top 100 commentsshow all 177

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Obligatory not QT, but trans. Trans ideology doesn’t make sense and is full of contradictions. Calling someone a trans woman for a QT person would be more about their intentions or stated identity I guess. I don’t know if it really makes sense otherwise. If a male alters their body and is able to pass to people as female they are going to exist in society being treated as a female in most ways, regardless of how they identify. Likewise, if a male identifies as a trans woman, but it still seen as a male person I don’t think that identity means very much in the real world and I’m not sure why anyone has to care. Even people who support trans ideology recognize the difference between males and females, but are choosing to act a certain way to help some trans people feel better. I don’t think any of them stop recognizing sex or realizing it makes in difference in how people are treated unless they are actually insane. Trying to make everyone play along with something that they don’t believe deep down isn’t a good way to make things better for anyone I feel like.

I feel like it used to be that we used terms that made sense like transsexual. That at least means someone has altered their body to mimic the other sex as much as possible rather than just being something about feelings or intentions. A transsexual is something you can actually be that isn’t just about something supposedly in someone’s mind, it can actually matter in the world. I feel like if we use terms like trans it should be to refer to transsexual, but obviously that is a unpopular view now and many would says it’s transphobic.

[–]divingrightintowork 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm actually surprisingly down with what I could call the 'private definitions' model - like these terms are released into the wild - the problem is QT / pomo gets strange and wants woman to both mean something and nothing. Woman requires some understanding that it equals AHF, but also nothing to do with that. I feel like it should be that I owe no one entry into my definition of woman, and no one owes me entry into theirs... but that isn't where we are.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It’s always been weird about trans women getting upset about about biological definitions of women, because like, if they didn’t already know that for most people woman meant adult human female, they wouldn’t want to be considered that so badly. They really don’t want that to go away.

I don’t know if I understand the private definitions. Do you mean like how people use words actually?

[–]divingrightintowork 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Private definitions is that like.. the same words can mean different things to different people.. or you only get certain phrases in certain places.. like secret handshakes, or flags. Like, when I say "Babe," in a group, I'm referring to my partner, or like long story but after an event last week someone fell off a log laughing because they found something stupid too funny, so now I ask him if he's having a "Falling off the log" moment when he seems to be overwhelmed by how funny he finds something. "Falling off the log moment" has entered our private lexicon.

in genderterms it means that I can define woman in a way that is unique to me ,or it can mean "Anyone with4 fingers on their left hand." Understandably, people may be confused when I use the term woman... but at the end of the day, I'm allowed to mean women when I say that... and if I convicne enough other people that's a better meaning of woman than "adult human female," than that may change the meaning of woman... or maybe I start a large enough religious movement around that meaning... and at least to other members of that group, that's what woman means.

Does that help at all?

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

It is transphobic, it leads to trying to label people if they don't do all the things you think transsexuals should do. Some people transition but don't want surgery, are they transsexuals to you?

Everything we state about ourselves is ultimately a feeling, even if it's based on something in the real world. Because of that, people should believe and respect others' identities.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I don’t have any power so no one really has to care what I think. For transsexual, a lot of people would use terms like pre-op, post-op, or non-op describe whether someone wanted or had surgery. I feel like non-op are probably different than me, but I don’t really control any language. Transphobia in 2022 just seems like a nonsense idea. I don’t think most current trans identified people now have any idea how normalized all this is compared to years ago. People without any power even talking about having less people transition are being accused actual of genocide. 😂

I feel like if it is just some internal feeling though like no one has to respect it. I know my dysphoria and sense of self is real, but other people might not believe that (and they shouldn’t have to) or just think I was a confused gay man. At least if it is treated as a mental illness with diagnostic criteria, questioning and observation from professionals, and gatekeeping, that makes it something more than just a feeling. Plus, it keeps anyone but people who genuinely can’t function otherwise from pursuing this because hopefully they wouldn’t go through it or would be recognized as being something else. It seems weird that we treat this one set of medical treatments, being done to otherwise healthy bodies, like something people can just choose to do rather than a treatment you receive because it is necessary like most other medical treatment.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I know my dysphoria and sense of self is real too but anti-trans ppl are coming for all of us, transsexual, transgender etc, and we need to stick together.

Defining it based on a medical condition simply allows doctors to control how and when and why we can access transition care. I don't know about you, but I don't trust a doctor to understand who I am. That's why for me it's based on choice, it's based on bodily autonomy--i should not need a reason to be who I am or to transition, I should not have to explain it to someone who's never been dysphoric.

Transphobia in 2022 just seems like a nonsense idea

I'm sorry but you're fucking blind if you think this, there are literally bills in multiple states trying to ban healthcare for those under 18, 19, 21. Adults will be next. Right-wing and GC figures alike calling us a problem to a sane world, trying to make us fit into their worldview that doesn't include transness.

Heck, there r still plenty of garden-variety transphobes too, ppl who call us slurs or act like we're disgusting. My mother is that way.

I used to be like you, I used to think that if only I were nice enough, if only I tried to compromise, that there would be a place for me to be, well, me, in this world. I'm done. I know where I stand and it's with trans people, the right to transition. We don't need anyone's permission.

You can either keep licking their boots and try and escape the rising tide. or you can support others like us and everyone who's trans

I don't care if you ban me, a ban from here is nothing compared to being banned from being trans, which is what will happen if I don't stand up for myself

[–]Fleurista💐 Transsexual 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

What are 'trans' people though? It's not very descriptive, other than people 'whose identity/expression/appearance/presentation does not match their sex (at birth)/assigned sex (at birth)', which doesn't reflect the history or reasoning for why a person transitions--and it's the reasoning for transitioning that makes it impossible to group 'trans people' as people with anything in common beyond a vague concept and superficial appearances.

Transitioning because one struggles to live as a member of their sex because of how they look, act, appear, behave, etc. (in other words, because they struggle with being perceived as members of their (birth/natal/assigned) sex) is a completely different experience to transitioning because one feels uncomfortable in their sex-associated social role, which is a completely different experience to transitioning because one wishes they were the opposite sex for some other reason. Thinking of oneself as the other sex isn't necessarily the same as thinking of oneself as trans, but both could happen simultaneously or not at all.

I wonder if 'trans' should just be considered synonymous with gender nonconformity, because that particular aspect of 'being trans' is what makes people 'transphobic'--it's aversion to gender nonconformity. It gets strange the more one resembles the opposite sex because that means one is more gender-conforming for the opposite sex, so transphobia manifests and is experienced differently, if at all. If one doesn't 'pass', then transphobia via Gender Critical-ism is because of reinforcing and (being seen as) dehumanizing members of the opposite sex, trivializing what it means to be a member of that sex, whereas the transphobia a person who 'passes' would more likely experience would be due to a person's or group of peoples' discomfort with someone not behaving or appearing as one would expect a member of their sex to behave and appear.

Saying trans people need to stick together because we are all the same because we are all trans seems analogous to GC, ideological extremists or anyone else grouping all trans people together as being the same. Both GCs and TRAs seem to try to do that, obfuscating the reasoning for why some of us are the way we are and how we came to live the lives we do: they lump the minority in with the majority and call the majority the minority. This is why people 'peak', because they come to understand that 'trans' does not refer to transsexuals or the classic stereotype of a very feminine gay man, but rather people who claim to identify as the opposite sex in order to escape their problems associated with being that person as opposed to anything to do with sex/gender/roles/etc.

If a male experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman, why would they feel they have more in common with trans people rather than women? I feel like that experience is ignored, downplayed, and/or met with hostility by the majority of trans people (who are not transsexuals) because they cannot comprehend that experience themselves, and there is resentment towards transsexuals like this. Most trans peoples' experiences are not those of transsexuals', so they take the interpretation of their own experience and apply it to transsexuals, then claim that they have the same experience because they don't pass yet they feel they are or should be another sex or gender, so the feeling of dissatisfaction one has with their sex/gender/role is interpreted as being the same, when it really isn't.

We can all support freedom of choice on matters of personal expression or if a person wants to modify or alter their body or appearance, and we can all condemn bigoty and prejudice against trans people, but I have difficulty finding solidarity simply in 'being trans', because that alone is not a universal experience.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's interesting to me that peakingatthemoment said:

If a male alters their body and is able to pass to people as female they are going to exist in society being treated as a female in most ways

And now Fleurista has said:

If a male experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman, why would they feel they have more in common with trans people rather than women?

To me, these statements illustrate a major difference between the self-concepts of males who "identify as" women/girls and those of us who actually are women/girls. There's a lot more to going through life as a female human being in a female body than just being perceived and treated in certain ways by others.

I honestly don't know anyone female who derives her own sense of her sex solely or mainly from how others perceive her. Even if a female person lives a totally cloistered and solitary life as a hermit or shut-in who never leaves the house, or she only leaves the house covered head to toe face and all in a full-body burka like in Afghanistan, or she looks very "butch" and thus often gets mistaken for a male person by others when out and about in the world, she will still inhabit a body that is distinctly female in the thousands of ways that make human female bodies very different to human male bodies. And in my observation, what inhabiting a distinctly, unmistakably female body feels like to her internally in her own flesh and blood down to the marrow of her bones will be the major source of information that she relies for her knowledge that she is a woman or girl.

I think if those who believe women's self-concepts of sex is entirely or mostly about the perceptions other people have about us actually spent time speaking to a broad cross section women about this, they'd find that women's sense of being female usually has as much or FAR MORE to do with the physical aspects of our bodies that we experience and feel in every fiber of our being internally rather than how other people who observe us from the outside see and treat us.

Yes, the ways other people see and treat us shape and inform our self-concepts. But it is only part of the story of our sense of ourselves and especially our sense of our sex. For many of us, how others see and treat us is actually only a small part of the story insofar as our sense of our own female sex is concerned.

For many of us, our sense of ourselves as girls and women comes largely or even mostly from the physical issues we start dealing with once we start getting periods - which the majority of females start at 11-12 - and breast development, which most girls start even earlier. PMDD, menstrual cramps, heavy bleeding and clotting, period blood leaking all over, pre-menstrual breast tenderness, ovulation twinges/pain, female urethral problems like recurrent cystitis, vaginal yeast overgrowth aka "infections" when under stress, our vulnerability to pregnancy and all the intense worries and dread that come with that, pregnancy, miscarriage, termination, childbirth, breastfeeding, ovarian cysts, fibroids, uteruses perforated by IUDs, a lifetime of breast cancer checks and worries about various kinds of lumps, menopause, osteoporosis, gynecological disease, hysterectomy, bones that are easier to break than male bones, skulls that make us more susceptible to concussion and TBIs than males are, muscles and reflexes that make us slower and less physically powerful than males, female grip strength, a far greater likelihood of experiencing autoimmune diseases and Alzheimer's, a far greater risk of suffering lower limb injuries than males due to doing sports and wearing high heels, etc - these are the kinds of embodied, "lived experiences" that most female human beings rely on for the knowledge we are girls and women.

Catcalls, being groped, being ignored, being sexually preyed upon, getting talked over, getting called "miss" and "ma'am," being mansplained to, being told to swallow your feelings, being passed over for promotion at work, having your ideas stolen from you and credited to someone else, having your health complaints dismissed by doctors, being told you don't matter, being called a slxt, whxre, Karen, pearl clutcher, fat cow, stupid breeder, ugly mxnhater, old bag, a witch and TERF and so on - those sorts of experiences are reminders that we are female, and that in our society females are seen as second-class and second-rate. But for most of us, those kinds of experiences are not where our basic knowledge that we are female comes from. Most of us get our fundamental sense of our selves as female human beings, as girls and women, from a lifetime of inhabiting female bodies every second of every day, year in and year out - not from how others see us and treat us. Nor even from what we ourselves see when we look in glass mirrors.

The embodied experience of being a female human being with female DNA, female cells, female organs, a female immune response and so on is fundamentally different to, and totally separate from, how other people perceive us and how they treat us. It's entirely different to gazing at our physical selves in looking glasses too. These are points which seem totally lost on those who believe that being a girl/woman is simply - and mainly, mostly, entirely - a matter of giving off a certain outward impressions and being viewed and treated by others in particular ways.

[–]Fleurista💐 Transsexual 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

To me, these statements illustrate a major difference between the self-concepts of males who "identify as" women/girls and those of us who actually are women/girls. There's a lot more to going through life as a female human being in a female body than just being perceived and treated in certain ways by others.

What does "identify as" women/girls mean in this context? I do not "identify as" anything, which I have said as much before, and I'm fairly sure Peaking has said the same. Using our statements to frame us as males who "identify as" women/girls and then to extrapolate from that framing seems a bit assumptive and misleading.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have absolutely no idea exactly what males mean when they say they "identify as" women - or what females mean when they say they "identify as" men either. I think you're in a far better position to tell me what this means than the other way around. Not because you personally say you "identify as" a woman - I dunno how you describe yourself - but because I think you have a far better understanding than I do of what it's like to be a person who wishes to be the opposite sex, and specifically what it feels like to be someone male who long has sought - and still seeks? - to be perceived as or like a woman in other people's eyes.

Phrases such as "identify as a woman," "she/he identifies as women" or "Lia Thomas identifies as a woman" are not strings of words I have invented, or that I personally use or would ever use. But believers and peddlers of gender ideology have been saying for years that "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" and therefore a male person can be just as much a woman as his mother and grand mothers. And increasingly they say this works the other way around too: "a man is anyone who identifies as a man." (Though I think most of the world is less likely to play along with that fiction than with the fiction that males like Rachel Levine, Char Clymer and Lia Thomas are women just coz they say the magic words "I identify as a woman.")

I personally don't have a gender identity, and the whole idea of people "identifying as" things they/we are not seems ludicrous to me - whether the something they/we are not is a sex, a chronological age, a sexual orientation, a member of political party, a resident of certain country/state/region/city, a practioner of a certain profession or hobby, etc. The nomenclature to "identify as" in a personal sense is totally alien and makes no sense to me.

As I've written here before, the concept of "self identifying" originally referred to colonized, oppressed and marginalized peoples - not to individual persons. Black people in the US came to reject the label "Negro" and instead chose to self-identify as African American or black - and later some would chose to identify as ADOS or POC. In the 1960s and 70s, female adults in workplaces rejected being called "girls" and "working girls" and said we/they wanted be known as women. Similarly, women who worked as administrative assistants aka secretaries, office managers and typists asked not to be referred to by such terms as "my girl," "his girl" or "the office girls" or "the girls." And women attending college/uni said we'd prefer not to be called "co-eds" any more.

But those were group labels. It's only been very recently in history that promoters of gender identity ideology, individual identity politics and the PoMo idea that "people are whatever they say they are" have begun using the concept of self-identity to mean that anyone can pick and choose whatever labels for themselves willy-nilly and to insist that no matter how preposterous and reality-denying some people's claimed self-identities are, they all must be taken seriously, respected, affirmed and seen as "valid" by everyone else in the world. Except, that is, if the person claiming a certain identity is a white woman like Rachel Dolezal.

Using our statements to frame us as males who "identify as" women/girls and then to extrapolate from that framing seems a bit assumptive and misleading.

Then explain what you mean, then. I'm all ears.

BTW, I totally do understand how people can have self-images and body-images in our heads and hearts that stand in stark contrast to who, how and what we actually are in objective reality. When I was a teenager and young woman I saw my own body as fat and ugly when I was actually quite slim and attractive. After I finally came to see my body more realistically, and with self-acceptance and even pride and love, I had a hard time dealing with the marked physical changes that pregnancy and childbirth brought. Now that I am old, I have reached the stage in life where I really don't recognize myself in the mirror any more. In my mind and heart, I still "feel young" in many respects, but my bones and joints don't feel very young - and when I glance in a looking glass, what I see is an old woman who bears little/no resemblance to the woman I once was.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If a male experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman, why would they feel they have more in common with trans people rather than women?

But what exactly does a male who believes he "experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman" really have in common with women (female adults)?

I know males in this position typically say, often insistently, that they "feel they have more in common with" female people than with other males like themselves. But I don't get what this feeling is actually based on. To me, it seems a like an expression of distinctly male wishful thinking and a projection of distinctly male fantasies that come from the distinctly male belief that women are whatever males imagine us to be and say we are.

Seems to me that males who call themselves "transsexuals" could only "feel they have more in common with women" than with other males who adopt some other kind of trans gender identities if they believe women are superficial, passive beings who have no existence apart from the way others perceive us and treat us. It seems based on the belief that we have no inner lives, no depth, no self-consciousness of inhabiting our own bodies, no sensations of our own that come from our distinctly female bodies, and no "lived experience" of going through uniquely female physical processes like menstruation, uterine cramping, PMDD/PMS, ovulation, conception, pregnancy, miscarriage, childbirth, abortion, menopause, gynecological disease, breastfeeding, tokophobia and so on.

It seems based on the belief that women are merely surfaces, objects or "dumb" animals with no material reality apart from the way others perceive, assess, touch, handle, regard and treat us.

I feel like that experience is ignored, downplayed, and/or met with hostility by the majority of trans people (who are not transsexuals) because they cannot comprehend that experience themselves, and there is resentment towards transsexuals like this.

But I and many other women feel that males who describe themselves as transsexuals AND transgender alike all completely overlook, ignore, downplay our experience as female humans beings and treat US with hostility and resentment. Because you/they cannot comprehend OUR own experience. Many refuse to even acknowledge that we have any inner experience whatsoever that is separate and unique and which males cannot appropriate or simulate.

Most trans peoples' experiences are not those of transsexuals', so they take the interpretation of their own experience and apply it to transsexuals, then claim that they have the same experience because they don't pass yet they feel they are or should be another sex or gender, so the feeling of dissatisfaction one has with their sex/gender/role is interpreted as being the same, when it really isn't.

But just because the "transsexual" males you are describing here don't have the same experiences as "most trans people" doesn't mean that the life experience and experience of self of those male "transsexuals" can be assumed to be the same as - or to have any relationship to - the life experience and experience of self of actual women (female people) either.

It seems to me that you keep taking the experience of male "transsexuals" like yourself and projecting it on to those of us who are female in order to make it appear as though your experience as a specific subset of male human beings is essentially the same as the experience of the world's female people - or at least very, very close. When from my perspective, there's a universe of difference so vast that our experiences are basically chalk and cheese.

That doesn't mean I think the experience of male "transsexuals" is worse - or better - than the experience of female people, or vice versa. I just don't think these very different groups of human beings have very much in common and should be lumped together.

Moreover, I resent the way that males with various kinds of "trans" identities continually use factors like the amount of body alterations they have done and their beliefs that they "pass" as the opposite sex so much better than other males with trans identities do as excuses to keep sidling up to the sex divide and insisting in wheedling, manipulative ways that because they are not like those other blokes over there, they with their "special transsexual" trans status have "earned the right" to shoehorn and insinuate themselves into the female category. It all feels like forced teaming to me.

[–]Fleurista💐 Transsexual 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But what exactly does a male who believes he "experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman" really have in common with women (female adults)?

That is what he has in common with women: he experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman. The significance of that is debatable, of course!

I and many other women feel that males who describe themselves as transsexuals AND transgender alike all completely overlook, ignore, downplay our experience as female humans beings and treat US with hostility and resentment. Because you/they cannot comprehend OUR own experience. Many refuse to even acknowledge that we have any inner experience whatsoever that is separate and unique and which males cannot appropriate or simulate.

It’s understandable why you and other women feel that way. We seem to be sharing some feelings in common, though, which I find interesting!

But just because the "transsexual" males you are describing here don't have the same experiences as "most trans people" doesn't mean that the life experience and experience of self of those male "transsexuals" can be assumed to be the same as - or to have any relationship to - the life experience and experience of self of actual women (female people) either.

No, of course not. An assumption like that shouldn’t be automatic, as would be the same as assuming there is no relationship or any sameness of self and/or life experience of women (female people).

It seems to me that you keep taking the experience of male "transsexuals" like yourself and projecting it on to those of us who are female in order to make it appear as though your experience as a specific subset of male human beings is essentially the same as the experience of the world's female people - or at least very, very close. When from my perspective, there's a universe of difference so vast that our experiences are basically chalk and cheese.

I suppose that’s natural with differing perspectives, the same thing might be given more than one explanation or interpretation. It seems like that can even be an issue with facts, in that they’re only accurate from a specific perspective (eg, GC places importance of biology over identity because of femaleness/maleness as functions or biological states of being/existing primarily, but that choice is based on a specific perspective).

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But what exactly does a male who believes he "experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman" really have in common with women (female adults)?

That is what he has in common with women: he experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman. The significance of that is debatable, of course!

You left out a phrase I was careful to insert, though. You seem to take it for granted that the hypothetical male in this case more likely than not truly "experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman." Whereas I suspect it's more likely than not that his own perceptions of how he is being "read" by others are inaccurate. I think he might believe and claim that he "experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman." But I have a hunch the vast majority of males in this situation are not really perceived as women by nearly as many other people in as many different situations as often or as genuinely as they believe.

[–]Chronicity[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I personally think the concept of “gender non-conforming” is as problematic as “trans”. It affirms that idea that there are a set of sex stereotypes members of the class called women or men adhere to by default, and deviating from these stereotypes merits a special term.

How many people truly conform to sex stereotypes, though? I’ve never see the woman who wears makeup and dresses but curses like a sailor and works as a CEO for a construction company called GNC, but why not? If a man went around calling himself GNC simply because he is non-athletic, nurturing, and likes baking, I suspect no one would take that seriously. So it only seems like the most superficial, externally obvious traits qualify someone as GNC. This is an implicit admission that our concept of gender is purely aesthetic. Why should we assign any importance to clothing, grooming, and hairstyles?

I fully support people expressing themselves how they like, regardless of their biological sex. But I don’t believe in labeling people “GNC” just because their expression differs from a set of superficial stereotypes.

[–]Fleurista💐 Transsexual 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

These terms seem mostly unhelpful, because they are so vague--they describe things that are so subjective and manifest so differently as to be seemingly meaningless. We maybe shouldn't ascribe so much meaning or give so much power to expectations regarding clothing, grooming, hairstyles, etc. but people still do. People are discriminated against or treated with prejudice because of such things, which does need some sort of recognition, or else oppression based on stereotypes ascribed to sex is just reinforced, or at least permitted.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We maybe shouldn't ascribe so much meaning or give so much power to expectations regarding clothing, grooming, hairstyles, etc. but people still do. People are discriminated against or treated with prejudice because of such things, which does need some sort of recognition, or else oppression based on stereotypes

Can you give some concrete examples of people who in this day and age are being discriminated against and treated with prejudice in ways that are clearly unlawful - or should be unlawful - in workplaces, schools or commercial establishments because their "clothing, grooming, hairstyles" don't conform to sex stereotypes?

Please cite specific examples of people who due to having clothing, grooming and/or hairstyles that aren't in line with sex stereotypes were refused service in a bar or restaurant or store; were denied admission to schools and entertainment venues; were denied the right to participate in sports; were turned down for a mortgage or other bank loan or service; were turned away from a hospital or urgent care when seeking basic health care; were not allowed to board a commercial airliner or use other public transport... and so on.

I have a strong sense that a lot of people who identify as trans or have some other kind of special gender identities these days felt shamed, bullied and mistreated by family members, school mates and neighborhood bullies when they were growing up - and as adults they take these experiences and use them as the template that shapes their view of, and approach to, the whole world beyond their homes, home towns and school play grounds. I have a feeling that many trans people also take the difficulties they experience in the dating realm and in their relationships with certain family members and friends and project them onto everyone they encounter in every sphere of life. They assume they will face the exact same difficulties, judgments and rejection they got from their mom or dad, and the cold shoulders they got from their teenage crushes, with every one else in the world they encounter. When the reality is, the big outside world often is very different than people imagine it to be. Most people we encounter don't spend time thinking ill of us - most people don't spend any time thinking about us at all.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Please, provide evidence of the so GC extremism you're talking about. And I hope you have better examples than women being rude on the internet when ranting about all this stuff being force on us, or women refusing to play along with "prefered pronouns" or "inclusive language" in general, or women calling out the lack of evidence of what pass as "trans healthcare". And I hope your examples dont' include blaming women for male on male violence. Otherwise, it'd be a dishonest framing if you claim that both sides have extremist when we can provide plenty of evidence of TRAs threathening, doxing, getting fired or physically assaulting dissenting women, and when we can provide plenty of evidence of TRAs advocating for the chemical castration of children and teens, getting male rapist in women's prisons and the legal erasure of sex, and not to mention all the dehumanizing language they want to impose to talk about actual women and actual women's bodies, or how they often work behinds everyone's backs.

[–]Fleurista💐 Transsexual 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not sure if you're referring to this:

analogous to GC, ideological extremists or anyone else grouping all trans people together as being the same.

But if you are, I should have used an oxford comma to distinguish between Gender Critical, and ideological extremism--sorry about that!

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, I was refering to that part. And I still don't understand what you meant by that. Why do you think GC and ideological extremists are analogous?

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd like to know why Fleurista is making that claim too. And also on what basis Fleurista believes it's fair and accurate to say that GC are guilty of

grouping all trans people together as being the same.

My perception is that GC are the one group that does the total opposite. GC constantly point out that "all trans people" are NOT the same and therefore should not be lumped together.

GC point out that "trans people" are either male or female, and there is a world of difference between trans people who are male and trans people who are female. GC also point out that the "gender affirming" medical treatments given to males and females who ID as trans have very different impacts on the mental health and mental wellbeing two groups, in large part because of the innumerable physical differences between the two sexes.

GC also point out that that males and females who identity as trans need to be further distinguished from one another not just by their sex, but by their age and the year/era they were born in; by the age and stage of development they were in when they first began to experience distress about sex and gender and an inclination to "identify as" the opposite; by their sexual orientation (when applicable); and by the range of experiences they went through growing up, with special attention to ACEs like child sex abuse, parental divorce, family conflict, bereavement, etc.

GC is the group that points out that girls whose distress over sex and gender and desire to be a boy/man suddenly crops up during puberty of adolescence are totally different to boys who felt a desire to be girls starting in early childhood long before puberty of adolescence - and that these two very distinct groups are vastly different in turn to the legions of males who develop "gender dysphoria" and decide to declare that they are girls/women in adolescence or adulthood principally because doing so brings them enormous male sexual pleasure.

GC are the ones who not only distinguish between two groups of adult and adolescent males who identity as trans like Blanchard did - the homosexual ones and the heterosexual ones with autogynephilia - we say that even amongst these two groups of males there are often marked differences in what is driving them to identity as the opposite sex, which have a lot to do with culture, ethnicity, and where they were born and grew up. GC point out that even within these two groups of adolescent and adult males, there are differences in the benefits, pleasures and seeming solutions to their overall life problems that identifying as girls/women brings them - and differences in the drawbacks and difficulties they experience from devoting their energies and time in, and investing so much of themselves in, the massive undertaking of trying to "live as" and "pass as" women/girls too.

GC is the group that further point out that just as "trans people" shouldn't be lumped together as if they were all one and the same, youngsters shouldn't be lumped together by use of such difference-erasing neologisms as "trans children" and "trans youth." GC are the group that keep pointing out that even when the "gender affirming treatment" prescribed, championed and sold as a panacea and magic cure for all "trans children" is the exact same thing - GnRH analogs aka "puberty blockers" - and it's administered at the same exact age, the treatment has radically different effects on male youngsters versus female youngsters. GC point out that when female children are put on "puberty blockers" for sex and gender distress, the blockers do not lead to improved body image, greater self-acceptance and less anxiety and depression. On the contrary, "puberty blockers" in gender and sex distressed females leads to a worsening of mental health in these specific regards - and to an increase in desire to/thoughts of self-harm, including suicide. Moreover, in females the use of GnRH analogs to block puberty results in permanently stunted height and dangerously low bone density, which in many cases results bone fractures, spinal deformity and degeneration, skeletons that cannot support the girls' bodies, and constant pain.

Seems to me that if anyone is guilty of "grouping all trans people together," it's not GC - rather, it's QT, TRAs, the legions of people who work in the gender vendor industry, and a great many individuals who identify as trans and mistakenly assume that others who identify as trans must be very much like themselves. IIRC, on this very sub Fleurista and other individual posters who call themselves "trans people" have been taken to task rather often by GC posters such as yours truly for not seeming to be aware of, or not paying enough heed to, the fact that many "trans people" are female, and for appearing not to take into account that the life experiences of many "trans people" are drastically different to their own personal life experience and the personal life experience of the small number of other "trans people" they personally know or know about too.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

One more thing. Can you please explain what you mean here:

If one doesn't 'pass', then transphobia via Gender Critical-ism is because of reinforcing and (being seen as) dehumanizing members of the opposite sex, trivializing what it means to be a member of that sex

Because it comes off as though you are saying females are the ones guilty of dehumanizing males, not the other way around, and that we are the ones who are trivializing what it means to be a member of the opposite/male sex. Which sure sounds like DARVO straight out of the MRA playbook. Talk about pot calling the kettle black!

the transphobia a person who 'passes' would more likely experience would be due to a person's or group of peoples' discomfort with someone not behaving or appearing as one would expect a member of their sex to behave and appear.

People of both sexes have been defying sex stereotypes for generations - all without experiencing any "transphobia." *

Chances are, what you perceive as other people's discomfort and choose to call "transphobia" is just projections of your own feelings of discomfort stemming from your own judgments. You might believe that most people experience "discomfort with someone not behaving or appearing as one would expect a member of the their sex to behave and appear" because you yourself have rigid expectations of how others should behave and appear and you are preoccupied with how others appear and behave - and you assume everyone else shares your rigid expectations and preoccupations and is always looking at you and judging you too. But this is not true. The people who have rigid expectations and are hung up on looks and masculinity and femininity and are always going around judging themselves and others based on superficial aspects of dress, appearance and affect are the genderists, not the general public.

In a country like the USA or UK, most people don't pay much attention to how the other people we see out and about dress and behave. And so long as people are not impinging on on the rights of others, breaking laws, making trouble, encroaching where they don't belong, or creating safeguarding concerns, no one much cares about the way others dress and behave.

GC women aren't discomforted by males not adhering to sex stereotypes. What we are discomfited by is males reducing us to cardboard stereotypes, telling us they/you ARE us, and mimicking us in dehumanizing ways for entertainment as in drag, for claimed reasons of "identity" that they demand we play along with and show respect for - or else - as in trans, and for their own sexual fetishes and sick male fantasies. What we are very distressed by are the claims that genderists make, namely that not adhering to the sex stereotypes of one's own sex means a person effectively turns into the opposite sex - and, worse, that males who don't conform to the sex stereotypes for their sex now have a right to horn in on female sports and on the spaces and services meant for female people, such as women's and girls' locker rooms, loos, changing rooms, showers, shelters, dorm rooms, rape crisis centers, prisons, support groups.

*A case in point: this longtime "gender bender" is now constantly called a transphobe by genderists because he says humans can dress and express ourselves however we want, but none of us can change sex: https://youtu.be/2GbgPd3hPSc

In 2022, Marilyn - who now goes by the name Mister Marilyn - is still dressing as behaving as he wants, and no one cares or gives him grief, not even his GC feminist fans like me. Because Mr Marilyn doesn't pretend that his fondness for skirts, makeup and long hair makes him a woman. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WgO7jVltslQ

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/K-nE5qF4YjU

[–]Fleurista💐 Transsexual 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

it comes off as though you are saying females are the ones guilty of dehumanizing males, not the other way around, and that we are the ones who are trivializing what it means to be a member of the opposite/male sex. Which sure sounds like DARVO straight out of the MRA playbook. Talk about pot calling the kettle black!

Right? It definitely would if that’s what I were saying, but I’m not sure why you are interpreting my words as implying females being guilty of anything. Transphobia means different things to different people, some not believing it exists at all, while others feel it’s rampant across life; some people think it’s not respecting pronoun requests, others feel it’s about being refused employment on the basis of ‘being trans’. What QT might call transphobia, GC might not, so in this context, from the perspective of QT, transphobia would be whatever ways GC does not acquiesce to QT belief systems–GC is in opposition of reinforcement of stereotypes ascribed to sex, sexism, and misogyny, at least partly because it dehumanizes people of both sexes, reducing them to cardboard cutouts, as you say–these things that are seen as QT exalting and reinforcing. Does that make sense?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, it doesn't make sense. Sorry if I misinterpreted your words. Can you explain what this sentence means:

If one doesn't 'pass', then transphobia via Gender Critical-ism is because of reinforcing and (being seen as) dehumanizing members of the opposite sex, trivializing what it means to be a member of that sex

I honestly don't get what "transphobia via Gender Critical-ism" is. Can you give some examples please.

And please explain how "transphobia via Gender Critical-ism" results in

reinforcing and (being seen as) dehumanizing members of the opposite sex, trivializing what it means to be a member of that sex

BTW, I don't deny that some GC people can be mean and make cutting remarks about the clothes, grooming, hairstyles, etc of some trans people. But you've got to admit that a lot of trans people seem to be "taking the piss" as they say in Britain. Such as all the men with beards claiming to be trans women nowadays. And all the males clearly using their special status as members of the new sacred caste to trample all over women and our basic civil rights. To wit: Danielle Muscato, Jessica Yaniv, Lia Thomas, Ricci Tres, Eddie Izzard... Not to mention all the convicted rapists of women, child molesters and murderers of women and children.

You mention people who are

being refused employment on the basis of ‘being trans’.

Please give some RL examples of this actually happening. I know people with trans identities complain a lot that no one will hire them. Maybe so. But is it because they are trans - or because of some other reason? Or reasons? For example, trans lobby orgs report that more than 60% of "black trans women" in the US today have criminal convictions that caused them to be sentenced to time behind bars (these convictions are not for doing "sex work"). The CDC reports that "black trans women" in the US have a very high rate of HIV infections (in the range of 50%) and most who get their HIV diagnosed are noncompliant with medical care to keep their HIV in check. So if it's hard for many of them to get hired, it might be because they have limited work histories and blemished records.

Also, unfortunately trans people have already gotten a reputation for making unreasonable demands in the workplace, and for filing a lot of HR grievances and lawsuits. When women entered the workforce in large numbers in the 1960s and 70s, women took the opposite tack. We learned to put up with a lot of crap without filing grievances or lawsuits in part because we didn't want to give men any reason to complain that we're difficult to work with.

All that said, it seems "being trans" today is considered an asset in the eyes of many employers that leads to more and better job opportunities. Caitlyn Jenner got hired by FOX News coz Jenner is trans. Rachel Levine got a cabinet post for being trans. Jennifer Finney Boylan has made a whole stellar career out of being trans. Lots of trans people seem today seem to be handed employment opportunities on a silver platter. Hiring someone trans garners employers points in terms of the DEI stats and PR.

Moreover, a number of major corporations now are providing benefits, accommodations and perks for trans people on an order and scale not matched by the benefits, accommodations and perks that any other marginalized group gets. For example, many companies now give trans employees extensive leave for, and cash payments to cover, a host of "gender affirming" cosmetic surgeries - on top of the sick leave and regular benefits that all employees get.

By contrast, women working for these same companies don't get special time off or extra funds to help us deal with issues like menstrual cramps, PMDD, flooding from uterine bleeding and clotting, miscarriage or termination, or for tummy tucks and breast lifts after pregnancies. Some of the same companies that are bending over backwards to fund and support "gender affirming" cosmetic procedures don't even give female employees much or anything in the way of decent paid maternity leave after giving birth. Similarly, though women have been begging for accommodations in the workplace when going through menopause, most companies have told female employees to suck it up. Most workplaces also still make no accommodations to make it easier, safer and more hygienic for breastfeeding women to express and store milk during their shifts.

So the issue is: are trans people really suffering huge amounts of workplace discrimination like they constantly say? Or is this just another area where the extent of "oppression coz trans" has been greatly exagerrated - indeed, largely invented? When trans people claim they are discriminated against like no other group is or has ever been discriminated against, I always wonder: who have they spoken to? Who are they comparing themselves to? Do they know any women, people from racial and linguistic minorities, older people past 50, or people with disabilities, etc who truly have suffered employment discrimination because of immutable physical characteristics?

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If a male experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman, why would they feel they have more in common with trans people rather than women?

Because they do? You might have the experience of dealing with misogyny, but you don't have a lifetime of passive unasked-for socialisation from the moment you were born that girls and women have. Women did not become women by wishing they were women. They simply are. In fact, self-hatred for being female is a common thread in many of their lives. You did not have the biology that interplays with said lifetime of misogyny. The result is distinctly different, which is why male trans people behave so differently, and tend to walk over women and dismiss their complaints of how harmful the patriarchy is (along with associated ideas like brainsex and gender roles).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

It's simple. Let people use the labels and words for themselves that they feel fit them.

Trans is an umbrella term. There are subgroups, reasons "why" people are trans. Like I've been dysphoric since youth and transitioned because of that distress. Not everyone is like that, but we're all trans.

If a cis woman wanted to call themselves trans I'd think that's weird but I'd be open to listening to their reasons. It's about acceptance.

[–]Chronicity[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

What does it mean to be trans if it any definition of trans is as valid as any other one?

How can transgender be treated as a protected characteristic if literally anyone can call themselves trans?

Trans people often accuse others are denying their existence, but they don’t seem to realize they themselves are doing that when they wear the word trans like a meaningless label.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

It just means, imo, that your relationship or perspective on gender and living in a sexed body is that you want to go against traditional or "natural" ideas. That could include gender nonconformity or medical treatment etc.

Trans means different things in different contexts. when I say I'm trans, I mean it in a way of, my sense of identity is only subversive in that I want to be female despite being amab. I mean it as "I couldn't survive without medically transitioning". And usually people understand what I mean by it.

To someone else it might just mean, wanting to tear down gendered constructs and stereotypes and identifying with different label.

Regardless, the label isn't meaningless, it signifies some level of intent or thought

[–]BiologyIsReal 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

If a word can mean whatever to anyone, then that word it's effectively meaningless. Words are supposed to facilitate communication.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

It has a number of closely related meanings. If someone doesn't get it you can just explain.

As long as there's understanding then it's totally fine.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

There is no understanding if one word is used to convey opposing information.

You say they are closely related ideas but they aren’t.

Imagine someone needs to buy shoes. They go to a store and say ‘hello I need shoes in x size please’ and they are handed a small pile of handkerchiefs.

Do they say ‘Thankyou for the shoes’ and pay, wrapping hankies on your feet and being surprised when they don’t keep out the mud?

Or would they perhaps say “sorry I said shoes. These are handkerchiefs”?

The clerk argues with them, telling the customer that these hemmed cotton squares and footwear are the same thing because the clerk defines each as “a thing that is worn”

Did the clerk who gave them hankies use a word that refers to one thing to refer to something else that’s vaguely related (an item one wears)? Was it effective communication?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

It's not opposing information, transness implies some identification with an incongruence with gender roles or sexed attributes, that can take many forms. It's like going to the shoe store and when you ask for shoes they ask if you mean converse or vans. Both are shoes.

[–]Chronicity[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

By your own admission, you think transwomen can be anyone who calls themselves a transwoman—even if they are biologically female.

Another person might define transwomen as biological males who want to be female.

These two definitions cannot both be true. The only way you can consider them equally valid is if you don’t care about logic. It’s like saying you believe in God and the holy trinity while also professing to be an atheist.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

These two definitions cannot both be true

Why not? Words can mean different, even contradictory things. "Cleave" can mean either to split or to unite, for example

[–]Chronicity[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Call me when “cleave” denotes a group of people who insist on being a protected class in the eyes of the law.

If the group can’t even decide the basic parameters of membership beyond self-ID, then “trans” lacks sufficient meaning.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It is opposing info. You’re saying trans means both an incongruence with one’s physical sex and their internal sense of gender, but also any preferences for gender expression, but also non conformity with gender.

Three seperate, distinct ideas. How are they similar to you? Why do you feel the similarities you see extend beyond your mind and into the material reality of others?

You’re saying woman means adult human males with gender ideas, adult human females.
Opposites.

You’re saying woman refers to any individuals personal concept of femininity.

That’s three things you are defining with a single word.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Three seperate, distinct ideas. How are they similar to you? Why do you feel the similarities you see extend beyond your mind and into the material reality of others?

Because they also call themselves trans and I feel a kinship with them.

You’re saying woman refers to any individuals personal concept of femininity.

Not femininity, there are masculine women too! Personal identity. Whether that is "backed up" by biology or not doesn't matter to me, what matters to me is how someone feels about themselves. Ofc, that says nothing about how someone is socially perceived, which is also meaningful, but yeah.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Why does your feeling of kinship with strangers entitle you to decide what the thoughts of anyone else are? Why does your kinship to males with gender identities mean that all English speakers must deny any word to refer to adult human females?

You’ve defined women as femininity previously despite denying it when that’s pointed out, which means there can be no masculine women in your world. She’d be a transman because she identifies with masculinity if she likes things her culture deems masculine🙄

Identity has never been defined or described in the context of gender except as a vague collection of modern era western sexed stereotypes of behaviour, preferences, and fashion choices.

Interestingly, identity when defined outside of the gender co text refers explicitly to one’s concept of self as formed by their lived experiences. Experiences, not imagined ideals to which one tries to make reality bend.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (129 children)

isn’t it contradictory (and transphobic) to refer to people in a way that implies the body has bearing on gender-based categorization?

Calling someone a "trans woman" does not imply that the body has a bearing on gender-based categorization. I'm not sure why you think it does, to be honest. We call certain people trans women because as well as being women, they are trans. You seem to be using the word trans as though it's a modifier on the word woman, when in fact it's an adjective describing a person who, in the particular example you are referencing is also a woman. You can equally say "trans person" or "trans hairdresser" as you can "trans woman".

Trans woman != woman. Trans woman is a sub category of woman, a woman who is also trans.

[–]Chronicity[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (64 children)

Nope, I’m not using trans as a modifier of woman; that’s what you and others are doing when you assert TW are a subset of women.

The issue comes down to this question: what definition of transwoman allows someone to be a one without contradicting the idea that anyone can be a woman regardless of their physique or appearance?

Definition #1: Anyone who identifies as a transwoman is a transwoman. Problem: Can a human female be one? If yes, then trans is meaningless and there’s no reason to assign it any sociopolitical significance. If no, then this definition is wrong.

Definition #2: An adult human male who identifies as an adult human female. Problem: Can a human female be one? If yes, then this definition is wrong. If no, then this violates the tenet that anyone can be a woman regardless of physique and appearance.

You are saying “trans” is an adjective for woman, but it’s not. Compare how it works with the adjective “tall”.

“Tall woman” communicates “adult human female of above average height”. Take away the last four words and what do you have left? A woman.

“Transwoman” communicates “adult human male who identifies as a human female”. Take away the last six words and what do you have left? A man. All “trans” is doing is flipping the meaning to the opposite word.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (63 children)

Firstly, I would never use the word "transwoman". When I talk about a "trans woman" I am using the word "trans" which is a shortened version of the adjective, "transgender". To smash the two words together like that invites exactly the kind of misunderstanding that you seem to have here, but I'll see if I can clarify.

Because of this, the question:

The issue comes down to this question: what definition of transwoman allows someone to be a one without contradicting the idea that anyone can be a woman regardless of their physique or appearance?

Is a bit of a non starter. I would not use the word "transwoman" and I do not believe that anyone can be a "trans woman" regardless of their physique or appearance, except in the most technical sense.

To be a "trans woman" a person must (a) be trans, and (b) be a woman.

A person is trans if they identify with a different gender than the one that was assigned to them at birth. As for being a woman, I imagine that this is actually where we differ.

You are saying “trans” is an adjective for woman, but it’s not. Compare how it works with the adjective “tall”.

“Tall woman” communicates “adult human female of above average height”. Take away the last four words and what do you have left? A woman.

“Transwoman” communicates “adult human male who identifies as a human female”. Take away the last six words and what do you have left? A man. All “trans” is doing is flipping the meaning to the opposite word.

This seems to be a fundamental part of your misunderstanding. When I talk about a "tall woman" I am not talking about an "adult human female of above average height", I am talking about a person who identifies as a woman who is above average height.

Similarly, when I talk about a "trans woman" I am talking about a person who identifies as a woman and whose gender identity is different from the one that they were assigned at birth. The word "trans" doesn't change the meaning of the word "woman" at all.

The way that you are using the word "woman" (aka adult human female) a "trans woman" would be an adult human female whose gender identity is different from the one that they were assigned at birth.

[–]Chronicity[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (60 children)

This seems to be a fundamental part of your misunderstanding. When I talk about a "tall woman" I am not talking about an "adult human female of above average height", I am talking about a person who identifies as a woman who is above average height.

The problem with this is no one believes you actually do this. Because human beings don’t operate in the world in this way. When I describe someone as a woman or man, child or adult, tall or short, etc. I’m not basing my description on their self-identification. Identity is irrelevant. I’m basing it on how I perceive them empirically. Everyone does; it’s how our species has managed to survive for eons.

It is interesting that you seem to get how this works for “tall” but not for “woman”. Why is your concept of “tall woman” a person who identifies as a woman who is of above average height, rather than a person who identifies as a woman who identifies as above average height? You are treating height as a objective trait but not the status of being female or male/woman or man.

How do you not see you are erasing women’s existence as a biologically defined class that is materially distinct from men? What is stopping you from seeing how you’re only enabling misogynistic patriarchy by redefining womanhood into complete meaninglessness just so that men can take power from us? Do you just not care how dystopian your logic is to most people?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (59 children)

I’m basing it on how I perceive them empirically. Everyone does;

So am I, I thought that went without saying.

You are (supposedly) basing it on your perception of their sex. You can't actually perceive their sex, but you can intuit it with some level of accuracy. I am basing it on my perception of their identity. I can't actually perceive their identity, but I can intuit it with some level of accuracy.

It is interesting that you seem to get how this works for “tall” but not for “woman”. Why is your concept of “tall woman” a person who identifies as a woman who is of above average height, rather than a person who identifies as a woman who identifies as above average height?

Because "tall" isn't an identity and "woman" is. Not everything is an identity. Most things aren't.

How do you not see you are erasing {adult human female}'s existence as a biologically defined class that is materially distinct from {adult human males}?

Because I'm not. Those two classes don't stop existing because we don't use particular mouth noises to refer to them.

What is stopping you from seeing how you’re only enabling misogynistic patriarchy by redefining womanhood into complete meaninglessness just so that men can take power from us?

I'm not redefining anything. I don't get to choose how words are defined. I'm just describing the world as I experience it.

Do you just not care how dystopian your logic is to most people?

I really don't see how it is dystopian. Maybe you can help me understand.

[–]Chronicity[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (51 children)

You are (supposedly) basing it on your perception of their sex. You can't actually perceive their sex, but you can intuit it with some level of accuracy. I am basing it on my perception of their identity. I can't actually perceive their identity, but I can intuit it with some level of accuracy.

Of course we can perceive sex. All sexually reproducing animals can do this instinctively; it is what enables efficient procreation. Otherwise we’d be making babies by bonking each other indiscriminately. Lions wouldn’t know which lions to fight to the death and which ones to woo. Sorting people by sex is not even a skill, it’s just that basic. And I feel like I’ve lost 10 IQ points just explaining this.

Because "tall" isn't an identity and "woman" is. Not everything is an identity. Most things aren't.

A bunch of fetishists unilaterally decided “woman” is a identity that can be put on like an anime costume, meanwhile you ignore the viewpoints of billions of women that know they are such because of their reproductive biology and their history of being targeted for oppression because of that biology. And you struggle to see how this isn’t misogynistic patriarchy? You’re like that Somalian pirate saying “I’m the captain now”. No, you’re not; you’re just a pirate doing bad things.

You’re right that most things aren’t a matter of identity. Because it’s a faulty way of classifying people in a material world. I don’t have diabetes because I identify that way. I don’t have brown eyes because I identity that way. I’m not American because I identify that way. Im not a woman because I identify that way. I’m a woman because I’m an adult human in the female sex class.

You don’t have the right to redefine what it means to be a woman to suit male interests.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (50 children)

Of course we can perceive sex.

What do you think sex is if you think it can be perceived? How does a person perceive it?

meanwhile you ignore the viewpoints of billions of women that know they are such because of their reproductive biology and their history of being targeted for oppression because of that biology

How am I ignoring the viewpoints of millions of women and their history? What did I say to make you think that I am ignoring those things?

You don’t have the right to redefine what it means to be a woman to suit male interests.

On this we agree. No one has the right (or, indeed, the ability) to redefine words to suit their interests.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

No one has the right (or, indeed, the ability) to redefine words to suit their interests.

LOL, except throughout this thread you've been redefining words - particularly the word woman - to suit your interests and the interests of other gender vendors. I and many posters have repeatedly told you that since the word woman was invented, the universally agreed-upon definition has been that woman is a human being who is female. To wit:

The female of the human race.

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=woman

An adult female human being

https://www.oed.com/oed2/00286737

An adult female human

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/woman

But you keep insisting that everyone from Samuel Johnson to the OED to medical science are dead wrong. You keep saying that a woman can be either sex, because to you a woman is merely a chosen "identity" that has nothing to do with having a female body. You explicitly deny that the word woman refers to sex or can be connected to a person's physical sex:

If you interpret any statement that I have made about the word "woman" to be using it to refer to sex you are misunderstanding my intent.

In fact, to you it's actually easier for a misogynistic, sexist male with a sick male sexual fetish, mean male masturbation habit who has fathered children to be a woman than it is for feminist female who rejects sexist genderism to be a woman. According to you, females who reject genderism can't be women even if we have experienced pregnancy and given birth to children - but males who've fathered children like Jan Morris, Rachel Levine, Jennifer Finney-Boylan, C Jenner and oodles more, they're all women! Because according to you, being a woman has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, it's entirely based on believing in the sexist, misogynistic ideology you believe in and accepting and embracing a second-class social status:

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

I have no interest in redefining words. As I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread, what I am doing is describing my experience of how I have grown up using the word and how I see others around me use it. I have also been clear on the fact that this is not the only usage and that "adult human female" is another valid usage of the word.

According to you, females who reject genderism can't be women even if we have experienced pregnancy and given birth to children

I don't know what "genderism" is supposed to be, but I can assure you that I do not believe that a person has to have any particular belief system to be a woman.

according to you, being a woman has nothing whatsoever to do with biology

Being a woman is absolutely to do with biology. Both because there is another meaning of the word that refers exclusively to this, and because biology is one of the key things that defines the female social role.

it's entirely based on believing in the sexist, misogynistic ideology you believe in

What sexist, misogynistic ideology is that?

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

Oh c'mon, now you're just playing games. Pretending that you haven't said the absurd, incredibly sexist, misogynistic things you've said in multiple posts throughout this thread and putting on a faux naive act. You probably opened your eyes real wide, put a hand to your chest and made a point of batting your eyelashes in an OTT, theatrical way meant to denote feigned innocence and ignorance when you typed

I don't know what "genderism" is supposed to be

What sexist, misogynistic ideology is that?

The only thing you forgot is the UwU.

[–]Chronicity[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

What do you think sex is if you think it can be perceived? How does a person perceive it?

Sex is what distinguishes variants of a species that have essential roles in sexual reproduction. Females are in the class that produce large gametes (ova) and males are members of the class that produces small gametes (sperm). Human bodies are organized differently depending on which sex class they are in, because female and male mammals play very different roles in reproduction. In addition to ova production, human females gestate and lactate. Human males produce sperm and insemminate. This makes human males and females quite different from one another morphologically, and this is apparent both internally and externally.

The question really isn’t “How do we perceive sex?” The better question is “Why wouldn’t we be able to perceive sex?” Sex is fundamental to life; none of us would be here if our ancestors couldn’t ascertain it by sight, smell, and sound. For most of our evolutionary history, early death was the rule not the exception. To offset high mortality rates, humanity evolved to reproduce as efficiently possible. We wouldn’t have been able to do that if we were bumbling around not knowing which member of the species possesses the gametes that complement our own. Primary and secondary sex characteristics (genitalia, developed breasts, facial hair, musculature, etc) are extremely reliable cues as to who has what gametes. In other words, sex.

So why wouldn’t be able to perceive sex when its foundational to reproduction? Do you doubt other animals have this ability?Here’s a study that shows this ability has a neurological basis in mice. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220121124421.htm

How am I ignoring the viewpoints of millions of women and their history? What did I say to make you think that I am ignoring those things?

By declaring “woman” an identity that is open to anyone of any sex, you erase the global population of women whose status as such rests entirely on biology. We have not been consulted on this “woman is a identity unlike height” way of thinking.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

To add to your points: another reason humans are hard-wired to be able to tell the difference between adult and adolescent males and females - and to do so instantly without any conscious thought or effort - is because of how utterly dependent humans babies and children are on adults for their survival, and how unusually long the period of human development, helplessness and dependency lasts after birth.

Fact is, humans can tell the difference between men and women starting in early infancy, pretty much from the moment of birth. Babies naturally gravitate to women because instinctively they "know" women mean food, care and comfort.

It's telling that rubberdubberd00 is now acting all shocked and perplexed at the idea that human sex is something real that human beings can perceive, and perceive easily and quickly without any conscious thought. Coz two days ago s/he asserted that

Most people have an idea of their gender identity by the age of 2, it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability.

LOL. So according to rubber, no one can perceive sex in humans, but most people have a good enough grasp of sex stereotypes and QT by the age of 2 to have "an idea of their gender identity" by then.

I've come to the conclusion that rubber is trolling. Because nobody can be this contradictory and disingenuous without it being intentional.

[–]Chronicity[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree it is a trollish thing to play dumb about. But it further underscores how contradictory trans identity is.

If sex isn’t perceptible, then why are we talking about trans people? It is as if there is a material difference between a transwoman and a woman who isn’t trans. Obviously the transwoman knows there is something about them that qualifies them as trans, or they wouldn’t be calling themselves trans. How have they perceived this thing about themselves? Could it be that they, just like every other human being on the planet, know that they are male? Of course they do.

So to turn around and act like we only guessing at this stuff is bullshit. But somehow they think the “no one really knows what sex anyone really is” helps the trans position.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Thank you for giving a real answer to my question, it's really appreciated!

We seem to be mostly on the same page when it comes to the extent to which sex can be perceived. You point out that sex characteristics are extremely reliable cues, which is true, but they are (a) not 100% accurate and (b) not always visible. If by "humans can perceive sex" you mean that a humans can intuit sex with a very high level of accuracy, then yes, that is true. When I said that people cannot perceive sex what I meant was that there is no way to reliably know the sex of a person that is 100% accurate in all scenarios.

By declaring “woman” an identity that is open to anyone of any sex, you erase the global population of women whose status as such rests entirely on biology.

In what sense are they erased?

[–]Chronicity[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Humans are not infallible, so yes sometimes it’s possible to missex someone. This tells us nothing about whether sex can be observed empirically . It most certainly can be, and over 99% of the time, we can clock someone at a glance without even thinking about it The shit is hardwired in us because of evolution. Anyone who doubts this hasn’t spent enough watching unneutered animals. If a male dog can sniff out a female in heat that is miles away, then its absurd to think human males can be easily fooled into thinking another male is actually the opposite sex just because of an identity claim.

In what sense are they erased?

Imagine if Trudeau unilaterally decided anyone in the world who identified as a Canadian was now a Canadian, and then entitled all “Canadians” to voting rights and free healthcare. But rather conveniently, the only people paying into the healthcare system and military defense are those whose status as Canadians meet specific requirements for official citizenship. This means citizens are carrying all the burden of living as an actual Canadian while the self-identifying Canadians only reap the benefits. Despite living in a democracy, the citizens have been denied the right to self-determination; they have not been given a say on how their group should be defined. Their existence as a people united by the criteria set forth in their charter/constitution has been erased; outsiders have now been allowed to colonize their identity and take power from them.

This is what is happening to women now. We are carrying all the burden that comes with being an oppressed class marginalized on the basis of sex, while men take pleasure in taking our name from us along with our legal protections.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why is woman an identity but tall isn’t? What indicates a persons gender identity, given that feelings are invisible?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You might as well ask "why is a cat an animal but a government isn't?" Those words refer to different things. Why would they be the same?

What indicates a persons gender identity, given that feelings are invisible?

Lots of things. The way they present themselves, how they self describe, etc.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So gender is half made up of clothes, hairstyles, and internet pronouns?

How on earth am I asking something so ridiculous? What makes one descriptor so different from another?

How can you imply that nobody has ever identified themselves as tall with such certainty? What makes this an absurd concept?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So gender is half made up of clothes, hairstyles, and internet pronouns?

No, gender is identity. Those are examples of things that might be indicative of a person's identity. As I said.

What makes one descriptor so different from another?

They're two different words. There isn't any reason that they should be similar.

How can you imply that nobody has ever identified themselves as tall with such certainty? What makes this an absurd concept?

When I use the word "tall" I am not describing an identity, so it is not possible for a person to identify as the thing that I mean when I say "tall". It's not absurd, just a logical impossibility.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Like talking at a brick wall. I give up with this pomo bs

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

When I talk about a "trans woman" I am using the word "trans" which is a shortened version of the adjective, "transgender". To smash the two words together like that invites exactly the kind of misunderstanding that you seem to have here, but I'll see if I can clarify.

When I talk about a "tall woman" I am not talking about an "adult human female of above average height", I am talking about a person who identifies as a woman who is above average height.

Similarly, when I talk about a "trans woman" I am talking about a person who identifies as a woman and whose gender identity is different from the one that they were assigned at birth. The word "trans" doesn't change the meaning of the word "woman" at all.

The way that you are using the word "woman" (aka adult human female) a "trans woman" would be an adult human female whose gender identity is different from the one that they were assigned at birth.

For two days now, those intentionally confusing strings of gibberish you wrote have been nagging at me. I knew I had heard something very much like them before, but I couldn't remember where. Today, it finally came to me. From Through The Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll, 1871:

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously...

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper some of them- particularly verbs: they're the proudest- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

[–]rubberdubberd00 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I find it upsetting that you think I'm being intentionally confusing. I've put a lot of thought into my comments. I think part of it is just that discussions about language are inherently subject to communicate breakdowns, but I really have been doing my best.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (63 children)

So, what does make them "woman"? What is a woman?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (62 children)

What "woman" means isn't actually relevant to this post at all. Hence my examples of how you could replace it with other words and the functionality of the word "trans" would be the same.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (47 children)

Don't dodge the question. What a woman is it's absolutely relevant if you're going to define "trans". What does the adjective "trans" means when describing a "woman"? What does make someone "trans"? What are the differences between "transwomen" and women?

Your argument relies on us accepting the claim that a "transwoman" is a type of woman. If you expect we accept this, then first you need to define what is a woman and how "transwomen" fit the definition.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (46 children)

I'm happy to explain how I personally use the word "woman", but I don't see how it's relevant to this thread. I'll put an explanation at the end of the comment but I'd rather not change the subject.

What does the adjective "trans" means when describing a "woman"?

The same thing that it means when describing a "teacher" or a "capricorn". My understanding is that a person is trans if they identify with a different gender to the one that was assigned to them at birth based on their observed sex. The fact that someone is trans tells you nothing as to what their gender is.

Edit: missed that last bit. I do not want you to believe that a tran woman is a type of woman. A trans person is a type of person. Whether they are a woman or not is a separate, independent fact.

~~~~

Anyway. The word "woman" has multiple different meanings in common use, but the one that I use most commonly and that I believe best explains the most common usages that I hear from others refers to a social class. In particular I think it's a fair interpretation to say that a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

So now sex is dependent on, or synonymous with, social class? LOL. Oh c'mon, mate. This is just more genderist gibberish. Misogynistic genderist gibberish that I find personally offensive to boot. I bet your mum and gran(s) would find it insulting too.

Since your definition makes being a woman entirely dependent on "identifying with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex," it leaves out vast swathes of the female human inhabitants of earth of adult age who do not "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex." Which is probably the majority of the world's adult human females. Not very "inclusionary" of you.

What word would you use for those of us who are adult humans of the female sex but who do not "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"? Or don't we deserve a name that describes us and only us?

Your definition is not just exclusionary, it's incredibly ableist. Because it automatically leaves out all the world's adult human females who for various reasons - very low IQ, limited language processing skills, brain injuries, dementia - are incapable of the kinds of cognition required to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex" - whatever the hell that bunch of misogynistic malarkey is supposed to mean.

At the moment, there are roughly 4 million adult human females in the USA alone with Alzheimer's disease. Most of them are mothers and grandmothers. But due to the nature of AD, they do not have the ability, or they are fast losing the ability, to engage in the kinds of cognition and mental gymnastics required to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex." In fact, the vast majority would not have a clue about what your genderist gibberish is actually supposed to mean. According to you, these adult human females can't be called women - but males like Lia Thomas and Rachel Levine must be.

FYI: sex and being female aren't specific to humans. Other animals and plants are sexed, too. Female has a meaning that extends across all sexually reproducing species. A doe is a deer of the female sex. A mare is a horse of the female sex. A hen is a chicken of the female sex. A jenny is a donkey of the female sex. A woman is a human adult of the female sex.

Also: when you speak of "social class" and "culturally associated," how are others supposed to know exactly which societies and cultures you mean? And how are we supposed to know at what points/periods in history you're referring to? Fact is, social class is very different in places like the USA, the UK, Belgium, India, Russia, China. Moreover, within longstanding societies, the numbers, kinds and nature of social classes have changed over time. Culture varies markedly from place to place too, and cultures themselves change over time.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

So now sex is dependent on, or synonymous with, social class?

Not at all. I wasn't talking about sex except to mention that there is a cultural association between womanhood (by the definition that I gave) and the female sex. They are neither dependent on nor synonymous with each other.

What word would you use for those of us who are adult humans of the female sex but who do "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"?

Those would be men or nonbinary people, depending on how they identify. It seems like you are conceptualising gender identity in a different way to me however if you think that the majority of female people feel this way. In my experience it is a tiny minority.

Your definition is not just exclusionary, it's incredibly ableist. Because it automatically leaves out all the world's adult human females who for various reasons - very low IQ, brain injuries, dementia - are incapable of the kinds of cognition required to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex" - whatever the hell that bunch of misogynistic malarkey is supposed to mean

Most people have an idea of their gender identity by the age of 2, it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability. That said, why do you think it would be a bad thing for people to be "left out" in this regard? There's nothing wrong with not being a woman.

FYI: sex and being female aren't specific to humans

Do you think I'm like 5 years old? I know what sex is.

As to your last point. Yes, culture varies by time and location. As does what it means to be a woman.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Earlier you said:

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

Now you say:

I wasn't talking about sex except to mention that there is a cultural association between womanhood (by the definition that I gave) and the female sex.

So although in the space of two sentences you mentioned sex three times and the female sex twice, your new line is that you weren't talking about sex any of those times. Like I said before: you speak/type genderist gibberish.

It seems like you are conceptualising gender identity in a different way to me however if you think that the majority of female people feel this way. In my experience it is a tiny minority.

I am saying I don't believe most of the world's adult human females have gender identities. Go to some maternity wards, senior centers, refugee camps and ask.

By the way since you invoked your experience, what is your experience exactly? How many female people have you interviewed about their self-concepts? In what continents, countries and regions do they live? What is the range of their birth dates?

When exactly did you do all this talking to adult human females of the world that enables you to speak so authoritatively about the inner lives of billions of us?

Most people have an idea of their gender identity by the age of 2, it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability.

No they don't. The fact that you claim this about 2 year-olds shows you have very little or zero experience raising or working with babies, toddlers and kids - and you know nothing about child psychology and early child development.

it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability.

How is it possible for people with zero or very little cognitive ability to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"? Just parsing that hard-to-follow phrasing and trying to make sense out of it does my head in - and I'm operating with at a pretty high level of cognitive ability. How can wee bairns and people with limited IQ, dementia and language processing difficulties possibly pull off all the mental gymnastics you say everyone not only does engage in, but which we all must engage in so as to deserve a name?

How can 2 year olds possibly have a good enough understanding of social class and the be familiar enough with the broad sweep of cultural associations even within their own culture to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex" or the male sex for that matter? Have you ever spent time with any 2 year olds?

That said, why do you think it would be a bad thing for people [of the adult human female type] to be "left out" in this regard? There's nothing wrong with not being a woman.

The word woman has a meaning: adult human female. But those with deep-seated animus and covetousness towards adult human females have decided to appropriate the word for us and to totally redefine it. In your definition, a woman is anyone of either sex who identifies with the misogynistic, regressively sexist sex stereotypes that generations of women (the adult human female kind) fought so hard against. And according to your definition, anyone who does not identify with those misogynistic, regressively sexist sex stereotypes can't possibly be a woman. On the contrary, you say that all adult human females on earth who do not identify with the misogynistic, regressively sexist sex stereotypes that you insist all women must identify with

would be men or nonbinary people

I agree that "there is nothing wrong with not being a woman." What I think is wrong here is people with very sexist, regressive ideas and authoritarian mindsets who have not a clue about what a woman is suddenly coming along and telling all the adult human females on planet earth that we longer can be called women unless we identify with the very same sexist stereotypes that men have invented over millennia to dehumanize, limit, hobble and lord it over us. The arrogant, domineering, supercilious, colonialist sleight-of-hand thievery you are engaged in strips the half the adults on earth of our name.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Are you unaware of the meaning of the word "except"?

When I talk about my experience I am talking about my normal day to day interactions with the world. I am not an academic and made no claims to having any authority on the subject. I qualified that I am talking from my experience.

How is it possible for people with zero or very little cognitive ability to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"?

Why would it not be possible? We absorb this information passively, it's not like you need to understand the full cultural context of womanhood to know that you relate to this idea that you have been around since birth.

The word woman has a meaning: adult human female.

A meaning that I have been very explicit that I am not talking about. If you interpret any statement that I have made about the word "woman" to be using it to refer to sex you are misunderstanding my intent.

Like most trans people I believe in self identification when it comes to gender and as such would never tell anyone that they can't use a particular word to describe their gender identity. That said, the word "woman" is culturally linked to these sexist and regressive ideas that you are talking about and the fact that you and I wish that this was not the case does not make it not so.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Just like you clearly don't understand parts of speech and how they function and work together in sentences and phrases, you don't seem to understand what cognitive ability means. You appear to take it as a given that everyone has the same exact mental faculties, ability to make sense of the world and thought processes as adults with normal-range IQs, fully developed brains and no impairments or neuro-atypical conditions. This is not true. Two-year olds don't think like adults do. People with dementia don't have the same mental powers as people without dementia. People with autism absorb information like everyone else, but it doesn't register in quite the same way.

Also, even those of us who have full mental capacities aren't firing on all cylinders 24/7/365. What any of us will take in from the world around us when we are are wide awake, on the ball and unstressed is very different to what we will absorb from the exact same input when we're drunk, stoned, drop-dead tired, or asleep - or when under great stress.

You said that

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

When I disagreed and claimed this is not true for the majority of female adults on earth, you said I was wrong based on your own personal experience. You said

In my experience it is a tiny minority

Who think the way I believe most adult human females regard ourselves.

My questions remain: what makes you think you are an expert on how the world's adult human females think about ourselves and see ourselves?

Why do you get to tell legions of the world's adult human females that we can't be considered women anymore?

Like most trans people I believe in self identification when it comes to gender and as such would never tell anyone that they can't use a particular word to describe their gender identity. That said, the word "woman" is culturally linked to these sexist and regressive ideas

But you've just told me that the word for any adult human female who does not "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"

would be men or nonbinary people

You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

TIL my identity is actually non binary even though I think that’s a nonsense concept, all because I don’t gel with what’s considered feminine in modern Australia.

It’s handy to have Queer theory to tell us who we are.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I'm not telling anyone who they are. I'm saying that your gender is defined by how you self identify. If you consider yourself a woman, you are a woman. If you consider yourself a man, you are a man. Otherwise, you are nonbinary. Simple as that. You absolutely don't need to "gel with what's considered feminine" in order to be a woman.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Twain said

What word would you use for those of us who are adult humans of the female sex but who do "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"?

To which you responded

Those would be men or nonbinary people, depending on how they identify. It seems like you are conceptualising gender identity in a different way to me however if you think that the majority of female people feel this way. In my experience it is a tiny minority.

So yeah, you are telling us who we are by applying your QT to the many women who feel zero connection to their socially prescribed idea of a woman whilst recognising that they are adult human females, ergo women.

QT is applied to all, despite their lack of faith in gender identities. You may as well have said we have the Holy Spirit.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So if I start telling my clients that I will white-glove clean and disinfect their home, then go splash some water around and say my personal definition of cleaning and disinfecting is making things damp, have I lied to them or not?

Do words have definitions all speakers share, or do words have no meanings other than the ones we personally assign?

If you paid me twenty grand to paint your house white, and I painted it neon green would you tell me I did a great job and pay up?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

If you genuinely believed this then it's not a lie, no.

Do words have definitions all speakers share? No, they don't. How could they?

If you paid me twenty grand to paint your house white, and I painted it neon green would you tell me I did a great job and pay up?

This would be a case where our different understanding of words has caused a problem in our communication (an extreme example, but this happens all the time!). As to how I would actually react in that scenario, I would not believe that you in good faith misunderstood what I meant by "white", and furthermore would expect that a professional house painter would, as part of their role, have an understanding of how people communicate their desire regarding the colour of their house. I would consider that a person who claims this misunderstanding is therefore either being dishonest or is not sufficiently good at their job, so it's not my responsibility to pay.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

So white and yellow have meanings that are shared. We can agree on this, at least.

Why do some words have shared meaning amongst speakers of English and some don’t?

What is the deciding factor in which words are defined personally and which are defined for the purpose of communication. Who is deciding this for all English speakers?

Can you explain why this is?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

So white and yellow have meanings that are shared

I'm not sure how you got this from what I said. I would argue that no word has a shared meaning between any two people, but there can be more or less overlap between people's understanding.

Words are neither defined "personally", nor for the purpose of communication. Definitions simply do their best to describe the prevailing trends in how a word is used.

What is the alternative that you are suggesting? Where do words get their meaning if not from the people who use them?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Lmao so nobody shares a meaning of the word dog, or yellow, or knife, we just all sort of overlap in opinions? That’s the biggest steamiest pile of shit I’ve seen this week.

Words are mere suggestions of ideas lmao, I beg you to reconsider this silliness.

Imagine what would happen in a hospital if clear definitions weren’t something humans have. Saline probably suggests some amount of salt in water never mind if it’s a cup of table salt dissolved in a bucket of mop water.

150milligrams and 150 grams are similar and often mixed up by those who rarely use such measurements. Sure everyone died on the icu cause morphine prefers precision but that’s just how words are.

“No, no, I didn’t hit your dog with my car I define that as nudging him gently.”

If this isn’t a joke you’ve made, I think the divide in your cognitive dissonance must make the Mariana’s trench look like a crack in a plate.

Think about this critically for a few minutes, what would the world look like if things other than gender identity were defined this way.

How would the legal system work? Medicine? Money? Food service, mining, production floors?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

First you say

We call certain people trans women because as well as being women, they are trans.

Trans woman != woman. Trans woman is a sub category of woman, a woman who is also trans.

Then when challenged you come back with

What "woman" means isn't actually relevant to this post at all.

Really? Do you truly think anyone is persuaded by your claim that the meanings of words aren't relevant? Especially on a thread where the OP asked:

So why are we calling certain people trans women?

As for this claim of yours:

You seem to be using the word trans as though it's a modifier on the word woman, when in fact it's an adjective describing a person who, in the particular example you are referencing is also a woman

I don't think you understand what parts of speech are, their function and how they work together in sentences/phrases.

Also, right before making that claim you yourself said:

We call certain people trans women because as well as being women, they are trans.

In that sentence you used "trans" as a modifier of women - twice.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It just seems to be a very dishonest reading of my comment.

Firstly, I said that the meaning of the word "woman" was not relevant to this post, not that the meanings of words are in general not relevant. That's a statement that I stand by.

I don't think you understand what parts of speech are, their function and how they work together in sentences/phrases.

I certainly get the impression that we're coming at this from different angles but this doesn't give me much of an idea of what those might be.

In that sentence you used "trans" as a modifier of women - twice.

My usage of the word "trans" in that sentence didn't modify the word "woman" at all. That was my point. It added additional information, but the information provided by the word "woman" was unchanged.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I stand by what I said earlier too. Namely this:

I don't think you understand what parts of speech are, their function and how they work together in sentences/phrases.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

My usage of the word "trans" in that sentence didn't modify the word "woman" at all. That was my point. It added additional information, but the information provided by the word "woman" was unchanged.

Do you know what an adjective is?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I do.

ETA:

For fun, and because I realised I remembered it, here's a poem about adjectives that was on the wall of my secondary school English classroom:

Do you need added colour?

Reflective shine or bounce?

Lively lustrous body,

For your limp and lifeless nouns?

Just open your thesaurus,

Each fun packed entry gives,

A sparkling, bright selection,

Of farm-fresh adjectives!

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This just proves my point about you not understanding what parts of speech are.

A thesaurus is not just for adjectives! A thesaurus lists synonyms for all types of words: nouns, verbs, pronouns, prepositions, articles/determiners, adverbs, adjectives, conjunctions, interjections.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Are you honestly making the argument that the fact that a poem that I quoted (a poem for children no less) can be read as implying that a thesaurus only contains adjectives is proof that I don't understand "what parts of speech are"?

I didn't write the damn poem.

This is supposed to be a debate sub. If you're not interested in an honest discussion just keep out of it.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I didn't write the damn poem.

This is supposed to be a debate sub.

You're the one who decided to type out a child's poem on a debate sub, not I. Also, I never said you wrote the dumb poem. A childish poem that I still have no idea why you thought it a good idea not just to quote from, but to share in full.

If you're not interested in an honest discussion just keep out of it.

First you tell me that I and billions of other adult human females cannot be called women and have no right to that word because we do not regard ourselves in the way you and other misogynistic dictators insist we must. When I have posed questions in response to specific statements you've made in your posts, you've repeatedly come back with replies that pointedly do not answer any of my questions. Now after already telling me I am dishonest in other posts, you sneeringly suggest that I am "not interested in an honest discussion" and tell me to STFU by ordering me to "just keep out of it." Sheesh.

The arrogance, bossiness and total lack of self-awareness in your posts are very telling.