Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[gnome]

Yeah the whole gaydar is real bit was weird, but luckily irrelevant to the argument and the thread.

Perhaps not entirely. It may account for some of the pre-existing difference of opinion of people coming into arguments like this.

Humans have a tendency to look for patterns. It doesn't make them right, but when a spurious argument used against the boogeyman du jour seems to be repeated, it isn't surprising that somebody might think it's being brought out for the same purpose. Some of the threads of the argument start to feel all too familiar. "I know XXXX when I see it!"

This is why I think the "groomer" narrative around the transgender topic was specifically crafted to resurrect the fear of homosexuals "recruiting" kids, only with a different target because attacking homosexuals doesn't work anymore. The back and forth of the argument starts to sound very much the same.

 

[Upchurch]

It does, doesn’t it?

 

[Brainster]

This is why I think the "groomer" narrative around the transgender topic was specifically crafted to resurrect the fear of homosexuals "recruiting" kids, only with a different target because attacking homosexuals doesn't work anymore. The back and forth of the argument starts to sound very much the same.

And how often do you hear the "groomer" charge around here? Almost never; I do recall a few years ago someone talking about "who benefits" from children who are medically prevented from going through puberty, but that was by far the exception.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Nice topic. I agree with the title of the topic. Transwomen are not women.

Nature calls for two different genders male and female with the ultimate purpose the continuation of the species. However, there are some hermaphrodite species but let us focus on humans.

Really? Not only do you contradict this statement in the very next sentence, but also I am not aware of a sentient authority called 'nature', whose edicts we can quote. Do you have a cite for this?

The continuation of humanity can be achieved only by a male fertilizing a female. Two males or two females cannot produce new life. Therefore anything beyond the combination of male/female is a mistake of nature, an abnormality. If a baby boy is born, but growing up feels different i.e. feels like a girl then whatever he decides to do in his life he will always remain a boy physically. The same applies to girls feeling like boys.

I should note first that there are several good reasons for homosexuality, and that evolution is driven by so-called 'abnormalities'. However, it's the censorious tone that bothers me the most. To create some arbitrary definition of 'normal'- and it is arbitrary- and then disparage everything else as 'a mistake' is applying your personal, and probably religious, morality, to something that doesn't operate like that.

The gender fluidity concept is mainly a sociological matter aiming at the smooth merge of these people into the rest of society. Unfortunately, the human species is savage.

I disagree. Some humans are, some of the time, but, as a whole, I don't think we are. Intolerance- which is, I venture, what you really mean here- is imposed on societies, usually by religions. Children are basically colour-blind, and accept people wearing different clothes without demur. To claim that we are, as a species, inherently intolerant, is not something I agree with, and is a claim that I feel you should evidence.

Anything beyond normal is not accepted most of the time. By normal I mean the general acceptance.

There is, IMHO, no such thing as a universally-accepted 'normal'. It changes between cultures, over time, and is essentially almost completely subjective. How would you define it, in a universal way that transcends national, religious and cultural boundaries?

I do sympathize with trans/gay people but I object to the current status according to which abnormal tends to be accepted as normal. I find it appalling.

Well, clearly, you don't sympathise with them.

I feel sorry for these people. It is horrible to feel a stranger in your own body. It is not fair to them. On the other hand, even if someone goes under surgery, takes pills, and changes their appearance, still they cannot beat nature.

I didn't know much about what being trans actually meant before reading this thread. It appears you, too, could benefit from further reading, at least of the last few weeks' posts.

However, since we all live once, I strongly believe that as long as someone decides to do what makes them happy and at peace with themselves without interfering or annoying or causing any sort of trouble to the rest of the people or animals then they are free to do it and live their lives as they wish.

A statement I applaud, but one which contradicts your earlier one about gender fluidity being 'a mistake', 'abnormal' and 'appaling'. Perhaps you could clarify this?

 

[varwoche]

Wow. Now, that's an interesting claim that should be expanded on, and I would love to see support for it.
However, whether intellectual perception or ..."DNA perception", there is an error rate. The size of that error rate has not been formally measured, that I know of, except in one very narrow case.

Part of that wiring is having sensitive nerve endings on our sex organs. I realize that falls far short of proving my claim. I'm not a biologist so I'm going to study up a bit and hopefully provide citations in the not-too-distant future.

It's easier to grasp with animal behaviors.

 

[Upchurch]

The claim is 99% obvious, not 100% obvious. Your examples don't offer any rebuttal.

There's a world of difference between intellectual perception versus perception that's wired into our DNA.

How confident are you in this? Would you be willing to put it to the test?

 

[Brainster]

A Seattle student was downgraded for acknowledging biological reality on a test.

Question 4 was a true or false question with the statement, “All men have penises.” The student labeled the statement “true” since it is, in fact, true. But the teacher penalized the answer, marking it incorrect. The teacher claims women can have a penis.

Similarly, Question 7 was a true or false question with the statement, “Only women can get pregnant.” Again, the student marked the statement “true” because only women can get pregnant. Again, the teacher penalized the student, insisting the answer is false. The teacher believes men can get pregnant.

 

[Upchurch]

A Seattle student was downgraded for acknowledging biological reality on a test.

Also from the link:

A 10th grade Ethnic Studies World History teacher at Chief Sealth International High School in Seattle gave students a quiz titled, “Understanding Gender vs. Sex.” The quiz provided a series of statements to label true or false, or questions with multiple choices.

Again, while there is a very loud opinion in this thread that gender and sex are synonymous, it hasn't been considered so by sociologists since at least the 80s.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No dude, the other thing, the 'everyone always really knows who's gay and who isn't' one, and I'm not mad at you, I just deeply, deeply disagree with you and the adrenalin was fear, not anger.

And if your answer to 'it's a smaller circle' is just 'it's not a statistically significantly smaller circle' I'm fine with leaving it there.

Yeah the whole gaydar is real bit was weird, but luckily irrelevant to the argument and the thread.

I think it's probably something in the middle. For total strangers, I think "gaydar" is largely mythology. With some relatively blatant exceptions, where someone is egregious about it - which absolutely happens sometimes. But for the most part, total strangers or even for people you barely interact with like distant coworkers, yeah, it's probably not a thing.

On the other hand... I think when you actually are friends with, or interact with someone frequently, a lot of times it becomes apparent. I've lost count of the number of coworkers and friends over the years who seemed to genuinely think they were closeted, and then finally came out after a couple of year... but it surprised nobody at all.

Sex is a massive behavioral driver - we're a sexually reproductive species, and it's fundamental to our nature. Even if you're not a leering lech about it, most people still *notice* people that they find attractive. Even if you never say a single word about it out loud, you notice... and people who know you will notice what you do - or don't - notice.

By the time I was about 8, I knew my aunt was gay, even if I didn't really have a lot of info about what that meant. My aunt is 12 years older than me. I observed that they never hung out with males, never really paid attention to males. I noted that they had female friends that they looked at a lot more often than seemed "normal", my aunt's eyes lingered briefly on their female friends in a way that doesn't really happen often with straight friends. My aunt's body language changed when in the presence of some females... but it never changed that way when around males. Their cheeks pinked up, they would get really happy to see those friends, they were more engaged when talking to them, they stood a little bit closer to them, etc. In short, they did all of the subtle things that signal attraction in humans. My aunt didn't come out until they were nearly 40... but it wasn't a surprise to anyone except my grandparents. And the only reason it surprised them was because my aunt never invited their "friends" over when my grandparents were there. And their "roommates" were often absent on errands when my grandparents visited them, or my aunt was a lot more stand-offish toward them.

So yeah. Random person on the street? No, "gaydar" isn't a thing unless there are some really blatant cues, which are pretty much only there for people already completely out. For people we interact with frequently? I'd say better than 50%, but definitely not perfect by any means.

 

[theprestige]

Also from the link:

Again, while there is a very loud opinion in this thread that gender and sex are synonymous, it hasn't been considered so by sociologists since at least the 80s.

Not just teaching the controversy, but penalizing students for not sharing her opinion of the controversy.

 

[theprestige]

I think it's probably something in the middle. For total strangers, I think "gaydar" is largely mythology. With some relatively blatant exceptions, where someone is egregious about it - which absolutely happens sometimes. But for the most part, total strangers or even for people you barely interact with like distant coworkers, yeah, it's probably not a thing.

On the other hand... I think when you actually are friends with, or interact with someone frequently, a lot of times it becomes apparent. I've lost count of the number of coworkers and friends over the years who seemed to genuinely think they were closeted, and then finally came out after a couple of year... but it surprised nobody at all.

I'd argue that's not gaydar, that's just intimacy. I'd argue that gaydar is a claim to "have a nose for these things" generally, not a claim that you can get to know an individual so well that you pick up on their sexuality.

Whereas picking up on biological sex in general really does seem to be a common ability that most people have to one degree or another.

 

[Upchurch]

Not just teaching the controversy, but penalizing students for not sharing her opinion of the controversy.

What, you mean like what Intelligent Design advocates want? That kind of teaching the controversy?

At the end of the day, it's a classroom, not a public forum. The test is based off of the material taught. The test is not a discussion board.

 

[Elaedith]

Also from the link:

Again, while there is a very loud opinion in this thread that gender and sex are synonymous, it hasn't been considered so by sociologists since at least the 80s.

Whose opinion? Hardly anybody in this thread thinks 'sex and gender are synonymous'. That certainly isn't the gender-critical position. The gender critical position is that being a man or woman should not be defined by conformity to gender stereotypes.

 

[theprestige]

What, you mean like what Intelligent Design advocates want? That kind of teaching the controversy?

The similarity is not lost on me.

At the end of the day, it's a classroom, not a public forum. The test is based off of the material taught. The test is not a discussion board.

My view is that current controversies should not be taught in primary school classrooms at all. This is a venue for settled questions where the answers have broad and longstanding consensus viewpoints.

Current controversies and philosophical disputes if taught at all in these venues should be taught with a view to giving students a reasonably accurate understanding of the current state of play, without dictating the "correct" conclusion they should reach about a matter that is decidedly not yet settled.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think I'm a lot like a lot of other girls. I'm certainly more like other girls than I am like anything else. From where I'm sitting it sounds like you're the one telling me I'm not like other girls just because of a few ways that I don't seem to see things the same way most people see things.

And I meant my comment in the spirit of noting your once or twice a year tendency to do a drive by posting reminding everyone that "not all females object to having penises in their bathrooms" and to remind us that you're fine with it... and to thereby imply that any objections by females who *are* bothered can just be ignored.

That my not be your intent, but that's how it comes across. It's something you've done several times over the years. And it reads as if you're saying that because you - one single female - are just fine with all of it, then the views of the other females who post in this thread regularly just don't count. Like I said - perhaps not your intent, but that's how it reads.

In a discussion that's broadly about outliers, it seems needlessly aggressive to tell someone that it's useless and stupid to the point of disingenuousness to share their point of view on the subject because it's an atypical one.

It borders on disingenuous when you share an atypical view and simultaneously imply that your outlier view is the common and normal view, and that other views are wrong.

Oh and I wasn't trying to say I don't think the workplace pressure to dress up is a thing, I was trying to imply it never went away; that there was never a widespread golden age of not having to put on makeup etc to be conidered professionally dressed in most corporate settings etc especially in management, while I've been around.

The degree and the type of clothing had changed. 60 years ago, females were expected to be in skirts or dresses, high heels, stockings, full makeup, extremely coiffed long hair, with painted nails to even be considered for low-level management. 40 years ago, we were expected to be in a skirt or pant suit or business dress, stockings if it's a skirt, low heels, manicured nails, moderate makeup, and coiffed hair or well-groomed short hair, and that would get you considered for middle to upper management. 20 years ago, pant suits or similar were very common and dresses or skirts weren't expressly expected; makeup was expected to be there but be fairly minimal and natural looking; shorter hair styles were the standard, and flats for footwear were totally normal - and this was the style for executive females.

Now we're back to long hair, heavier makeup, showing off legs and cleavage, etc. If you're already in a higher-level position, it's not necessary to advance... but for a junior female to move up the ranks, that's where the social pressure currently is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's the "cis/transdar is real" bit in this thread. Same conceit, same cognitive bias, just as real.

As opposed to the "hurr hurr nobody can ever tell who is male or female at all, it's a total mystery!" conceit?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Never mind winning. Just by securing a place on the team, a non trans female has been denied that place.

That would just be a female No transwoman is female in any way at all. They are, by definition, male. Being male is a prerequisite for being a transwoman in the first place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The two things are practically opposite: sexual attraction is 99% invisible (you can't know who I'm sexually attracted to unless I make it obvious), while sex is 99% obvious (I can't disguise what sex I am unless I am very unusual).

I'd say orientation is more like 75% invisible, and sex is about 95% obvious.

Orientation is moderately observable if you are interacting with someone regularly, and you can see how they react to other people. None of us are as good at hiding attraction as we think. When I see an attractive male out in the world, my eyes linger - briefly, because I'm not a lech and I don't want to be rude, but still more than with a male I don't find attractive. When my spouse sees an attractive female, even though it's very fast, they do a "scan" up and down. This is normal, and it's observable even when it's subtle.

If you spend time with a friend in social situations, there's a very high likelihood that you will subconsciously notice what sorts of people they find attractive, because you will note who they look at marginally longer and who they don't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Throughout the 1990s I was working here in the UK for the Bell Labs part of AT&T as a Technical Manager, alternating between line managing about thirty software engineers and project managing about a hundred. As a project manager I attended umpteen meetings in the US and various European countries in which we planned the production and integration of many releases of software for the multiple elements and management systems of large telecomms networks, coordinating the work of about a thousand engineers. At no point whilst working as part of this management team did I wear makeup, a dress or skirt, or anything other than comfortable shoes. At no point did any of my colleagues or superiors so much as raise an eyebrow at my sartorial choices.

Maybe engineers just don't care as much about such things as other professionals. Or maybe sexism actually has got worse again, after so briefly getting better.

Exactly - it never went away completely (and likely never will), but the social pressure and expectations had reduced. Over the past decade, some of those pressures are coming back.

 

[Upchurch]

Whose opinion? Hardly anybody in this thread thinks 'sex and gender are synonymous'. That certainly isn't the gender-critical position. The gender critical position is that being a man or woman should not be defined by conformity to gender stereotypes.

Oh, that's fantastic! What do most people in this thread the relationship between sex and gender is?