Consquences of self-identification

[MrsKCastle]

Sorry if this has already been done. I've been doing a lot of thinking about current trans thinking in the media.

As far as I understand it, this is the predominant view:
Anyone can be man or woman, male, female or neither. It doesn't depend on your genes, appearance or potential ability to hear young. What's important is how you identify. We should always treat people as they identify, with regard to how we speak about and treat them, and what spaces/roles we allow them to access.

What I'm interested in, is how this self-identification will or could change society. I'd love to hear your thoughts as I think it will help me to get things straight in my head.

So far I'm thinking:
No more single-sex schools
No more single-sex hospital wards
No more single-sex clubs, whether that's Brownies or exclusive golf clubs
Anyone can apply for any scholarship or award, regardless of sex

What else?

Since you like dictionary definitions so much, would you care to answer my earlier post on this subject?

CoteDAzur Thu 29-Sep-16 12:31:01
ATransMum - re "So now the Oxford English Dictionary isn't a reliable source"

Of course, it is. I'm glad that you brought up the subject of dictionary definitions.

Woman = Adult human female

Female = Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

As someone who believes in the veracity of dictionary definitions, would you say that transwomen fit the definition of the word 'female'? And if not, can transwomen possibly be women, since the definition of 'woman' is 'adult human female'?

I do think there should be a term and/or line in the sand to differentiate.

On that we agree. Here's my delineation:
I suggest 'woman' (for people who are adult human females - of the sex that produce ova and gestational young) and 'non-woman'

How you subdivide 'non-woman' into the categories of man, true-trans, whatever, is up to you.

female
ADJECTIVE
1Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
1.1Relating to or characteristic of women or female animals.
1.2(of a plant or flower) having a pistil but no stamens.
1.3(of parts of machinery, fittings, etc.) manufactured hollow so that a corresponding male part can be inserted.

It's the 1.1 definition. Although given 'female' is defined by woman and 'women' is defined by female it gets a bit circular very quickly. But 'characteristic of' is the key phrase.

Quoting half a definition isn't really fair is it...

What are the characteristics of 'woman', to you?

That is why many women don't accept that transwomen are women. Because they behave very much like men.

That and their knobs too. Just sayin.

Well, if you can't state your position clearly enough that it looks as though you're likening smear tests to white lines on roads (I accept your later clarification) then you clearly are not arguing well. That's a comment on the words you are typing, not on you. Or are we not allowed to say when someone's argument is badly stated, full of flaws, or self contradictory any more, because to do so would be "ad hominem"? To quote The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means."

"This is behaviour, as women, that we associate with men. That is why many women don't accept that transwomen are women. Because they behave very much like men."

Not just that. It is also that they are actually physically not women.

According to dictionary definitions, that is.

I'm waiting for ATransMum to explain why one set of dictionary definitions are to be revered but others, the ones inconvenient to their worldview, are to be ignored. Even when posted multiple times for their attention.

Yep, that too Hairy!

How is it an ad hominem argument to challenge some of the stuff you write? E.g. "Just get rid of gender - it's a bit of an outdated concept. It's only really relevant for doctors or when people are getting intimate".

I do often wonder if there are equal sections of the male population falling over themselves to refine themselves so as to be accommodating to transmen, to divert their financial resources into services that centre transmen, who are no platforming men who argue against the trans narrative.

I'm sure there are fem. I'm sure they spend all their time agonising over the language they use and thinking of ways they can be more inclusive of transmen and respectful of their feelings and needs.

I've just has the realisation that I'm arguing with someone male who has disclosed he has kept his male genitalia and intends to keep it, who has given himself the name 'mum' in his username, who has likened women's rights to white road lines, who acknowledges he doesn't respect consent of women and who is trying to haggle over how WE define OURSELVES so that it includes him.

Why do we invest time like this? I really need to develop the skill of ignoring entirely people who literally are beyond or incapable of reason.

I frequently find myself engaging with such bullshit and it's such a waste of energy.

@venusinscorpio

No, I'm mixing in listening, responding to dialogue alongside fighting a few people that seem to want to get very personal in their attacks.

I've agreed with a lot of points on here, read a lot of articles and expanded my knowledge. But equally been attacked in several different directions (and been criticised for not answering everyone's questions when quite frankly I'm supposed to be on holiday!). I've had some agreements, a few points where we are clearly going to be at loggerheads (I've avoid using the term cis. Oops.). And hopefully a modicum of humour (although some of that may have caused offence as well).

I'm trying to present a perspective from a trans person's point of view without yelling 'RAH TERFS' and just repeating 'trans women are women' lots of times. Hopefully with some personal insights and anecdotes that present me as being a human being (it might smack of narcissism, but when you talk about yourself you have to do that).

I'm not going to discuss the sex vs. gender issue any more. I've had the words 'adult human female' written down more times than I care to read right now. I know where I believe it sits, I know where the current DSM stands on this viewpoint as well as medical science, Government legislation, various sporting bodies, the NHS and every single LGBT organisation in this country. Clearly some people think sex and gender are the same thing and it doesn't honestly matter if it was carved in stone they would still believe it.

I should probably state that I'm an atheist and a scientist. If someone proves tomorrow that being transgender is a massive lie and it's just some weird genetic/hormonal/chemical issue that can be cured I'll be the first person lining up to trial that cure (once I've read the research of course).

But right now I have to look at the evidence I can see and I can only draw one logical conclusion and that's where I sit. Until new evidence presents itself (and that is actual evidence, not Reddit).

"You continue to use MTT and FTT and have an issue with me using cis once? The terms you are looking for are trans woman and trans man."

From my experience (and given that trans terminology seems to have quite a high mutation rate!), MTT means male transitioning to something else. Not necessarily a transwoman, since some people consider themselves to be non-binary, and neither a man nor a woman. Hence using MTT encompasses more under the bloody enormous trans umbrella than just transmen and transwomen (without or with a space).

atm

I did politely ask you to stop using MTT. But apparently a made-up acronym has basis in fact but a word defined in the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't. Hopefully you can understand my confusion and/or frustration.

I think you missed the point here but i do agree that MTT shouldnt be used if you have said its upsetting

And i would say that saying you "have gone through things alongside your female peers' (paraphrasing) is more than disingenuous

Oh and up thread something irritated me , someone said about transwomen being on average taller and heavier than a woman. You then turned it round saying that transwomen tended to be lighter than men. As has been stated before not man doesn't equal woman . I know that the average man could do me some serious damage if they chose, because they are taller, heavier and stronger than me. The average woman isnt

But kudos for sticking with the thread and answering questions. I don't agree with everything you are saying ...but kudos anyway

@HairyLittlePoet

Wow. Low blow. slow hand clap

And you wonder why trans people don't engage?

ATransMum - That was disingenuous and a bit desperate

There is no secondary (1.1, 1.2, etc) definition of 'female' that can possibly exclude the primary definition (1) of the word which is 'of the sex that can bear offspring or make eggs'.

Again, do you think that transwomen can possibly be female if they are of the sex that can make sperm? And if you agree that is not the case, can transwomen possibly be women?

If one day you can get those definitions to say that female means 'of the gender that usually wears skirts, puts on makeup, and totters on heels' etc, then yes, you would definitely fit the dictionary definition of a woman. (And I wouldn't, most days).

Until then...

We know that sex and gender are different. It's the trans activists and trans narrative that are trying to consume sex within the umbrella of gender.

I haven't noticed an increase in intolerance, if anything it's been the opposite. I've noticed a significant growth in trans cases in my charity. More people are coming forward and finding the confidence to come out as trans.

That doesn't mean the opposite of intolerance though? It just means more and more people are confusing sex and gender? Gender is an entirely personal thing. A lot of 'natal' women do not believe in gender at all. Does this mean...these natal women are not women as they have no gender? It all just gets very confusing to me. I mean, I discovered through all of this conversation that I am actually 'genderqueer' or 'agender' as I do not see myself as a woman, I see myself as a person who is a woman. I have a mix of masculine and feminine traits, usually leaning more towards masculine. So..if we go with gender identity instead of biological sex, then a transwoman is a woman, while I am not? Despite being biologically female? I just can't make any sense of it all..I would actually appreciate someone explaining this to me.

The biggest problem I can see with it all is this. Sex and gender are different things entirely. But so much of the 'trans' argument depends on mixing up these two as if they are in some way linked, when they are not. Even if they were, sex and gender remain different things. Sex is physical, while gender is mental. It could be argued that gender is actually just personality also, rather than anything else.

"You continue to use MTT and FTT"

What seems to be the problem with MTT = Male-to-Transwoman and FTT = Female-To-Transman?

Are they not an accurate description of the transition process? You were (well, are, biologically) Male. Now you are a Transwoman.

MTF = Male-To-Female is not really correct, is it, since it is not possible for a Male to become "of the sex that can bear young and make eggs".

"I frequently find myself engaging with such bullshit and it's such a waste of energy."
I agree with you totally Hairy, just that it sometimes takes a while before what you hoped would be a useful discussion turns out to be something else. I have to admit though, I've never really had a useful discussion with someone once they have admitted they are a true believer in the whole gender thing! Although unlike the religious believers who turn up on your door step, you can at least shut the door on them. The whole loo/changing room debacle is even trying to take that away from us.

Also it's not necessarily intolerance. It's more a growing feeling that once women thought transwomen were harmless, gay and had had surgery. People are starting to realise that is no longer the case and that transactivism is often highly misogynistic and seeks to erase women and take away our voice. Plenty of women who would have unequivocally considered themselves trans allies in the past are not feeling this so much now they're starting to process the issues.

Clearly some people think sex and gender are the same thing and it doesn't honestly matter if it was carved in stone they would still believe it.

The people who think sex and gender are the same thing appear to be transpeople though? 'Transgender' makes no sense once you work out that gender and sex are different. The entire argument falls away, as I see it? Transsexual, yes. Transgender no. Gender is binary. Sex is not. As such you can be transsexual because you can only be one or the other (intersex not included). But you cannot be transgender...as there is no marker for it and infinite genders exist?

I know you are on holiday, but if you get time I would appreciate your views on the following article which explains my thoughts on 'gender' in a way I just couldn't. I am not articulate enough.

aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison

Also puts it across without being harsh, which I do feel my posts may sometimes come off as, though I really don't mean them to.

MTT is used by TERFs to mean Male-To-Trans

Not 'Male to Transwoman'.

It's meant to other us.

So wait, a female plug (which is a commonly used term) has to produce eggs?

Now I'm lost.