Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Thread split from: as ever feel free to copy from and reference previous thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337066

Posted By: Darat

I'll go through it one more time, but after that I'm just going to reiterate that if you want to comment on my posts then the best advice I can give you is to read them first.

The article was about menstrual health. It was addressed to "people who menstruate", because what it was discussing was menstrual health. Rowling made the point that they should have used the term "women" instead.

Even ignoring the fact that trans people exist at all, her point is stupid and wrong because the term "women" includes people who do not menstruate. My female relative who had a hysterectomy in her 20s did not stop being a woman when her womb was removed, even though she stopped menstruating.

It's also stupid and wrong because the term "woman" excludes people who do menstruate. My ex-girlfriend who started menstruating when she was 9 did not become a woman when her period started, even though she was menstruating.

Rowling was making the point that the author of the article shouldn't have used a term which was accurate and precise, and instead contended that they should have used a term that was inaccurate and imprecise. This is stupid and wrong. An author should use the terms that are the most accurate and precise. In this case it was "people who menstruate" because the article was about menstrual health and "women" includes people outside the scope of the article and excludes people inside the scope of the article. Therefore Rowling's comment was stupid and wrong.

Incidentally, yes if you were wondering, this means that your point about menstruation being unique to adult human females is also stupid and wrong - although I'm open to hearing your argument that a 9 year old schoolgirl should be considered an adult, if that's an argument you really want to make.

And all of that is before considering the fact that trans people do exist, and that Rowling's history with trans issues means that I don't give her the benefit of the doubt on this one and instead assume that her statement was prompted by bigotry.

 

[Meadmaker]

The conclusion I reach is that you haven't been paying attention to the conversation, or to the links I've provided. Because you're completely wrong about this. The people who run women's shelters report that they do accept transwomen, and that they have done for a long time, without any issues.

I ended up saying exactly the opposite of what I meant. Bad editing. The first version of the sentence was phrased negatively, but when I edited that, I didn't change "accept" to "exclude".

 

[Meadmaker]

See, this is exactly it. I post evidence that that's not the case. You assert without evidence that it is.

When a group of girls go to the school board and ask that the trans-girl not be allowed to use their locker room, I think of that as evidence that the girls are uncomfortable.


These objections happen all the time. They are the point of this thread. That's evidence. Feel free to dismiss it.

 

[Rolfe]

I object to the term trans-girl. It has a lot more baggage than "transwoman" and carries overtones of the person actually being a girl when the whole point is that he is not. Effeminate youth is more like it.

 

[d4m10n]

The article was about menstrual health. It was addressed to "people who menstruate", because what it was discussing was menstrual health. Rowling made the point that they should have used the term "women" instead.

Because "women" is (or rather was) a convenient term for the sort of people who do menstruate or have done so, and are therefore in a good position to advocate for various women's health issues related to fertility. You are not even beginning to address the actual argument here (re: the political utility of sexual solidarity between human females in a patriarchal polity) despite repeatedly attempting engaging the issue. Instead, you've pointed out that the boundary between girlhood and womanhood is fuzzy (as if semantic vagueness^WP somehow makes categorical terms useless) along with a few other problems of overinclusion or underinclusion, which aren't actually that important if your goal is to bring (future) women together for the sake of issue advocacy.

ETA: Do you (or anyone) sincerely believe that Rowling is unaware of the fact that "people who menstruate" more accurately captures the set of people who menstruate than other words or phrases? If not, can you begin to consider that there may be values other than linguistic precision in play here? Perhaps Rowling (whom I've yet to see you quote) has values other than those you are saying she should maximize, based on how you believe she ought to operate as a woman in the world.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

When a group of girls go to the school board and ask that the trans-girl not be allowed to use their locker room, I think of that as evidence that the girls are uncomfortable.


These objections happen all the time. They are the point of this thread. That's evidence. Feel free to dismiss it.

Nobody is claiming that every single girl and woman on the planet will be comfortable around trans women and girls.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because "women" is (or rather was) a convenient term for the sort of people who do menstruate or have done so, and are therefore in a good position to advocate for various women's health issues related to fertility. You are not even beginning to address the actual argument here (re: the political utility of sexual solidarity between human females in a patriarchal polity) despite repeatedly attempting engaging the issue. Instead, you've pointed out that the boundary between girlhood and womanhood is fuzzy (as if semantic vagueness^WP somehow makes categorical terms useless) along with a few other problems of overinclusion or underinclusion, which aren't actually that important if your goal is to bring (future) women together for the sake of issue advocacy.

ETA: Do you (or anyone) sincerely believe that Rowling is unaware of the fact that "people who menstruate" more accurately captures the set of people who menstruate than other words or phrases? If not, can you begin to consider that there may be values other than linguistic precision in play here? Perhaps Rowling (whom I've yet to see you quote) has values other than those you are saying she should maximize, based on how you believe she ought to operate as a woman in the world.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

All you're really saying here is that Rowling highlighted this article about menstrual health written by three experts in menstrual health in order to pointedly exclude trans people from anything even relating to women's issues. It seems odd that you think I'm unaware of that. It's even odder that you think that this somehow makes what she said less stupid or less wrong.

This blog post about the importance of saying "people who menstruate" rather than "women" was cited in an open letter to Rowling, posted by a menstrual health charity, and tweeted by the authors of the article in question. Now, who do you think is likely to know best what terminology people working in the field of menstrual health should be using - JK Rowling, or people who work in the field of menstrual health?

BTW, unless you're really keen on advertising for Samsung, you should be aware that you can turn off the Tapatalk signature in settings.

 

[d4m10n]

All you're really saying here is that Rowling highlighted this article about menstrual health written by three experts in menstrual health in order to pointedly exclude trans people from anything even relating to women's issues.

The original article doesn't mention trans people at all, and neither did Rowling's sarcastic response thereto. You're just reading that in, presumably b/c you want to label Rowling as a TERF.

Until you understand why many people object to seeing the term "women" removed from phrases like "women's health" and replaced by narrower (more alienating and less unifying) phrases such as "people who require pap smears," "people who menstruate," "people who require prenatal screening" and "people who need breast exams" then you are not seriously engaging the argument here.

 

[TomB]

All you're really saying here is that Rowling highlighted this article about menstrual health written by three experts in menstrual health in order to pointedly exclude trans people from anything even relating to women's issues. It seems odd that you think I'm unaware of that. It's even odder that you think that this somehow makes what she said less stupid or less wrong.

Rowling is in a group who has historically been referred to as "Women."

This group has historically had health issues that differed from those of the group called "men." This is something that it actually took time and a lot of work to get the medical profession to really address. Most of those health issues revolved around the different anatomical and hormonal issues experienced by this group.

Those specific health issues were referred to as "Women's health" and "Women's Health Clinics" opened up to address those issues for that group.

So you have established terminology based on biology.

Now, you are suggesting using the current social definition of "woman" as the determining factor for all uses. And you want to replace it with a phrase like "people who menstruate" which is inconvenient to type or say. I mean it's an eye-rolling phrase because the same information is more concisely expressed using the term "women" in terms of sex rather than gender.

Remember, man, woman, male and female all have definitions that refer to sex as well as to gender. Therefore it is possible to be both a man and a woman, male and female depending on context.

In technical writing terms "People who menstruate" isn't even good form. I was taught to use the simplest term (and fewest words) that accurately conveyed the concept. Therefore "menstruating women" or "menstruating females" would be better. Even better would be a definition at the beginning that says "The term <woman/female/whatever> used in this paper refers to re-productively mature humans of the female sex." or something to that effect. (It's standard practice for scientific papers to have a definitions section.)

Anyway, it's not just that the term "woman" has been hijacked, but that its been replaced with an awkward phrase that is difficult to use in conversation.

Likewise, a doctor that specializes in men's health does not need to refer to themselves as a doctor for " People with penises."

 

[Butter!]

The original article doesn't mention trans people at all, and neither did Rowling's sarcastic response thereto. You're just reading that in, presumably b/c you want to label Rowling as a TERF.

Until you understand why many people object to seeing the term "women" removed from phrases like "women's health" and replaced by narrower (more alienating and less unifying) phrases such as "people who require pap smears," "people who menstruate," "people who require prenatal screening" and "people who need breast exams" then you are not seriously engaging the argument here.

To what degree is this actually happening? I'm not challenging you, I'm honestly asking. I have no idea. I haven't been to the doctor in awhile.

Is there a genuine push to rename women's health clinics "menstruators' health clinics" (or similar)? If so, I mean, there's got to be a better way to put it than that.

A lot of this is confusing to me, because I think some of the lingo has changed rather radically since I first learned about this stuff around 2010. Back then, I was taught that transwomen were women, they just weren't female. They were women by gender and male by sex. So they'd occupy most women's social spaces, but they'd go to a doctor specializing in male privates. Now, it seems like that isn't quite the correct way to view the issue anymore. In fact, it might even offend someone. There seem to be a number of different "takes," and I'm never really sure which is being discussed at any given point. There also seems to be a lot of "social engineering" surrounding this topic on sites like Reddit, so I barely believe most of anecdotes I read that support either (for lack of a better word) side.

I'd really like to understand the evolution of the concept better. Otherwise, I don't think I can follow the layers of cultural debate, and I'm liable to do or say something offensive without meaning to.

 

[Butter!]

How do you feel about post #4 in this thread?

I don't really understand what Rolfe is trying to say. I don't see any difference between the terms "transwoman" and "transgirl" other than one implies a younger person. And Meadmaker's post that used it seemed to be commenting on schoolchildren. So the term seems fine to me.


EDIT: Assuming you meant THIS thread (as in, Part 3) and not the original thread, that is.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The original article doesn't mention trans people at all, and neither did Rowling's sarcastic response thereto. You're just reading that in, presumably b/c you want to label Rowling as a TERF.

I'm reading that it due to her history with the subject. She confirmed that that is what she meant with her justification.

Until you understand why many people object to seeing the term "women" removed from phrases like "women's health" and replaced by narrower (more alienating and less unifying) phrases such as "people who require pap smears," "people who menstruate," "people who require prenatal screening" and "people who need breast exams" then you are not seriously engaging the argument here.

You're welcome to explain it to me, if you want. Rowling certainly didn't. She instead posted a long screed full of factually incorrect fearmongering about trans people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Now, you are suggesting using the current social definition of "woman" as the determining factor for all uses. And you want to replace it with a phrase like "people who menstruate" which is inconvenient to type or say.

Actually, it was people whose lives' work is menstrual health who used the term, and it was another person whose life's work is menstrual health who authored the referenced article for why the term is to be preferred.

When it comes to the question of whose opinion on the subject carries more weight, the majority of the time I'm going to side with the experts who speak about and deal with the subject every day over the laymen.

I mean it's an eye-rolling phrase because the same information is more concisely expressed using the term "women" in terms of sex rather than gender.

Except it's not, for all the reasons that I've already gone in to at length, and for which I've provided a link of a professional in the field speaking about at length.

 

[Butter!]

Is there a reason why the sports issue couldn't be solved by simply creating ability "classes" (like weight classes in wrestling) and setting up competitions on that basis instead of sex or gender? That way, the competition would still be fair and no one would be left out or intrinsically misgendered via their placement. I'm not much of a sports person myself, so I may be failing to consider some details. But surely this has been proposed. What are the objections, concerns, etc.?



EDIT: Okay yeah, sorry, like I said, I'm behind on the thread. It seems like the conversation has moved away from sports for the time being, so feel free to ignore this post.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't really understand what Rolfe is trying to say. I don't see any difference between the terms "transwoman" and "transgirl" other than one implies a younger person. And Meadmaker's post that used it seemed to be commenting on schoolchildren. So the term seems fine to me.


EDIT: Assuming you meant THIS thread (as in, Part 3) and not the original thread, that is.

I was surprised at the comment myself. I put "transwoman" and "transgirl" pretty much on the same level of offensiveness. I don't really like either term, but that's what the language has settled on at least in these circles, so I use the terms.

I'm guessing that the "extra baggage" of "transgirl" has to do with the tendency to encourage minors to transition. This is a controversial aspect of modern life. Rolfe has commented on it at length, and I have agreed with most of those comments.

 

[Rolfe]

Mmm, I don't think it's just that. The word "girl" has connotations of its own which are being appropriated by these boys. It's used as a plea for sympathy. They're effeminate youths and calling them girls in any form of words obscures this. At least to my mind.

 

[d4m10n]

You're welcome to explain it to me, if you want.

Here you go:
https://twitter.com/RhamnousiaNemis/status/1270663660214468608

You see, the reason patriarchy exists is because men decided they wanted control over women’s sexual and reproductive capacities. Not people’s sexual and reproductive capacities — women’s. Sexual subordination is a gendered phenomenon, no matter how you identify, and for an organization that exists to advocate on behalf of women — due to their female biology (you know, the thing that placed them, whether or not they chose it or like it, within an oppressed class of people) — to erase that is unconscionable.

That's the crucial bit of the article, IMO. Human females of reproductive age have good reason to band together to work for sexual equality, and they deserve a banner under which to do so. Arguing that women must be denuded of such a banner strikes me as, well, a bit regressive.

She instead posted a long screed full of factually incorrect fearmongering about trans people.

Which I'm sure you'd be happy to accurately excerpt and factually debunk whenever you've got the time.

She confirmed that that is what she meant with her justification.

The justification in question mentioned the "menstruators" problem exactly once, at which point Rowling characterized trans activists as attempting to be loving and kind. I suppose you can call that TERFing if you like, but it's hard to take seriously.

 

[cullennz]

Great rant in the opening post. But it doesn't change the fact trans women are dudes.

 

[Butter!]

Mmm, I don't think it's just that. The word "girl" has connotations of its own which are being appropriated by these boys. It's used as a plea for sympathy. They're effeminate youths and calling them girls in any form of words obscures this. At least to my mind.

I would be shocked if it's that deep to the kids who are using it. They surely just see themselves as too young to necessarily use "women" to describe themselves.

 

[Butter!]

I was surprised at the comment myself. I put "transwoman" and "transgirl" pretty much on the same level of offensiveness. I don't really like either term, but that's what the language has settled on at least in these circles, so I use the terms.

I'm guessing that the "extra baggage" of "transgirl" has to do with the tendency to encourage minors to transition. This is a controversial aspect of modern life. Rolfe has commented on it at length, and I have agreed with most of those comments.

There are a number of different debates happening all at once around this issue. I'm honestly interested in looking into some parts of it more deeply because someone I know fairly well has recently come out as trans. I hope it's okay to say that it surprised me. I had not picked up on her dissatisfaction in any way. It makes me feel like a bit of a jerk.