Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Ziggurat]

I think we've probably taken this as far as we can and will have to agree to disagree. But I still disagree.

Men and women are fundamentally different in important ways. I cannot however see that it is necessary to enforce regressive sexist stereotypes in order to be able to justify single-sex provision in situations where these fundamental differences really matter.

I'm not talking about enforcing regressive sexist stereotypes or single-sex provisions, and I'm at a loss as to why you thought I was. I thought I was pretty clear that I'm talking about things like sex quotas. For example, a woman who wants to get a Ph.D. in math should be free to do so without discrimination, but if the number of Ph.D. students in math is skewed towards men (which I think it will be even in the absence of any sex discrimination because of intrinsic sex differences), I don't see that as a problem in need of a fix. Maybe you still disagree with me on that, but that's a very different disagreement than what you're suggesting.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm not talking about enforcing regressive sexist stereotypes or single-sex provisions, and I'm at a loss as to why you thought I was. I thought I was pretty clear that I'm talking about things like sex quotas. For example, a woman who wants to get a Ph.D. in math should be free to do so without discrimination, but if the number of Ph.D. students in math is skewed towards men (which I think it will be even in the absence of any sex discrimination because of intrinsic sex differences), I don't see that as a problem in need of a fix. Maybe you still disagree with me on that, but that's a very different disagreement than what you're suggesting.

Quite. To be honest I think society would naturally put some social pressure on people to go into particular roles if all the explicit pushing stopped. Just the fact of some fields being overwhelmingly male dominated and hence governed by male social rules, and some being overwhelmingly female dominated and hence government by female social rules would be enough to do that. The destructive thing is the constant push, push, push towards an impossible utopian goal, driven by ridiculous utopian thinking.

Setting your society down a path where it is actively hostile to reality in that way has to have consequences. You can't go merrily gathering up the things that you like from denying reality, and then cry about it when the bill comes due. Well, you can.... but we have been working hard to make society see women as strong rather than vulnerable and in need of protection, so crying isn't effective in the way it once was.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Rowling's TERFy views are earning her friends in all the right places:

Russian President Vladimir Putin chose to mark the 30th day of his war against Ukraine siding with Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, who he said was a victim of the type of “cancel culture” the West is waging against Russia. In a somewhat unhinged address, Putin complained that the West was trying to erase Russian culture from the map, citing composers Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Dmitry Shostakovich and Sergei Rachmaninov, who he said had been “canceled” just like Rowling. “They canceled Joanne Rowling recently—the children’s author, her books are published all over the world—just because she didn’t satisfy the demands of gender rights,” he said in a televised address. “They are now trying to cancel our country. I’m talking about the progressive discrimination of everything to do with Russia.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/on-day-30-of-russian-president-vladimir-putins-failing-war-in-ukraine-he-embraces-harry-potters-jk-rowling

TERFs and authoritarian right wingers, a love story for the ages.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not talking about enforcing regressive sexist stereotypes or single-sex provisions, and I'm at a loss as to why you thought I was. I thought I was pretty clear that I'm talking about things like sex quotas. For example, a woman who wants to get a Ph.D. in math should be free to do so without discrimination, but if the number of Ph.D. students in math is skewed towards men (which I think it will be even in the absence of any sex discrimination because of intrinsic sex differences), I don't see that as a problem in need of a fix. Maybe you still disagree with me on that, but that's a very different disagreement than what you're suggesting.

I've never been in favour of sex quotas for anything at all, I don't know why you thought I was. I can maybe see a case in terms of representation, where it might be seen as important to have female representation on bodies making decisions that affect everyone, male or female, but I'm not necessarily persuaded that it's necessary to go that far.

I've been heard to advocate for some sort of sex quotas in my own profession because what was a predominantly male profession has skewed very far to female over the past fifty years and that has affected the structure of the profession. (Men are far more likely to take on partnerships and to become involved in the governance of the profession, and we're short of them.) But maybe that's not a good argument, maybe we should just let faceless corporations take over, because that's what tends to happen when a large majority of the profession are women. Maybe putting quotas on intaks so that there must be say at least 40% of each sex could be considered. But that's a difference point, really.

All-women short-lists can go hang, for me. But when there are all-women short-lists, by golly you better make sure you don't let men on them. Does that make sense? What I mean is, I don't think they're necessary or desirable, but if someone has decided we should have them, what the hell is the point in then turning round and saying, but men can be on these lists too if they want.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've never been in favour of sex quotas for anything at all, I don't know why you thought I was.

I didn't think you were for them, I merely didn't know your position. The purpose of describing them was to explain what I was talking about before, not as an opposition to your position but an opposition to what I think was a prior misunderstanding of mine.

All-women short-lists can go hang, for me. But when there are all-women short-lists, by golly you better make sure you don't let men on them. Does that make sense?

Sure.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rowling's TERFy views are earning her friends in all the right places:

A bad person tries to justify their bad behavior by appealing to a legitimate complaint which is actually unrelated to their bad behavior.

Why exactly is that supposed to undermine the legitimacy of that complaint?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A bad person tries to justify their bad behavior by appealing to a legitimate complaint which is actually unrelated to their bad behavior.

Why exactly is that supposed to undermine the legitimacy of that complaint?

I just think its funny. Real "why do these gay guys keep sucking my dick" moment. Not exactly the first or last time that right wing freaks have made a hero out of Rowling for her transphobia, but certainly the highest profile to date!

https://www.theonion.com/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock-1819583529

 

[shuttlt]

The point of all women short lists is social engineering. The point of all women short lists with men on is social engineering.

The past 60 years of social change haven't been driven by views like yours Rolfe. They have been driven by people who write all women short lists and think that mechanical engineering is institutionally sexist if fewer women than men want to study it. Those people are now adding men to the short lists for the same reason they did everything else.

 

[Rolfe]

I didn't think you were for them, I merely didn't know your position. The purpose of describing them was to explain what I was talking about before, not as an opposition to your position but an opposition to what I think was a prior misunderstanding of mine.

There may be particular reasons to have sex quotas in certain parts of public life, but the reasons should not be about "fairness" to female appointees, but because there is a valid sociological reason for needing a certain sex balance in order for the organisation to function optimally.

I don't see this as being even remotely comparable to having strict sex segregation in public santiary and sleeping facilities.

 

[Rolfe]

The point of all women short lists is social engineering. The point of all women short lists with men on is social engineering.

The past 60 years of social change haven't been driven by views like yours Rolfe. They have been driven by people who write all women short lists and think that mechanical engineering is institutionally sexist if fewer women than men want to study it. Those people are now adding men to the short lists for the same reason they did everything else.

And I am opposed in principle to both operations. Just don't deny a woman with all the right qualifications a place in the mechanical engineering course because she's a woman, that's all.

 

[Ziggurat]

There may be particular reasons to have sex quotas in certain parts of public life, but the reasons should not be about "fairness" to female appointees, but because there is a valid sociological reason for needing a certain sex balance in order for the organisation to function optimally.

I have never seen a well formulated argument for such a sociological reason. Are you talking hypothetically, or is there something specific you have in mind?

I don't see this as being even remotely comparable to having strict sex segregation in public santiary and sleeping facilities.

It's not. That's kind of my point. Quotas are based on the idea that differences are trivial, and so anything different than proportional representation must be due to discrimination which must be overcome. Strict segregation in sanitary and sleeping facilities is based on the idea that the differences are not trivial.

 

[Rolfe]

I have never seen a well formulated argument for such a sociological reason. Are you talking hypothetically, or is there something specific you have in mind?

Probably hypothetically, because I'm not persuaded that such quotas would in practice be needed. But hypothetically, a body taking decisions that will affect the lives of women arguably needs some women on the decision-making body.

ETA: That is because the differences are not trivial. A council composed entirely of men may well take some decisions that impact severely on women simply because it doesn't occur to them that women use their services differently, or require different services.

It's not. That's kind of my point. Quotas are based on the idea that differences are trivial, and so anything different than proportional representation must be due to discrimination which must be overcome. Strict segregation in sanitary and sleeping facilities is based on the idea that the differences are not trivial.

Indeed. I don't think the differences are trivial. I can conceive theoretically of circumstances where one might want to engineer a natural sex bias out of a situation, but don't close down our music group because we happen to have ten women for every two men. We're not discriminating against men, it simply seems to be that more women are interested in taking part in our group.

ETA again. In a different music group, we were organising a concert in conjunction with an American choir. This was in Essex. The American choir wanted to be reassured that our choir was "inclusive". We knew what they meant, but in fact few black people and no Asian people were particularly interested in the music we performed. It ended up with our conductor phoning up a tenor who had sung with us previously, who was black, and practically begging him to come back on board for this concert to prove we weren't discriminating!

 

[Meadmaker]

Liberal principles, maybe. Liberal principles that preach the utopia of radical equality, absolutely not.

I listen to Dennis Praeger sometimes on the radio. One of his consistent themes is to distinguish between liberals, and the left.

I'm a liberal.

What you are calling "progressive liberalism", and what others might call "progressivism" is what Praeger refers to as "leftism" or, for the people who preach it, "the left".

I had started making that distinction a few years before I ever heard of Dennis Praeger, so I was glad to hear someone else, with a bigger microphone, make the distinction.

Relating this to the transgender debate, I think the liberal position is to not judge transgender people and to allow them, where possible, to live as they wish. The conservative position is to tell them they must conform to society's standards. The progressive position is that society needs to conform to their standards. That last bit gets kind of difficult, as three years of discussion has demonstrated.

 

[Meadmaker]

Rowling's TERFy views are earning her friends in all the right places:



https://www.thedailybeast.com/on-day-30-of-russian-president-vladimir-putins-failing-war-in-ukraine-he-embraces-harry-potters-jk-rowling

TERFs and authoritarian right wingers, a love story for the ages.

Your quote called it an "unhinged" address, and I must agree. I think trying to make a point about major societal issues by talking about J.K. Rowling is, indeed, unhinged.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Your quote called it an "unhinged" address, and I must agree. I think trying to make a point about major societal issues by talking about J.K. Rowling is, indeed, unhinged.

Putin certainly knows his audience. I imagine there's significant intersection of the venn diagram of Western supporters of Putin and transphobes, just like there's significant intersection with anti-vax cranks.

Of course none of these issues have much to do with one another, but for Putin's target audience, they're all interlinked.

 

[Rolfe]

Did someone say "unhinged"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure, but that isn't how societies operate. Some things are normal, some things are transgressive of the normal. One of the reasons for wanting to deconstruct gender and sexuality so that rather than having big buckets for normal, normal gets broken up and fragmented is because in order to destigmatise the transgressive, you need to de-normalise the normal. It's one of the reasons why immigration is pushed so that there isn't a "normal" race in the country. I'm trying to think of examples of places where abnormal gender expression was normalised.... there is Weimar Berlin, I suppose....

...

This is where you are going wrong. Negative and positive rights are philosophical concepts. Make what ever cloud castles you like out of them. Sex is a real thing in the world. Just because you can conceive of a world in which nobody attached any particular significance to a man wearing a tutu, and it seems pleasant in your head, doesn't mean that such a world can actually be built with real people.

This stuff has been being thought about for more than 100 years by intellectuals on the left. The reason they have been trying to break apart hetrosexuality, or the concept of woman and all manner of other things is because they think you are wrong. While "normal" exists there will always be sociatal pressures encouraging you to be normal and discouraging you from being abnormal. To normalise the abnormal, the old categories either have to be fragmented, or made meaningless (like a category of women that includes men with penises).

Normal <> Allowable

Right, so females have some kind of natural instinct to cluster together.... but why is that so important? I don't disagree with you from an evolutionary psychology perspective. But that doesn't explain why women is such an important category. Maybe weak 5' tall men should be included in there as well so they aren't bullied?

Which side of your mouth are you planning to argue out of? On the one hand, you're arguing that attempting to overcome socially imposed prohibition of behavior on the basis of sex is irrational and a losing argument... and on the other hand you're arguing that acknowledging evolutionary instincts is also irrational and a losing argument. I don't see how you can possibly hold both views without some sort of massive cognitive dissonance.

You seem to be extending all of my views to a black-and-white end point of absurdity, rather than engaging in my actual views.

I'll be honest - right now, what I am inferring is that you hold a rather traditionalist view. You aren't supportive of transgender policies, not because you have any concerns about the erosion of female rights, but because they transgress the hard line gender roles of what is acceptable male behavior and comportment and what is acceptable female behavior and comportment.

You appear to be arguing that males should NOT be allowed socially to dress in female clothing, or to use female spaces... while also arguing that females do NOT merit any accommodations or protections due to our reproductive role and vulnerability.

Please feel free to assuage my concerns by restating your position.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course none of these issues have much to do with one another

So then why are you bringing it up?

but for Putin's target audience, they're all interlinked.

Oh, I see.

You want to imply your opponents are Putin's audience.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure, but I don't think they would necessarily see it as being relegated.

Lol, of course you wouldn't. As a male, you aren't the one facing those strictures.

So then. In this thread, we have a male opining that females should just accept the role that males think females should have, and shouldn't seek to be independent beings with their own agency and volition. How very, very patriarchal of you.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So then why are you bringing it up?



Oh, I see.

You want to imply your opponents are Putin's audience.

Not at all. Especially on the Cursed Isles, there's plenty of transphobes of all sorts. There's no reason to believe Rowling is some Putin fan, but it is interesting how often her name ends up in the mouths of right wing culture warriors. Even the TERFs who aren't openly playing footsie with the extreme right are useful unwitting allies to their cause.

It's just interesting transphobia is something Putin is trying to tap into to bolster his pro-war propaganda during this time of difficulty for him. he figures throwing some red meat to the Tucker Carlson crowd can't hurt, and in this case that means whinging about trans people, cancel culture, and other tedious right wing grievances. Putin hates the things they hate, he's the good guy, evil NATO libs trying to trans your children, blah blah blah.

An interesting intersection of current events.