genderarguments.com archive

cloven hooves The Personal Is Political Gender Critical Resource genderarguments.com archive

Resource genderarguments.com archive

Print Thread

Pages (2): 1 2 Next

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:35 PM

genderarguments.com was a useful website that debunked basic weak pro-gender arguments. It looks like the website is now marked as a "private WordPress site", which I am unsure if the website owner chose to do that themselves, or if WP—which I have heard supports TRAs—forcibly privatized it for "breaking terms of service" or something.

It is still available as an archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20240327084309/https://genderarguments.com/ Here are the contents of the website from this archive:

Quote:If you decide to talk about gender online, you’re going to run into a lot of bad arguments.
(so here are some responses)

Biological Sex and the Sciences
“Intersex people prove that sex is a spectrum, not a binary.”

“Scans show that transgender people’s brains match the sex they identify with.”

“Biological sex isn’t important in daily life – most of us don’t even know what chromosomes we have.”

Gender and Society
“You’re just obsessed with people’s genitals!”

“Defining ‘man’ and ‘woman’ with reference to particular kinds of bodies is biological essentialism.”

“If you say you believe in the gender binary, then you’re agreeing with conservatives.”

“Policing transgender women just makes it easier to police other vulnerable women, like lesbians and women of color.”

“Sex-based definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ reduce people to their genitals or reproductive organs.”

“The concerns people have about trans women now are the same concerns previous generations had about gays and lesbians.”

“Dismissing transgender identities is racist because some indigenous cultures have third-gender roles.”

“No one would ever transition just to get a scholarship, win a race, or otherwise gain some unfair advantage over women.”

“Human rights aren’t up for debate!”

Language and Law
“The exclusion of trans women from women’s spaces is just like racial segregation during the Jim Crow era.”

“Gender-neutral pronouns are no big deal – people have been using the singular they for centuries.”

“You can’t assume that every trans person is dangerous based on the actions of a few.”

“Sex segregation doesn’t help – if a predator wants to assault someone, a sign on the door won’t stop them.”

I'll post the answer pages, if they are available, as separate posts.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 1:57 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:35 PM #1

Quote:If you decide to talk about gender online, you’re going to run into a lot of bad arguments.
(so here are some responses)

Biological Sex and the Sciences
“Intersex people prove that sex is a spectrum, not a binary.”

“Scans show that transgender people’s brains match the sex they identify with.”

“Biological sex isn’t important in daily life – most of us don’t even know what chromosomes we have.”

Gender and Society
“You’re just obsessed with people’s genitals!”

“Defining ‘man’ and ‘woman’ with reference to particular kinds of bodies is biological essentialism.”

“If you say you believe in the gender binary, then you’re agreeing with conservatives.”

“Policing transgender women just makes it easier to police other vulnerable women, like lesbians and women of color.”

“Sex-based definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ reduce people to their genitals or reproductive organs.”

“The concerns people have about trans women now are the same concerns previous generations had about gays and lesbians.”

“Dismissing transgender identities is racist because some indigenous cultures have third-gender roles.”

“No one would ever transition just to get a scholarship, win a race, or otherwise gain some unfair advantage over women.”

“Human rights aren’t up for debate!”

Language and Law
“The exclusion of trans women from women’s spaces is just like racial segregation during the Jim Crow era.”

“Gender-neutral pronouns are no big deal – people have been using the singular they for centuries.”

“You can’t assume that every trans person is dangerous based on the actions of a few.”

“Sex segregation doesn’t help – if a predator wants to assault someone, a sign on the door won’t stop them.”

I'll post the answer pages, if they are available, as separate posts.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:37 PM

Quote:“Scans show that transgender people’s brains match the sex they identify with.”

Many transgender activists attempt to validate the transgender identity by relying on the outdated and unscientific notion of “brain sex.” This often includes arguments about trans-identified males having “female brains” and vice versa. But as Lise Eliot’s work has shown, the very idea of distinct male and female brains is unsupported by the data, and it’s unclear how meaningful a neurological model of transgender identity can be without them. Of course, our understanding of the brain is limited in general, and new discoveries are always possible. But even if a direct neurological correlate to transgender identity was discovered, it would merely explain a person’s self-conception, as opposed to justifying or validating it. Identifying why someone holds a particular belief can often be very helpful, but the truth or falsehood of that belief is always another question.

Consider, as analogy, a disorder like anorexia. Brain scans can indeed find unique markers that indicate someone is suffering from anorexia – although, as with gender identity, it’s unclear whether these markers are the cause of the person’s perceptions or merely a result of them. But either way, ask yourself: Even if anorexia did have a neurological base, does that mean the anorexic person’s feelings about themselves must be true? Of course not! A person’s neurobiology might explain why they perceive themselves as overweight, even when they aren’t, but it doesn’t give us any reason to validate those perceptions. The same is true of transgender identity and its possible neurological correlates; just because a particular feature in the brain may cause a male person to consider themselves female doesn’t, by itself, give any support to the claim that they are female.

The notion of identifiable “brain sex” also has worrisome implications for transgender activists themselves. If womanhood or manhood really is a result of a particular neurological structure, then it should be possible, at least in theory, to determine someone’s “true gender” with a brain scan. Would transgender activists accept that sort of objective test? How would they handle someone who claimed to be transgender, but nonetheless had a “male brain” to go with his male body? The assertion of an objective biological basis for transgender identity necessarily conflicts with an emphasis on self-identification, and transgender activists should stop using obviously inconsistent arguments to make a point.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:14 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:37 PM #2

Quote:“Scans show that transgender people’s brains match the sex they identify with.”

Many transgender activists attempt to validate the transgender identity by relying on the outdated and unscientific notion of “brain sex.” This often includes arguments about trans-identified males having “female brains” and vice versa. But as Lise Eliot’s work has shown, the very idea of distinct male and female brains is unsupported by the data, and it’s unclear how meaningful a neurological model of transgender identity can be without them. Of course, our understanding of the brain is limited in general, and new discoveries are always possible. But even if a direct neurological correlate to transgender identity was discovered, it would merely explain a person’s self-conception, as opposed to justifying or validating it. Identifying why someone holds a particular belief can often be very helpful, but the truth or falsehood of that belief is always another question.

Consider, as analogy, a disorder like anorexia. Brain scans can indeed find unique markers that indicate someone is suffering from anorexia – although, as with gender identity, it’s unclear whether these markers are the cause of the person’s perceptions or merely a result of them. But either way, ask yourself: Even if anorexia did have a neurological base, does that mean the anorexic person’s feelings about themselves must be true? Of course not! A person’s neurobiology might explain why they perceive themselves as overweight, even when they aren’t, but it doesn’t give us any reason to validate those perceptions. The same is true of transgender identity and its possible neurological correlates; just because a particular feature in the brain may cause a male person to consider themselves female doesn’t, by itself, give any support to the claim that they are female.

The notion of identifiable “brain sex” also has worrisome implications for transgender activists themselves. If womanhood or manhood really is a result of a particular neurological structure, then it should be possible, at least in theory, to determine someone’s “true gender” with a brain scan. Would transgender activists accept that sort of objective test? How would they handle someone who claimed to be transgender, but nonetheless had a “male brain” to go with his male body? The assertion of an objective biological basis for transgender identity necessarily conflicts with an emphasis on self-identification, and transgender activists should stop using obviously inconsistent arguments to make a point.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:41 PM

Quote:“Intersex people prove that sex is a spectrum, not a binary.”

There are good scientific and philosophical reasons to reject this idea. To quote at length from Colin Wright and Emma Hinton in the Wall Street Journal:

In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. … There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.”

Regardless, debates over the precise nature of biological sex are ultimately irrelevant to the issue of transgender identity. The vast majority of transgender individuals are not intersex, and it’s unclear why the existence of intersex people would validate unambiguously male people claiming to be female or vice versa, any more than the existence of biracial people would justify an obviously white person claiming to be Black. After all, there are countless social and biological categories that undoubtedly exist along a spectrum: Young or old, tall or short, rich or poor, conservative or liberal, and so on. But no one in their right mind would argue that the existence of the middle-aged or the middle-class implies that the elderly can identify as teenagers or that billionaires can identify as impoverished!

This basic idea – that two groups can’t be considered distinct just because some gray area exists between them – is sometimes referred to as the continuum fallacy, and philosophers have recognized it to be an example of bad reasoning since the time of the ancient Greeks. So while discussions of human development may be valuable for their own sake, the implication that they have any bearing on the validity of transgender identity generally is just illogical.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:16 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:41 PM #3

Quote:“Intersex people prove that sex is a spectrum, not a binary.”

There are good scientific and philosophical reasons to reject this idea. To quote at length from Colin Wright and Emma Hinton in the Wall Street Journal:

In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. … There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.”

Regardless, debates over the precise nature of biological sex are ultimately irrelevant to the issue of transgender identity. The vast majority of transgender individuals are not intersex, and it’s unclear why the existence of intersex people would validate unambiguously male people claiming to be female or vice versa, any more than the existence of biracial people would justify an obviously white person claiming to be Black. After all, there are countless social and biological categories that undoubtedly exist along a spectrum: Young or old, tall or short, rich or poor, conservative or liberal, and so on. But no one in their right mind would argue that the existence of the middle-aged or the middle-class implies that the elderly can identify as teenagers or that billionaires can identify as impoverished!

This basic idea – that two groups can’t be considered distinct just because some gray area exists between them – is sometimes referred to as the continuum fallacy, and philosophers have recognized it to be an example of bad reasoning since the time of the ancient Greeks. So while discussions of human development may be valuable for their own sake, the implication that they have any bearing on the validity of transgender identity generally is just illogical.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:42 PM

Quote:“Biological sex isn’t important in daily life – most of us don’t even know what chromosomes we have.”

This objection, like many others transgender activists rely on, is superficially true – most of us haven’t had our chromosomes directly identified with a karyotype. But just because we don’t have a direct experience of our chromosomes themselves doesn’t mean biological sex is some great mystery! The vast majority of human beings – easily over 99.9% – can correct ascertain what chromosomes they do have by observing the unambiguous primary and secondary sex characteristics that result from those chromosomes. And these resulting characteristics are absolutely important in daily life; sex is one of the first things human beings recognize in others, and our ability to correctly determine sex from even the most subtle biological differences is quite impressive.

In this sense, our sex is a bit like our skin color. Do most people take the time to have their melanin levels scientifically measured? No. Does that mean our skin color is irrelevant, or that we can never truly know what it is? Of course not! Sex is the same way – while its biological basis might not be immediately obvious, its physical manifestation is extremely clear. Pretending that sex is irrelevant or inconsequential purely because we can’t examine our own chromosomes at will is just bizarre.

It’s also worth noting that transgender activists themselves acknowledge the social importance of biological sex whenever they complain about transphobia; after all, if biological sex was truly unimportant (or impossible to determine), male people would be able to identify as women and vice versa with no serious problems. The fact that trans-identified males are consistently treated as men and trans-identified females are consistently treated as women – despite their personal identification or the way they present themselves – demonstrates by itself that sex is both immediately obvious and socially relevant in the vast majority of cases.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:18 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:42 PM #4

Quote:“Biological sex isn’t important in daily life – most of us don’t even know what chromosomes we have.”

This objection, like many others transgender activists rely on, is superficially true – most of us haven’t had our chromosomes directly identified with a karyotype. But just because we don’t have a direct experience of our chromosomes themselves doesn’t mean biological sex is some great mystery! The vast majority of human beings – easily over 99.9% – can correct ascertain what chromosomes they do have by observing the unambiguous primary and secondary sex characteristics that result from those chromosomes. And these resulting characteristics are absolutely important in daily life; sex is one of the first things human beings recognize in others, and our ability to correctly determine sex from even the most subtle biological differences is quite impressive.

In this sense, our sex is a bit like our skin color. Do most people take the time to have their melanin levels scientifically measured? No. Does that mean our skin color is irrelevant, or that we can never truly know what it is? Of course not! Sex is the same way – while its biological basis might not be immediately obvious, its physical manifestation is extremely clear. Pretending that sex is irrelevant or inconsequential purely because we can’t examine our own chromosomes at will is just bizarre.

It’s also worth noting that transgender activists themselves acknowledge the social importance of biological sex whenever they complain about transphobia; after all, if biological sex was truly unimportant (or impossible to determine), male people would be able to identify as women and vice versa with no serious problems. The fact that trans-identified males are consistently treated as men and trans-identified females are consistently treated as women – despite their personal identification or the way they present themselves – demonstrates by itself that sex is both immediately obvious and socially relevant in the vast majority of cases.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:43 PM

Quote:“You’re just obsessed with people’s genitals!”

This hardly qualifies as an actual objection, but it’s still worth clarifying a few points for those who find it convincing. First off, there are essentially no critics of transgender theory who are actually concerned about genitals in particular. Rather, they’re concerned with biological sex in general – and, as genitals are the most immediately obvious and socially recognized primary sex characteristic, critics of transgender ideology will sometimes reference them as a way of referring to the whole cluster of biological features that make up male and female bodies. Anti-racist activists do much the same thing when they use skin color as a catch-all for the various physical features associated with non-white people. This is sometimes referred to as a synecdoche, and it’s a common feature of human speech.

But more importantly, dismissing women as being “obsessed with genitals” is a surreal act of gaslighting. Men have been “obsessed with genitals” for thousands of years, going so far as to construct a global system of power in which half the human population is consigned to subjugation, abuse, and exploitation precisely because of their female bodies. Turning around and casting those who have suffered under that regime as inappropriate, obsessive, or otherwise creepy for noticing and naming the structure of their oppression is not only absurd, but strikingly cruel. It mirrors the rhetoric of white racists who complain that Black people “make everything about race,” or homophobes who accuse gays and lesbians of “shoving their sexuality in our faces.” In reality, the oppressors are the ones obsessed with skin color, genital shape, and sexual behavior; those who suffer the results shouldn’t be expected to keep quiet about it for fear of offending their abusers.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:19 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:43 PM #5

Quote:“You’re just obsessed with people’s genitals!”

This hardly qualifies as an actual objection, but it’s still worth clarifying a few points for those who find it convincing. First off, there are essentially no critics of transgender theory who are actually concerned about genitals in particular. Rather, they’re concerned with biological sex in general – and, as genitals are the most immediately obvious and socially recognized primary sex characteristic, critics of transgender ideology will sometimes reference them as a way of referring to the whole cluster of biological features that make up male and female bodies. Anti-racist activists do much the same thing when they use skin color as a catch-all for the various physical features associated with non-white people. This is sometimes referred to as a synecdoche, and it’s a common feature of human speech.

But more importantly, dismissing women as being “obsessed with genitals” is a surreal act of gaslighting. Men have been “obsessed with genitals” for thousands of years, going so far as to construct a global system of power in which half the human population is consigned to subjugation, abuse, and exploitation precisely because of their female bodies. Turning around and casting those who have suffered under that regime as inappropriate, obsessive, or otherwise creepy for noticing and naming the structure of their oppression is not only absurd, but strikingly cruel. It mirrors the rhetoric of white racists who complain that Black people “make everything about race,” or homophobes who accuse gays and lesbians of “shoving their sexuality in our faces.” In reality, the oppressors are the ones obsessed with skin color, genital shape, and sexual behavior; those who suffer the results shouldn’t be expected to keep quiet about it for fear of offending their abusers.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:45 PM

Quote:“Defining ‘man’ and ‘woman’ with reference to particular kinds of bodies is biological essentialism.”

This is nothing more than an obvious misunderstanding of the term ‘biological essentialism.’ Biological essentialism doesn’t simply mean defining a group by a particular biological standard. If that were the case, statements like People with Down’s Syndrome are those who possess a third copy of chromosome 21, Diabetic people are those whose pancreases don’t produce insulin, and blonde people are those whose with hair displaying low levels of eumelanin would also be examples of biological essentialism – a bizarre conclusion! In reality, biological essentialism refers to the idea that an individual’s fundamental nature is determined by their biology. Statements like Women are naturally less intelligent or People of African descent are naturally more prone to violence are examples of biological essentialism. These are intellectually indefensible, morally reprehensible claims that are obviously distinct from statements like Women have uteruses or People of African descent have dark skin.

Of course, some transgender activists do consider womanhood to be a sort of fundamental nature that determines a person’s personality, and many go so far as to embrace actually biological essentialist theories about “male brains in female bodies” and vice versa. Therefore, it’s no surprise to see some transgender activists misunderstand statements that link womanhood with a particular kind of body; after all, if you think being a woman means being naturally predisposed to femininity, then statements like All people with uteruses are women do indeed sound like biological essentialism! But this is just an unfortunate result of the gender essentialism that defines so much transgender activism; once you strip away the sexist stereotypes that frame gender in terms of personal behavior, what once looked like enforcing biological essentialism simply becomes acknowledging biological reality.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:22 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:45 PM #6

Quote:“Defining ‘man’ and ‘woman’ with reference to particular kinds of bodies is biological essentialism.”

This is nothing more than an obvious misunderstanding of the term ‘biological essentialism.’ Biological essentialism doesn’t simply mean defining a group by a particular biological standard. If that were the case, statements like People with Down’s Syndrome are those who possess a third copy of chromosome 21, Diabetic people are those whose pancreases don’t produce insulin, and blonde people are those whose with hair displaying low levels of eumelanin would also be examples of biological essentialism – a bizarre conclusion! In reality, biological essentialism refers to the idea that an individual’s fundamental nature is determined by their biology. Statements like Women are naturally less intelligent or People of African descent are naturally more prone to violence are examples of biological essentialism. These are intellectually indefensible, morally reprehensible claims that are obviously distinct from statements like Women have uteruses or People of African descent have dark skin.

Of course, some transgender activists do consider womanhood to be a sort of fundamental nature that determines a person’s personality, and many go so far as to embrace actually biological essentialist theories about “male brains in female bodies” and vice versa. Therefore, it’s no surprise to see some transgender activists misunderstand statements that link womanhood with a particular kind of body; after all, if you think being a woman means being naturally predisposed to femininity, then statements like All people with uteruses are women do indeed sound like biological essentialism! But this is just an unfortunate result of the gender essentialism that defines so much transgender activism; once you strip away the sexist stereotypes that frame gender in terms of personal behavior, what once looked like enforcing biological essentialism simply becomes acknowledging biological reality.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:49 PM

Quote:“If you say you believe in the gender binary, then you’re agreeing with conservatives.”

The fact that two groups with wildly different political ideologies can sometimes align on a single broad issue isn’t a particularly groundbreaking insight, and using guilt-by-association tactics to smear feminists as right-wingers is a dishonest and obnoxious tactic. Any serious activist will find themselves in agreement with “the other side” at some point; communists and libertarians tend to agree on the importance of gun ownership, liberal feminists and men’s rights activists tend to agree on the value of legalizing prostitution, neo-Nazis and anti-fascists tend to oppose Israeli settlements, and so on. But this isn’t evidence of some deep ideological similarity between any of these two groups.

But even more importantly, those who talk about “believing in the gender binary” simply misunderstand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive claims. The nature of a particular gender system is an objective reality, structured by a particular society’s social relations. It’s not something you “believe in” or “don’t believe in” – rather, it’s something you acknowledge or don’t acknowledge. When a radical feminist or other gender-critical person asserts that gender is based on sex, they aren’t expressing how they wish gender was, or how they think gender ought to be. They’re simply describing the way they believe gender does work, whether we like it or not. In that context, criticizing gender-critical people for “believing in the gender binary” is like criticizing anti-racists for “believing in white supremacy.” It’s a simple confusion between recognizing the way a social structure works and endorsing the way a social structure works.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:24 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:49 PM #7

Quote:“If you say you believe in the gender binary, then you’re agreeing with conservatives.”

The fact that two groups with wildly different political ideologies can sometimes align on a single broad issue isn’t a particularly groundbreaking insight, and using guilt-by-association tactics to smear feminists as right-wingers is a dishonest and obnoxious tactic. Any serious activist will find themselves in agreement with “the other side” at some point; communists and libertarians tend to agree on the importance of gun ownership, liberal feminists and men’s rights activists tend to agree on the value of legalizing prostitution, neo-Nazis and anti-fascists tend to oppose Israeli settlements, and so on. But this isn’t evidence of some deep ideological similarity between any of these two groups.

But even more importantly, those who talk about “believing in the gender binary” simply misunderstand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive claims. The nature of a particular gender system is an objective reality, structured by a particular society’s social relations. It’s not something you “believe in” or “don’t believe in” – rather, it’s something you acknowledge or don’t acknowledge. When a radical feminist or other gender-critical person asserts that gender is based on sex, they aren’t expressing how they wish gender was, or how they think gender ought to be. They’re simply describing the way they believe gender does work, whether we like it or not. In that context, criticizing gender-critical people for “believing in the gender binary” is like criticizing anti-racists for “believing in white supremacy.” It’s a simple confusion between recognizing the way a social structure works and endorsing the way a social structure works.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:50 PM

Quote:“Policing transgender women just makes it easier to police other vulnerable women, like lesbians and women of color.”

This objection is perfectly backwards. First, it’s totally unclear what “policing” here is supposed to mean. Presumably, the transgender activist is referring to those who choose not to validate a transgender person’s stated identity. But this isn’t “policing” anything – it’s merely holding to an objective standard for a particular social or biological category, which is essential for those categories to have any meaning whatsoever. In other words, disagreeing with a male person who claims to be female is not “policing their womanhood” any more than disagreeing with a married person who claims to be a bachelor is “policing their marriage status.” Words have meaning, and recasting a basic commitment to consistency and coherence as “policing” is absolutely bizarre.

Moreover, it’s unclear how standard for womanhood based in femaleness could pose a unique risk to women of color or lesbians unless you think that women of color or lesbians are somehow “more male” than white or heterosexual women. Most transgender activists would deny that they feel this way, of course, but it’s hard to explain what other attitude could be motivating these sorts of objections. Meanwhile, anyone who believes that non-white, non-heterosexual women are equally female (an indisputably obvious position) should have no reason to worry that excluding male people from womanhood “opens the door” to excluding anyone else. Quite the opposite, in fact! Grounding womanhood in a shared femaleness makes it harder to artificially exclude vulnerable women based on their race, sexuality, ability, or any other arbitrary factor unrelated to their existence as female human beings, whereas shifting to an identity-based definition of womanhood does exclude the billions of woman on this planet disagree with or are simply unaware of the gender identity framework.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:25 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:50 PM #8

Quote:“Policing transgender women just makes it easier to police other vulnerable women, like lesbians and women of color.”

This objection is perfectly backwards. First, it’s totally unclear what “policing” here is supposed to mean. Presumably, the transgender activist is referring to those who choose not to validate a transgender person’s stated identity. But this isn’t “policing” anything – it’s merely holding to an objective standard for a particular social or biological category, which is essential for those categories to have any meaning whatsoever. In other words, disagreeing with a male person who claims to be female is not “policing their womanhood” any more than disagreeing with a married person who claims to be a bachelor is “policing their marriage status.” Words have meaning, and recasting a basic commitment to consistency and coherence as “policing” is absolutely bizarre.

Moreover, it’s unclear how standard for womanhood based in femaleness could pose a unique risk to women of color or lesbians unless you think that women of color or lesbians are somehow “more male” than white or heterosexual women. Most transgender activists would deny that they feel this way, of course, but it’s hard to explain what other attitude could be motivating these sorts of objections. Meanwhile, anyone who believes that non-white, non-heterosexual women are equally female (an indisputably obvious position) should have no reason to worry that excluding male people from womanhood “opens the door” to excluding anyone else. Quite the opposite, in fact! Grounding womanhood in a shared femaleness makes it harder to artificially exclude vulnerable women based on their race, sexuality, ability, or any other arbitrary factor unrelated to their existence as female human beings, whereas shifting to an identity-based definition of womanhood does exclude the billions of woman on this planet disagree with or are simply unaware of the gender identity framework.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:52 PM

Quote:“Sex-based definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ reduce people to their genitals or reproductive organs.”

For some reason, this is one of the most common tropes transgender advocates rely on to defend their idea of gender as a personal identity. But the problem with this line is obvious: Asserting that a group of people share a particular feature doesn’t reduce them to that feature. In essentially any other situation, this would be self-evident. After all, no one thinks it ‘reduces Black people to their melanin’ when we acknowledge that they have dark skin, or that it ‘reduces blind people to their eyes’ when we acknowledge they can’t see. Similarly, general statements like Women have uteruses or Men have penises don’t “reduce” anyone to anything. All they do is acknowledge that uteruses are a shared characteristic of women and penises are a shared characteristic of men. Those who have a knee-jerk reaction to these sorts of acknowledgments may want to examine why it is that they see the mention of female body parts as uniquely “reductive,” and whether this might be a result of patriarchal socialization that sees association with women’s bodies as inherently dehumanizing.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:26 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:52 PM #9

Quote:“Sex-based definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ reduce people to their genitals or reproductive organs.”

For some reason, this is one of the most common tropes transgender advocates rely on to defend their idea of gender as a personal identity. But the problem with this line is obvious: Asserting that a group of people share a particular feature doesn’t reduce them to that feature. In essentially any other situation, this would be self-evident. After all, no one thinks it ‘reduces Black people to their melanin’ when we acknowledge that they have dark skin, or that it ‘reduces blind people to their eyes’ when we acknowledge they can’t see. Similarly, general statements like Women have uteruses or Men have penises don’t “reduce” anyone to anything. All they do is acknowledge that uteruses are a shared characteristic of women and penises are a shared characteristic of men. Those who have a knee-jerk reaction to these sorts of acknowledgments may want to examine why it is that they see the mention of female body parts as uniquely “reductive,” and whether this might be a result of patriarchal socialization that sees association with women’s bodies as inherently dehumanizing.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:53 PM

#10

Quote:“The concerns people have about trans women now are the same concerns previous generations had about gays and lesbians.”

Many transgender activists work hard to draw a superficial comparison between the desire to exclude male people from female spaces and the desire to exclude gays and lesbians from public spaces entirely. But the similarity here is purely formal – the only thing they actually have in common is a basic structure of, “If we let X into women’s spaces, bad things will happen” – and the fact that some people in the past incorrectly believed one group posed a serious risk to vulnerable women doesn’t give us any reason to think there are no other groups that could pose a risk.

In other words, this objection is really no more reasonable than responding to someone who is concerned about lead in the water supply by pointing out that some other conspiracy theorists are concerned about fluoride in the water supply. In that case, the obvious response would be to say that lead and fluoride are relevantly different substances, and that, while concerns about fluoride are unwarranted, concerns about lead might not be. The response from advocates of sex segregation should be exactly the same: While we have no reason to believe that homosexuals pose a unique danger to members of their own sex, we have endless evidence to suggest that male people pose a risk to female people in particular. This relevant difference is enough to make comparisons between the two positions unreasonable.

Further, this generally illogical rhetoric is especially absurd when it comes to this particular situation. In reality, the arguments being put forward today by radical feminists and others who defend sex segregation are the exact opposite of earlier arguments put forward to exclude gays and lesbians. Homophobes in the latter half of the 20th century argued that some people should be prevented from using facilities set aside for their sex because of their sexuality; radical feminists and others are arguing, instead, that all people should be required to use the facilities set aside for their sex despite their gender identity. In other words, homophobes of the past (and, sadly, the present) thought that sex segregation should be overruled if an individual is not heterosexual – and it is precisely this overruling of sex segregation that radical feminists and others oppose in the case of trans-identified people. Therefore, an absolutist commitment to strictly separated male and female spaces is the position most consistent with opposition to the exclusion of gays and lesbians.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:26 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:53 PM #10

Quote:“The concerns people have about trans women now are the same concerns previous generations had about gays and lesbians.”

Many transgender activists work hard to draw a superficial comparison between the desire to exclude male people from female spaces and the desire to exclude gays and lesbians from public spaces entirely. But the similarity here is purely formal – the only thing they actually have in common is a basic structure of, “If we let X into women’s spaces, bad things will happen” – and the fact that some people in the past incorrectly believed one group posed a serious risk to vulnerable women doesn’t give us any reason to think there are no other groups that could pose a risk.

In other words, this objection is really no more reasonable than responding to someone who is concerned about lead in the water supply by pointing out that some other conspiracy theorists are concerned about fluoride in the water supply. In that case, the obvious response would be to say that lead and fluoride are relevantly different substances, and that, while concerns about fluoride are unwarranted, concerns about lead might not be. The response from advocates of sex segregation should be exactly the same: While we have no reason to believe that homosexuals pose a unique danger to members of their own sex, we have endless evidence to suggest that male people pose a risk to female people in particular. This relevant difference is enough to make comparisons between the two positions unreasonable.

Further, this generally illogical rhetoric is especially absurd when it comes to this particular situation. In reality, the arguments being put forward today by radical feminists and others who defend sex segregation are the exact opposite of earlier arguments put forward to exclude gays and lesbians. Homophobes in the latter half of the 20th century argued that some people should be prevented from using facilities set aside for their sex because of their sexuality; radical feminists and others are arguing, instead, that all people should be required to use the facilities set aside for their sex despite their gender identity. In other words, homophobes of the past (and, sadly, the present) thought that sex segregation should be overruled if an individual is not heterosexual – and it is precisely this overruling of sex segregation that radical feminists and others oppose in the case of trans-identified people. Therefore, an absolutist commitment to strictly separated male and female spaces is the position most consistent with opposition to the exclusion of gays and lesbians.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Pages (2): 1 2 Next

Print Thread

Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)