Can someone please explain... (trans)

[WednesdayAllTheWay]

So I've been trying to follow this trans situation for a while but now having skin in the game in the form of a child (and also noting through work how more and more people are identifying as the opposite gender) I need to understand it better.
Feel slightly embarrassed asking but:

1. How exactly do the words sex and gender differ in this area?
2. What reasons do trans people give for wanting to change their physical bodies? As in what do people believe they will get from this that they couldn't get in the body they were born with?
3. What are children being taught at school about this?

Thanks!

@titchy

No, but I think it's OK for trans women to use them.

Presumably even those who have had no surgery? Naked male body,
penis, testicles, showering with naked female children. And you're ok with that? Can't see any problems?

Where on Earth do you find these kinds of facilities where people wander around exposing their genitals to each other?

Personally, I wouldn't change anywhere unless there were individual cubicles.

So am I

You produce large gametes and come from the class of human that is typically able to gestate young?

@EdgeOfACoin

And I must say, I am very disappointed not to have received an answer to my previous question yet -

what traits are shared by all women and transwomen that are not shared by any men or transmen?

For the record re: giving a transgender person a job - I actually have no problem with people like Rose of Dawn or Blaire White. They recognise that they are biologically male who are more comfortable presenting as women. However, they seem to be realistic about what transitioning means and understand the limitations of what transition can do. There are also many pleasant transmen who are active on YouTube. I'd be happy to give those people a job.

My issue is with the erosion of women's rights and boundaries. Women have the right to their own sports, prisons and changing rooms away from biological males.

Given that those people have outlier views that don't represent the vast majority of trans people, I assume you wouldn't employ most trans women?

Funny thing is that I've been called a racist for using "black" as an example adjective that is placed in front of "woman", but I bet no one will criticise you for being willing to employ an actual racist:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Blaire_White#Racial_issues

Where on Earth do you find these kinds of facilities where people wander around exposing their genitals to each other?

Your answer was in response to a question about showers and changing rooms. Many leisure centres in the UK have sex segregated showers and communal changing rooms where people, unsurprisingly, remove their clothes.

So I repeat, you are quite happy with for female children to shower in front of those with naked male bodies with no genital surgery who identify as women?

Personally, I wouldn't change anywhere unless there were individual cubicles.

Gym chains have communal changing rooms. At your average Fitness First or Virgin Active people will completely undress in the changing rooms. Individual cubicles don't exist.

Well of course you think that. I'm a trans woman - the default position on this forum is that I am therefore pretty much every kind of awful - a pervert, a racist, a mentally deluded abuser, gaslighter, rape apologist or indeed actual rapist.

and where has anyone said this about you on this thread? An unfounded accusation that says rather more about you than the women of FWR.

Have you had a chance to give Edges question any thought? It is quite relevant:

what traits are shared by all women and transwomen that are not shared by any men or transmen?

I have given up on you answering my previous question - how does your 'femaleness' manifest?

You've run away with a sample adjective in order to monster me.

Nobody has ‘monstered’ you. We have asked though for answers where you don’t use people with differences of sex development as a basis for discussing an alternative scientific theory that sex is a spectrum. This is because people who say sex is not binary present a continuum that discusses bodies. Sex is binary because there are TWO only to reproduce. There is plenty of variation in bodies but always, always based on production of either small or large gametes - whether the body successfully produces the gametes or not. There is no third gamete type. Ever. But there are lots of different bodies. Billions of them.

I and others have also asked you not to appropriate female’s medical conditions with regard to fertility as an example to say you are just like them. No. it is another offensive analogy. You are monstering females with medical conditions by making light of their issues. please do not do this on a parenting forum.

It's all essentially an ad-hominem attack. It has no effect on me, and does nothing to dismantle my argument.

An ad-hominem attack would be if you explained the world was round, and I ran in to tell everyone to ignore you for past racist-micro-aggressions.

Other people specifically addressing your point and finding flaws in it is explicitly not an ad hominem.

It may feel like a personal attack if you've come directly from a corner of the internet where people say these things and everyone applauds (because everyone who could disagree is blocked) but it isn't.

Whenever I see that phrasing, it is most often followed by like black women, or disabled women. No coincidence there. The presumption that what makes someone female is how close they are to ideals of European beauty shines out.

The benchmark for being a woman is not 'how similar do you look to Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind. Women are women.

Hi @Positrans - how does one distinguish between 'a male sexed individual' and 'a trans woman'?

(You are surely aware that predatory men will go to extraordinary lengths to attack women and children, including specifically seeking out jobs that allow them access. As a woman, you live with that threat of violence constantly.)

Currently in changing rooms et al, regardless of law, social norms allow women to identify a male in that space and to ask him, or find someone else to ask him, to leave. There's a social norm in place that makes it an unusual thing, to be obviously male within an all-female space. It doesn't entirely prevent men from entering these spaces, but it does contribute to it. This is not based simply on appearances but on other small cues - the idea that this means more butch-looking women are routinely 'challenged' in these spaces has very little truth to it. We are good at identifying sex - women have to be, as a survival strategy.

It is unlikely, for various reasons, that a trans woman who 'passes' would be asked to leave such a space by the women there, although they may register that this individual is trans. (It is more likely that an external authority - e.g. a bouncer in a pub, a manager at a leisure centre - would step in.)

However, for those who do not 'pass' or make no effort to - for people who are visually in no way distinguishable from bearded men, say - what do we do?

How do women tell the difference? Are social norms keeping men out of single-sex spaces being challenged here, and broken down? Do you understand that this is a threat, and that noting it as such is not about being anti-trans but about the lived reality of male violence? Do you understand that even if every single trans person in the world was kind and lovely, which we know is untrue because it is not true of any group, that this accommodation makes it easier for predatory men?

Saying that violence will happen anyway is simply not good enough. And it's not kind, and it's not decent.

No matter how kind someone may sound and no matter if they say all day that TWAW, most humans do not believe trans women are women. Everyone knows they are men, but most people either don't care to bring it up, are afraid of hurting the trans person's feelings or don't want to make waves. No one believes it's literally true, which is why I'm incredulous that it's considered transphobia to state biological facts.

@Positrans

I don’t think I accused you of being a racist, abuser, gaslighter or rape apologist. I do hope you are none of those things.

I do wonder whether you are sympathetic to those women who don’t share your view of what it is to be a woman?

I also wonder if physically looking like a woman is important to your view of being a woman?

@Positrans you say "Well of course you think that. I'm a trans woman - the default position on this forum is that I am therefore pretty much every kind of awful - a pervert, a racist, a mentally deluded abuser, gaslighter, rape apologist or indeed actual rapist."

I haven't seen anyone say this, or anything close to it (and I would hope you're not quoting the genuine pain and frustration from women who have been abused by AGP partners to bolster your argument here), but it does raise the question as to why you're spending time in this forum. It's a particular sort of privilege to be able to choose to be treated as you imagine you're being treated here, rather than having it thrust upon you unwillingly.

I always find any answers to the following interesting (usually not given though, but maybe Positrans is an exception), instead of asking to define what a woman is, who can be classified as a transwoman? I remember a case where an adult human female claimed that she was a transwoman. She was biologically female but felt like a man identifying herself as a woman, hence a transwoman. She was villified on social media btw.
So can I claim I am a transwoman, uterus, ovaries and all?

Given that those people have outlier views that don't represent the vast majority of trans people, I assume you wouldn't employ most trans women

I would not deny someone a job purely on the basis that they were trans, which was the original accusation on this thread. I am not sure it is relevant to this topic to go into Blaire's views on race (with which I am not especially familiar). Obviously I would not hire a racist, be they trans or otherwise. I don't think anyone on here would.

However, this is getting off-topic.

sanluca

I too remember her. Interestingly she was accused of all types of appropriation.

Positrans

Datun
@Positrans

Judging by what you have asserted on this thread, I'm assuming you believe that male sexed individuals should have the right to use the communal changing rooms and showers as my teenage daughter?

No, but I think it's OK for trans women to use them.

And that's why Liz Truss has, yesterday I believe, reasserted her intention to protect single sex spaces for women.

Sex is a protected characteristic.

And transwomen come under the definition of male sexed individual. Even with a GRC, the distinction is perfectly acceptable, both linguistically, biologically and legally.

I think you're going to have to accept, positrans, that the answer is no, I'm afraid.

Positrans believes that transwomen have the right to share communal changing rooms, showers and presumably also sleeping accommodation with female adults and girls; areas which exclude male people because they are known as a group to be dangerous to female people ( NAMLT of course). Transwomen are also all male , so what evidence do you have that the subset of the male sex class which is transwomen are less dangerous to females than any other males?

"is" less dangerous

Where on Earth do you find these kinds of facilities where people wander around exposing their genitals to each other?

Er, numerous changing rooms at every gym I've ever been a member of. Duncan Bannatyne of Bannatynes, for instance, has pledged to maintain single sex facilities, presumably on that basis.

His entire female clientele would disappear in a heartbeat if their changing rooms were advertised as mixed sex! And presumably the male clientele too.

So am I.

What is the definition of 'female' in that case?

What did you transition from?

Passmeabottlemrjones

I don’t think the definition will be to have the body organized around producing large gametes (regardless of the body’s health in this regard).

[quote Positrans]@9toenails

"‘Woman’, like all words, depends for its meaning on how it is used."

I am listed as female/a woman on all my legal documents. I am referred to as a woman by everyone who knows me, as well as everyone who doesn't (because I pass), and you yourself are referring to me as a trans woman.

So, based on usage, I am a woman.

As for what "woman" means, well, given that it is widely used for people like me, and words depend for their definitions on how they are used, then whatever definition you come up with needs to include trans women, or your definition will be incomplete.[/quote]
This is nice. Some of it looks right. But let us look a little closer.

You make three points. In reverse order:

you yourself are referring to me as a trans woman.
I refer to you, a transwoman, as a transwoman. I also refer to seahorses as seahorses. Is a seahorse a horse? No. That is just silly. But what is going wrong, given that use determines meaning? It has to be that this is not the sort of use that determines meaning. There is a sense in which the word ‘woman’ is used in the word ‘transwoman’; but likewise, in just the same sense, the word ‘man’ is used in the word ‘woman’. Clearly this kind of use does not justify the conclusion that a woman is a man, or that a transwoman is a woman.

[Is nothing a kind of thing? (Here I am hoping you are not a fan of Martin Heidegger.)]

I am referred to as a woman by everyone who knows me, as well as everyone who doesn't (because I pass)
Is this the right sort of use, now? Perhaps. But we need to be careful. Suppose everyone mistook me for the Akond of Swat, called me by that name whether I was there or not, used ‘The Akond of Swat’ to refer to me on every occasion. It would not follow that I was the Akond of Swat. So, what is going wrong? – There has to be room for error.

Meaning is a normative notion: that is, there is a getting-it-right and a getting-it-wrong about what a word means. (If you think about it, this has to be the case for communication to be possible. Think of bringing up a child and never telling her when she uses a word wrongly; if she did not somehow catch on to the right and wrong use of words, she would not be able to make herself understood.) So how do we reconcile the normativity of meaning with meaning being determined by use? Well, if meaning is normative and use determines meaning, use is normative too. That is, there is a getting-it-right and a getting-it-wrong about how a word is used. People who use ‘The Akond of Swat’ to refer to me use ‘The Akond of Swat’ wrongly.

Do people who refer to you as a woman get it wrong? Maybe, maybe not. That there has to be room for error, though, entails that such referral is not definitive in correctly ascribing ‘woman’ to you.

One may ask how the right and the wrong use is to be determined. This is of perennial interest. Think of how people confuse, say, ‘uninterested’ with ‘disinterested’, or ‘deny’ with ‘refute’. Will ‘refute’ come to mean the same as ‘deny’ means if enough people make the mistake, particularly in public? There is a moral here for our present concerns, I think. As follows. Suppose ‘refute’ ends up meaning the same as (being used similarly to) ‘deny’. Will we still need a word to use in cases where we now use ‘refute’? (I leave further spelling out of this moral as an exercise.)

I am listed as female/a woman on all my legal documents
Fine, but it does not follow that you are a woman in the every sense of the word ‘woman’, does it? Distinctions, perhaps, need to be drawn between different uses or different senses.

The point might be made that a corporation, for instance, is considered, for legal purposes, a person. That is, there is a use of ‘person’ which applies to a corporation or company. This is much clearer in other languages (and legal systems). In France or Belgium, for instance, there is a distinction drawn between a ‘personne physique’ (such as you or me) and a ‘personne morale’ (such as Heathrow Airport or Asda). Both of these kinds of entity is a personne (a person); each of them is said to have a personnalité juridique (a legal personality). It does not follow that Asda is a person in the same sense as I am.

Likewise, from the fact that you are a female/a woman on all your legal documents, it does not follow that you are a woman in the same sense as, say, my daughter is.

Use can determine different meanings, sometimes for the same word. Distinctions may need to be drawn.

For the rest, do beware of thinking in terms of definitions, as I said. Such thinking predisposes to the thought that there may be a correct definition to be discovered somehow. (I wonder what an ‘incomplete definition’ might be in the light of this caveat.)

I am afraid I will be offline now for a day or two. Please do feel free to challenge further, though, and I will read and possibly respond later. Meanwhile, accept my felicitations for braving the viper’s nest as you have.

Then you’d be as misguided in this assumption as you have been on others. Do you not think that there are professional women on this thread that do their utmost to hire the right person for the role? More misogyny showing here.

There are also plenty of women and men in the world who don’t hire young women - as in women they think are more likely to become pregnant. But they don’t come out and say that. They never will.

I also think based on the many things that have been said on this forum as a whole there are plenty of posters who wouldn’t want to be anywhere near a trans woman let alone employ one. Perhaps they are older comments I’ve been reading that are from women no longer current posters. Apologies for accusing anyone here of anything.

@Typesofcatalogue there is very little evidence (I would say 'no' but I haven't read everything) that posters here would not hire trans women. Concerns raised here relate to interpersonal relationships and protections for women. The question of hiring someone is very different from whether or not you would be happy with them accessing a single-sex space as a male-bodied individual.

This speaks to a more common issue in 'trans rights' dialogue - the idea that a personal decision indicates 'prejudice'. It is absolutely 'transphobic' to not hire someone solely on the basis of their transgender status. It is not transphobic to not sleep with someone because of it.

@Positrans I am still waiting on answers:

• are individuals who identify as another race entitled to do so and to take spaces designated for members of that race?

• how do women distinguish between men and trans women when trying to protect themselves in same-sex spaces?

• why do you choose to spend time in a space you believe is hostile to you? (If to 'educate' people, do you feel your strategy is an effective route?)