Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Emily's Cat]

Looking at this from a professional point of view, I think there is something more fundamental going on.

We improve the breeding of livestock by very rigorous selection of the males. Females may be selected to a certain extent, it depends on your precise set-up. Some set-ups have no spare females at all, they are all needed to breed the next generatioin. But males? They're ten a penny. We pick the ones that don't meet the standard to be eaten, and we breed from the remainder. (This is how it happens naturally in most herd animals - most of the males born never get a sniff of a female, and the most successful males sire most of the next generation.)

Human beings are funny this way. Our ideal is the faithful pair-bond for life, but on the other hand we don't live up to that even in times of plenty. The stark rationale for women to be protected and saved first is that if the viability of the community is under threat, they are the breeding stock. Apart from the occasional multiple birth a woman can only have about one baby a year, but one man can sire lots of the things. If things go really really badly and a bunch of men get killed (and having a bunch of aggressive young men with an invincibility complex is really quite useful in bad situations), well maybe we can let that whole monogamy thing slide for a bit. If a bunch of women get killed however, the community's reproductive capacity has taken a serious hit.

We are the evolutionary products of societies where these things were very real selection pressures. So after a few millennia of this, males are bigger and stronger and more aggressive - and very very protective of the smaller, weaker females. Females on the other hand put a lot more into reproduction than the males (you did your bit nine months ago sonny, now bugger off and let the women deal with this).

A society develops where the bigger stronger more expendable men go out and do the heavy lifting while the women stay at home and get obsessive about protecting the children. A few millennia of that and you have some very definite sex preferences for what people like to do.

We observe that males and females are equally intelligent, even if there might be some bimodal distribution of particular types of intelligence. We observe that apart from the actual male/female thing, which is binary, the rest of it is also mostly bimodal, whether size, strength or a preference for sewing over butchery.

The species is not going to get rid of the bimodality of any of this. We'll always find things like the music group having ten women to two men, and maybe the football fans are the other way round. We will always know very easily who is male and who is female, probably till the sun goes nova. Women are likely to continue to want their sex-segregated spaces for all the evolutionary reasons that made men bigger and stronger and more aggressive, and with the propensity to spread their genes further than society usually sanctions only slightly below the surface. Modesty is a real thing.

We are only proposing that the things that are only bimodal, especially the weakly bimodal ones, stop forming a set of expectations imposed on people who don't want them imposed. A woman with a great mathematical brain? A man who is fabulous at sewing? Fine. A woman who prefers to wear clothes more often worn by men, and vice versa? Fine. But where sex is important, and I'm particularly referring to where it's important to the comfort and safety of women, everyone knows which they are, and face it so does everybody else. Stay in your lane.

Pretty much this.

I get so very tired of the male mischaracterization of feminist objectives. For all intents, I am probably most appropriately deemed a second-wave feminist. And absolute equality in everything has never been an objective - it's irrational, and we know and accept that sex is real and it matters.

It's irritating to be presented with the "feminist pipedream of utopia equality" strawman over and over, as if the interlocutor isn't even bothering to read and comprehend what I'm saying.

Well... perhaps they are not. Perhaps they have simply decided a priori that females can't think and reason and make good arguments, and therefore, there's no call to treat our arguments with the same degree of consideration and respect they would show to a male.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is this possible though?

As a female actuary with a masters in applied mathematics and over 25 years of professional experience in my field, who almost never wears skirts or dresses, and stopped wearing make-up years ago, married to a male with a fine art degree who paints their fingernails and toenails and likes sparkly things... YES IT IS POSSIBLE.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think every culture has some thing that boys do and some thing that girls do.


The specific thing varies.

I think the instinctive thing is wanting to be "manly" or "womanly" (or "ladylike", or something.) How you do that varies by culture, but there are patterns that make certain things more common as "manly" or "not manly".

ETA: I just bought a new bike. I went with a women's bike. It was really weird. It felt awkward. Not the bike itself. That was fine. My old body adapted to it more readily. However, it felt strange to ride the "women's" model. I wondered if I should buy it, even though, from among the bikes available in my price range, it was unquestionably the best choice.

Aside... Bicycles have always baffled me. I think the design differences between male and female bicycles is a hold-over from when females were expected to always wear skirts.

But for the life of me, I can't figure out why a bike for males would include a bar almost guaranteed to hammer testicles in the event of a crash.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think his point is that in order to protect female-only spaces on a rigorous basis, you have to conclude that men and women are fundamentally different in important ways. And once you do that, you can no longer justify the push for equal representation in everything, since justifying that requires claiming that the differences are trivial. They are mutually exclusive in terms of their justifications.

In other word, you can’t be conservative on this one tiny issue but liberal on everything else, it’s not stable.

I rather think that shutit's perspective is not stable regardless.

There are so many different topics out there, it's entirely reasonable for people to be liberal on some, conservative on others, and pragmatically middle-of-the-road on others. I myself tend toward being fiscally conservative, and I tend more toward isolationism than globalism. But I'm socially liberal about a great many topics, and always have been. There's a sticker out there somewhere that captures it pretty well - I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana fields with guns.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It seems to me, though, that ShutIt carries things a lot farther than most people. He seems to assert that unless you keep all aspects of traditional gender roles, and enforce them, or at the very least socially ostracize those who defy them, your civilization will collapse. Once you normalize deviation, and I think tolerating deviation would be considered the same as normalizing it in his view, you're on a slippery slope that ends with.....well I'm not sure what but it isn't good. At the very least, you certainly can't retain female only spaces if you let boys marry each other.

And I don't think that's an exaggeration, but ShutIt can correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't agree with him. I think liberal principles can tolerate deviation from the norm without inevitably destroying the norm. I think the current political climate has strayed away from those liberal principles, but I don't think we're on a one way trip to societal Hell as a result. I just think some effort has to be put into restraining the excesses. I think ShutIt would say that's impossible.

I'm picking up the same thing.

I go back to some very basic liberal precepts: The government should not constrain individual liberty, except in those instances where one person's liberty infringes on the liberties of others. You're right to swing your arms around wildly ends at the tip of my nose

 

[Rolfe]

I need to read "Pride of Chanur" again.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It helps balance my other regular reading on this topic: the Mumsnet feminism board, Ovarit, links to the best efforts of both sides to win hearts & minds, and as deep a dive into the social media feeds of especially prolific trans activists as I can stomach in a day (Veronica Ivy's being the latest. It's like swimming deeper and deeper into vomit. McKinnon/Ivy first came to my attention when he danced on the grave of Magdalen Berns.)

Berns was a "gateway drug". I actually don't follow the most prolific TRAs, I tend to follow the more esteemed feminists and female leaders Jean Hatchet, Helen Staniland, Rachel Rooney, Kara Dansky, Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock, Jane Clare Jones, Emma Hilton, Julie Bindel, a handful of others.

And more recently, Baroness Nichols, because she's kind of an awesome person.

This is what always gets me, the vile tactics underpinning #NoDebate. The harassment and violent language always handwaved away, free speech doesn't come without consequences <shrug>. The only silver lining is that it has introduced me to incredible people and stories I probably never would have known about otherwise.

Watching the reporting from the Manchester WPUK meeting really shows the stark difference. The TRAs protesting are aggressive and cruel, and just seething anger. The females attending are distinguished, poised, and well-spoken. The meeting attendees are discussing the impact of laws, violence against women with an eye to the particular barriers faced by refugees and immigrants, and FGM. These are all things that directly affect females, The TRAs outside have deemed this to be "hate crimes" and labeled it "transphobia".

Females talking about things that affect females are "transphobic bigots promoting hate and wanting to genocide transpeople". The Activists actually physically and verbally attacking females, and making sexual threats? Nah, that's just fine!

It's so absurd I really don't understand how anyone with a functioning brain can ignore the disparity in treatment and behavior.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Well, you know, if any person that is deemed "bad" by the progressive SJW elites happens to disagree with an otherwise liberal person on any subject... then clearly they're wrong because they're "bad", and anyone they agree with is tarnished irrevocably and becomes "just as bad" in all things forever.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Blah, blah, blah, indeed.

Instead of discussing the actual issues related to transgender people and transgender rights, introduce various political elements.

Because, when all is said and done, that's what you care about. Nothing more.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Politics is one of the only areas where I think that a quota based on sex is reasonable. I could see arguments for other quota bases as well. Where there is a meaningful difference between cohorts that needs to be represented in law and governance, I think it's worth ensuring that those views are present in a reasonable enough volume to have an impact.

Females are over 50% of the population in developed nations, but we hold significantly less than 50% of the political positions. There are many laws that directly affect females, and many that disproportionately harm females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Conservative Position: Boys play with toy cars, they are not allowed to play with dolls.
Liberal Position: Boys can play with toy cars or dolls or both, as they wish.
Progressive TRA position: If a child plays with a doll, that child is a girl, regardless of whether they are male or female.

 

[Meadmaker]

Aside... Bicycles have always baffled me. I think the design differences between male and female bicycles is a hold-over from when females were expected to always wear skirts.

But for the life of me, I can't figure out why a bike for males would include a bar almost guaranteed to hammer testicles in the event of a crash.

Rolfe's post addressed it. Men's bikes have stronger frames than women's bikes. The women's style is a deliberate weakening of the bicycle in order to accommodate wearing a skirt while riding.

And she is also correct that the strong frame is of practically zero significance, because the women's frame style is plenty strong, and I am not the least worried that my new women's bike might fail mechanically.

I suspect that back in the days when the Wright Brothers were building bicycles, it may have been harder to build a very strong frame, and the risk of mechanical failure may have been more significant.

One way or another, I'm going to be riding a women's bike for a while. Am I transgender yet? Or at least non-binary? I feel so left out at the victims' meetings. Trying to convince people that Irish-Americans are persecuted is so tough, even if I sing "No Irish Need Apply".

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Blah, blah, blah, indeed.

Instead of discussing the actual issues related to transgender people and transgender rights, introduce various political elements.

Because, when all is said and done, that's what you care about. Nothing more.

Well yeah. The politics is all I care about. I really don't give a **** what people believe in deep in their hearts about trans people, so long as transphobia is not politically vibrant. Clearly that is not the case, hence the concern.

If you want someone to have dispassionate academic debate about the issue, it ain't me you're looking for. The current political context is something I am very much interested in when it comes to this topic.

I would note that this thread is in the "Social Issues" section, not the "Medicine" section. Perhaps you're the one in the wrong place.

 

[shuttlt]

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.

None of us can be whatever we want to be, all our choices are confined. Some Platonic "good" of free entry into everything doesn't interest me. Why is this a good? It's back to the liberal principles upon which modern society was built and holding them up as "goods". It smacks of moral aestheticism to me.

 

[905]

Did someone say "unhinged"?

Seriously.

My current favourite quote about all this: "Thinking leads to transphobia."

The more I've read about Rowling the more I've found myself admiring her. Which kind of shocks me, as I'm not normally that enamoured of billionaires out of principle. I've never been interested in her fiction (cue cackles of but it's all fiction) or even movies; I only took notice when she decided to take a stand where few if any in such a position would. Which, hilariously, is also held against her: I very much doubt any of her detractors would have the balls to do what she has done and continues to do. Sure, she's got frak you money to spare (much of it on charity). But in the end, people care more about what other people think of them than they do about all the cash in their vault.

My wife once had a conversation with my sister-in-law, a highly educated career NGO apparatchik who when the subject came up said, quote, "I hate hate hate her." When my wife asked why, sis-in-law honestly hadn't a clue - has never read a single essay or probably even tweet. She just somehow knew Rowling was a bad person because her friends didn't like her.

Time and again we see principled, intelligent, eloquent women (and some men) torn down by the mob.

Having opened on an unhinged note, I'll close with it. Note that there's a bit of role playing going on in the following.

 

[905]

Aside... Bicycles have always baffled me. I think the design differences between male and female bicycles is a hold-over from when females were expected to always wear skirts.

But for the life of me, I can't figure out why a bike for males would include a bar almost guaranteed to hammer testicles in the event of a crash.

In many many thousands of miles I've never hammered the boys, and appreciate the top tube simply as a handle, as I often have to carry it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Aside... Bicycles have always baffled me. I think the design differences between male and female bicycles is a hold-over from when females were expected to always wear skirts.

But for the life of me, I can't figure out why a bike for males would include a bar almost guaranteed to hammer testicles in the event of a crash.

The straight bar design is stronger and can be built lighter than similarly strong step-through bikes. I don't think this design is available for anything but bikes designed for light duty.

 

[Rolfe]

None of us can be whatever we want to be, all our choices are confined. Some Platonic "good" of free entry into everything doesn't interest me. Why is this a good? It's back to the liberal principles upon which modern society was built and holding them up as "goods". It smacks of moral aestheticism to me.

Ah, the privilege of one who will never be denied the means of making a livelihood due to the absence of this "Platonic good".

True story. I told my riding instructor, when I was about fifteen, that it was my ambition to become a veterinary surgeon. He said, "they won't let you in [to university] because you'll get married."

I still remember my reaction. There was a tiny moment of "is it really possible I might meet someone with whom I come to a mutual decision to get married?", before my instinctive realisation that this was not going to happen kicked back in. The overwhelming thought was "how am I going to make a living for myself, in a vocation that attracts me, if this is the situation? I have to live. I will need money. I don't want to spend my life in some tedious low-paid job because some man on a university admissions committee thinks women don't need a profession because they'll find a man to provide for them."

Well, obviously I knew better than the riding instructor. I knew they did accept women on to the course I wanted. I became bloody determined to make sure I was one of them. And in the event I showed up only the year after these men on the university admissions committee had explicitly decided "to stop ignoring the brains of half the human race" (the Dean's actual words) and simply admit on aptitude and vocation without regard to sex.

Fifty years on and the balance has skewed a long way to the other side, as it turns out that if you don't discourage women from considering it, it's more like the music society than the football match. And that might be having consequences I'm not crazy about, but that's another story.

The point is, it may be a platonic idea to be discussed in the abstract by a man, but to a woman it's the difference between a satisfying, wel-remunerated career and having to become a school teacher or something because nothing else is available.

 

[Rolfe]

In many many thousands of miles I've never hammered the boys, and appreciate the top tube simply as a handle, as I often have to carry it.

I long ago figured exactly where to grap the crossbar on my bike so as to pick it up at the angle I wanted to carry it. This is very handy if you're on an escalator.

 

[Rolfe]

I used to dislike Rowling intensely. She came to live in Edinburgh, from England, then gave millions of pounds to keep Scotland subservient to England in 2014. She had a fair hand in denying me the political dream of my life.

But she's on the right side of this one. People are complicated. Before lockdown I found myself being photographed in a group hug with Claire Heuchan, a Tory activist from Ayrshire I'd happily have burned on the stake in 2014.