. You have begged the question yet again.

It's the same "demand" that we use with respect to the terms mare/stallion, cow/bull, buck/doe, duck/drake, tom/queen, fox/vixen, and any number of other species where we designate a differentiating term for males and females of that species.

Your desire to redefine those words doesn't obligate other people to honor your desire. I will happily grant your husband the social term of 'man' in appropriate contexts. But when it comes to functions that are a direct and incontrovertible outcome of sex, your husband is an adult human female, and thus in that context a woman.

It's not begging the question to use accurate terminology in the appropriate context.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not true. Only people with ovaries and a uterus menstruate.

You're on the right track. Now... what is the collective name for a sexually mature human being that normally has ovaries and uteruses?

You're on the wrong track now. There is no "normal" collective name now so I would have to answer this as "person".

What's the term for a sexually mature female equine? How about a sexually mature female vulpine? What about a sexually mature male bovine? A sexually mature male mallard?

 

[Emily Lake]

All "normal" tells you is trivia, especially when the subject is "abnormal". And intensely disrespectful and violative trivia, as much as would be were we to discuss the color of Emily Lake's underwear.

I imagine she would be quite angry were we to discuss this, in fact, as while it is most certainly a fact of geometry, it is also most certainly none of our business!

Joke's on you - I'm not wearing any.

Yesterday they were aqua though. And the day before that they were hot pink. All my bras are really boring beige though.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why do you struggle with this concept so much? My son is NOT a 'girl living as a boy'. My son is my son regardless of what 'body parts' he possesses or doesn't possess.

Socially, sure. And in social contexts your son is boy and is absolutely your son. I will support and respect that.

But biologically, and in many medical and policy contexts, your son is a female, and in those contexts a girl.