Transgendered Woman Disqualified from Miss Universe

  • #999
    http://volokh.com/2012/04/25/california-bill-would-ban-psychotherapy-aimed-at-changing-under-18-year-olds-same-sex-desires-attraction-or-conduct/

    California bill banning psychotherapy aimed at Changing minor's same sex desires. Sort of related. I wonder if gender dysphoria will be similarly protected.
  • #1000
    Quote from Cervid
    This is the same type of argument people make against gay marriage when they bring up "why stop at men marrying men, why not marry your pet, or your car?".


    There's no slippery slope here - all I'm doing is pointing out the flaw in this logic:

    Quote from Cervid »
    Are you more your mind, or your body? I would argue that your self is your mind, regardless of your body.


    Do you not see what you're saying here? Your sentence reads that you would argue that self is determined by your mind and that it doesn't matter what kind of body you have.

    So logically we can conclude then that it doesn't matter what sex your body is - you are what your mind says you are.

    Problem is like I said, we can use the same logic and apply that to clinical lycanthropy - because it doesn't matter what species your body is - you are what your mind says you are.

    Quote from Cervid »

    However, if you want a real answer to your hypothetical question, I will respond with a hypothetical answer. If you were to transplant an wolf's brain into a human body, then I would agree that that being's self is still a wolf.


    That's not a very good comparison because transgenders and lycanthropes are both still human. For your example to be accurate, the wolf would have to identify itself as a human and then we could use your same logic to conclude that the wolf is human, you know - regardless of it's body.

    Quote from Cervid »
    I can provide all kinds of citations if you want me to show that the physical results in the mind. Are you denying that things like injuries to the brain don't affect the mind?


    No, you said that the mind is caused by cells, you need to give a citation for that. You also said that the mind is the brains presentation of itself, you need to give a citation for that too.

    I'm not even sure what this sentence means: "I can provide all kinds of citations if you want me to show that the physical results in the mind."

    Quote from Cervid »
    That's interesting, because those are things that we also bring in to what we call the human mind.


    Those are attributes that we think the mind has, yes. However you should keep in mind (I think HTime said it) that there is no unified theory on the mind.

    Quote from Cervid »
    Actually, how your process pain would be a phenotype. Your mind is absolutely a phenotype, unless you'd like to argue that the mind has non-physical (i.e. supernatural) causes.


    Yes, how you process pain is a phenotype, but I said 'pain' isn't a phenotype.

    Yes, your brain is a phenotype, but the mind is not. I've asked you twice now to provide an academic peer reviewed article that describes the mind as being a phenotype, I'm asking you now once again to do so. You seem to have trouble doing that. Why is that?

    Quote from Cervid »
    No, that's not exactly what I'm arguing. Being delusional is different from having actual anatomical characteristics determined pre-birth, either through genetics or environment, that result in a different phenotype.


    First off before you go claiming the mind is a phenotype, you need to provide a citation for that.

    Secondly, if you're claiming that the brain in transsexuals is fully the opposite sex, from the articles the Teia posted, that's not the case. You don't get to point to one part of the brain that is feminine or masculine and conclude the whole thing is that way too.

    Thirdly, I'll even grant you that point anyway. Just because transsexuals identify as a different sex than they are born as - that doesn't make them that sex. Just because someone with clinical lycanthropy identify as a different species than they are born as, that doesn't make them that species.

    Quote from Cervid »
    No, they do not seem to be parallels.


    The only difference here is what they identify as, one is sex - the other is species. That's a parallel.
    "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." -Richard Dawkins
  • #1001
    Quote from FoxBlade
    Do you not see what you're saying here? Your sentence reads that you would argue that self is determined by your mind and that it doesn't matter what kind of body you have.

    So logically we can conclude then that it doesn't matter what sex your body is - you are what your mind says you are.

    Problem is like I said, we can use the same logic and apply that to clinical lycanthropy - because it doesn't matter what species your body is - you are what your mind says you are.


    Except clinical lycanthropy is not in the same ballpark as trans gender. Similarly, I wouldn't agree that someone who really believes they are the best baseball player to ever live, is actually the best baseball player to ever live.

    Gender and species are not comparable. I will concede that my statement, "Are you more your mind, or your body? I would argue that your self is your mind, regardless of your body" was in too absolute, or failed to encompass my thoughts on the issue. I don't find someone who is born trans gender to be comparable to someone who develops a psychological illness that results in the delusion that they are a different species.

    Quote from FoxBlade
    That's not a very good comparison because transgenders and lycanthropes are both still human. For your example to be accurate, the wolf would have to identify itself as a human and then we could use your same logic to conclude that the wolf is human, you know - regardless of it's body.


    Well, it's hard to judge whether or not it's a good comparison or not when you seemingly have misunderstood it to begin with. The contrast I was attempting to portray is that a human brain with a key region that is anatomically expressing a phenotype opposite of the genetic sex of that individual is different from a human brain that has some other mental illness that has resulted in the delusion that the person is a wolf.


    Quote from FoxBlade
    No, you said that the mind is caused by cells, you need to give a citation for that. You also said that the mind is the brains presentation of itself, you need to give a citation for that too.

    I'm not even sure what this sentence means: "I can provide all kinds of citations if you want me to show that the physical results in the mind."

    Those are attributes that we think the mind has, yes. However you should keep in mind (I think HTime said it) that there is no unified theory on the mind.


    Okay, before we go further, you need to tell me what you think "the mind" is. Either we are working from different definitions, or you are arguing for a supernatural mind.

    Quote from FoxBlade
    Yes, how you process pain is a phenotype, but I said 'pain' isn't a phenotype.


    Well of course the concept of "pain" isn't a phenotype. Why is that even something to bring up? Music isn't a phenotype either, neither are track competitions. However, someone musical or athletic ability is.

    Quote from FoxBlade
    Yes, your brain is a phenotype, but the mind is not. I've asked you twice now to provide an academic peer reviewed article that describes the mind as being a phenotype, I'm asking you now once again to do so. You seem to have trouble doing that. Why is that?


    Because we must be working off of different definitions. Here is why I haven't provided one:

    1. It's completely obvious that a person's mind is part of their phenotype. The fact that you disagree either displays a lack of scientific understanding, or that we have different definitions. I suspect the latter.

    2. It is so easy to find a journal article that talks about physical processes in the brain resulting in differences in brain processes that it seems silly for me to have to go find you one. If you go to google scholar and search, you'll find pages and pages of them. I'm totally happy to provide citations when I make a very specific reference to a finding, but in this case it's unnecessary.

    Quote from FoxBlade
    Secondly, if you're claiming that the brain in transsexuals is fully the opposite sex, from the articles the Teia posted, that's not the case. You don't get to point to one part of the brain that is feminine or masculine and conclude the whole thing is that way too.


    That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying that a trans woman's brain is entirely female. What I'm saying is that the part of the brain responsible for gender identity is anatomically feminized, resulting in a female phenotype. We good?

    Quote from FoxBlade
    Thirdly, I'll even grant you that point anyway. Just because transsexuals identify as a different sex than they are born as - that doesn't make them that sex.


    Is our debate entirely the result of definition issues? Obviously someone who is a trans woman is not genetically male. I've never argue that, because that would be silly.

    Quote from FoxBlade
    Just because someone with clinical lycanthropy identify as a different species than they are born as, that doesn't make them that species.


    When we say "species", we are inherently implying genetics, whereas when we say "woman" we are not. Again, I do not think this is comparable to trans gender.




    Quote from FoxBlade
    The only difference here is what they identify as, one is sex - the other is species. That's a parallel.


    It's not a parallel, it's two completely different ideas.
  • #1002
    Quote from Cervid »
    Gender and species are not comparable. I will concede that my statement, "Are you more your mind, or your body? I would argue that your self is your mind, regardless of your body" was in too absolute, or failed to encompass my thoughts on the issue. I don't find someone who is born trans gender to be comparable to someone who develops a psychological illness that results in the delusion that they are a different species.


    Okay good, this is all I really wanted you to acknowledge.

    Quote from Cervid »
    Okay, before we go further, you need to tell me what you think "the mind" is. Either we are working from different definitions, or you are arguing for a supernatural mind.


    I would agree that we are arguing from different definitions. However, like I said I'm not sure what the mind exactly is because I feel the concept is very abstract and not tangible.

    I think the mind is something that describes what our brain does in terms of other non-tangible concepts like thought(s), feelings, memories, consciousness, imagination, dreams, etc. and I think the concept of a mind is very philosophical.

    Quote from Cervid »
    Well of course the concept of "pain" isn't a phenotype. Why is that even something to bring up? Music isn't a phenotype either, neither are track competitions. However, someone musical or athletic ability is.
    Because we must be working off of different definitions. Here is why I haven't provided one:

    1. It's completely obvious that a person's mind is part of their phenotype. The fact that you disagree either displays a lack of scientific understanding, or that we have different definitions. I suspect the latter.

    2. It is so easy to find a journal article that talks about physical processes in the brain resulting in differences in brain processes that it seems silly for me to have to go find you one. If you go to google scholar and search, you'll find pages and pages of them. I'm totally happy to provide citations when I make a very specific reference to a finding, but in this case it's unnecessary.


    I think wikipedia does a good job in describing phenotype:


    Despite its seemingly straightforward definition, the concept of the phenotype has hidden subtleties. It may seem that anything dependent on the genotype is a phenotype, including molecules such as RNA and proteins. Most molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, yet they are observable (for example by Western blotting) and are thus part of the phenotype. Human blood groups are an example. It may also seem that this goes beyond the original intentions of the concept with its focus on the (living) organism in itself, meaning that the lowest level of biological organization compatible with the phenotype concept is at the cellular level. Either way, the term phenotype includes traits or characteristics that can be made visible by some technical procedure. Another extension adds behavior to the phenotype, since behaviors are also observable characteristics. Indeed there is research into the clinical relevance of behavioral phenotypes as they pertain to a range of syndromes.[3][4] Often, the term "phenotype" is incorrectly used as a shorthand to indicate phenotypical changes observed in mutated organisms (most often in connection with knockout mice).[5]

    As I said before phenotype has to be something that is observable, since the mind isn't something observable, it isn't a phenotype. The brain for sure is, but not the mind.

    From the way you are using mind/brain it seems like you are using them interchangeably and I don't think they are interchangeable. As I said in my definition, I think the mind is something that describes what our brain does with other things that aren't tangible.

    That's why I liked that you brought up pain, pain itself isn't a phenotype, it just describes our body's response to stimulus. I think this is similar to the mind - in that the mind itself isn't a phenotype, it's simply our brain reacting to stimulus.

    Quote from Cervid »
    That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying that a trans woman's brain is entirely female. What I'm saying is that the part of the brain responsible for gender identity is anatomically feminized, resulting in a female phenotype. We good?


    Yep, we're good :).

    Quote from Cervid »
    Is our debate entirely the result of definition issues? Obviously someone who is a trans woman is not genetically male. I've never argue that, because that would be silly.


    You mean not genetically female, but yeah I thought that was what you were arguing. Clearly then this is a misunderstanding on both our parts.

    Quote from Cervid »
    When we say "species", we are inherently implying genetics, whereas when we say "woman" we are not. Again, I do not think this is comparable to trans gender.


    Well like I said above, clearly we've misunderstood each other here.

    Quote from Cervid »
    It's not a parallel, it's two completely different ideas.


    It's a moot point since we're not even arguing what we thought we were.
    "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." -Richard Dawkins
  • #1003
    Quote from HTime
    I don't have to. Anyone with the slightest understanding of logic realizes that you can't appeal to "If I identify as X, then I am X" if it isn't true for all X. And it's false for X=God. That means any argument that uses the premise "If I identify as X, then I am X" is unsound. If "identifying as a woman" were different from "identifying as God" in the sense that it actually would imply "being a woman", then the burden of proof is on nobody but you!


    "If I can drink X, then X is good for me."

    Substitute in water, soft drinks, alcohol, bleach... clearly it's all the same and not related to any actual qualities of X. Also I spent quite a few posts in this thread going over how transsexuality and clinical lycanthropy aren't comparabe.

    "Female means X" is always utterly arbitrary and not inherently objective.


    People throughout this thread have hidden behind the dictionary with regards to what "female" means in some kind of absolute sense. I propose alternate criteria, and the response is more or less "no, female means XX." If it's so arbitrary, then the XX chromosome definition shouldn't be held as such an ironclad standard.

    Nobody in this thread has cited a dictionary that defines a woman in terms of chromosomes, so that claim is simply a lie on your part.


    I've seen dictionaries thrown around all over the place. "Woman means adult female human, female means 46,XY." There were all kinds of dictionaries thrown around, even a medical dictionary. I'm not sure why you pretend this isn't the case.

    Quote from YamahaR1
    Because of your weak examples. If you yourself admit your examples are not enforced, then are you not exaggerating or complaining about an issue that doesn't really exist? Or are you just finding things to whine about to support your arguments?


    Actually, I'm trying to limit the amount of "sob stories" (as people derided them) in this thread. I do have to wonder, though, under what authority you make your "exaggeration" claims. You're presumably not trans, so you've never faced these issues firsthand. You can simply choose to ignore them, and to downplay them when you come across them.

    It's actually a pretty dangerous trap to fall into, when you get right down to it. Privileged people will look at cases which, though not outright harmful on their own, add up over time to be painfully oppressive. Yet they only look at single instances of this, like looking at single hailstones in a storm, and conclude that since they could weather that single blow, the marginalized group should too, all the while blind to the sheer number of such hailstones striking a person.

    Our housing community has such bi-laws that you listed as one of your examples. They were written in the early 70's during period of reform. And it doesn't say "no transgender people allowed" or "no minorities allowed" or anything of the sort. It says, they "reserve the right to deny housing to anyone at their discretion."

    Some 35 years later, its never been revamped. But as you yourself said, it isn't enforced. They can't. Its against the fair housing act. Even if they tried, they would find themselves in court.


    Almost no one actually says "you're trans, so we're going to deny you housing." Rather, trans people fall victim to any number of plausible-sounding excuses. Excuses that don't name trans status directly, but are still targeted towards them.

    It doesn't matter if your a racial minority or a member of the LGBT community. If you've got the money, and agree to the policies regarding housekeeping, maintenance and preserving the quality of the neighborhood, you will be welcomed here. If your the type who'd like to sit on your front porch without a shirt on, drinking beers and admiring your collection of immobile cars, thinking about your next Obama check which is already spent, while your nappy kids run rampant through your tall-grass then your going to run into issues and the neighborhood will work to oust the issue.


    Likewise, if you're visibly trans, openly LGB, whatever, then you're also going to run into issues and the neighbourhood will work to oust you. Maybe those standards will be enforced all that much more strictly with you. Maybe you'll just face extreme social pressure. If you're near a school, maybe parents will complain about you (as if LGBT people are threats to children—and this kind of complaining has been known to happen). Maybe people will openly harass you while everyone else turns a blind eye—"freedom of speech" protects offensive epithets being slung at someone on a regular basis. Whatever the approach, you're still going to find yourself made into an "issue" and therefore "ousted" for no reason other than being undesirable.

    And that's only for housing. Employment is another major issue, and let me tell you, employers get downright creative when it comes to discriminating against marginalized groups. They'll suddenly find themselves "not hiring" when you come by, and yet when the straight cis white guy comes by a few days later, the "situation has changed" and they can magically fit him in. They'll employ multiple people in the hiring process, one with looser standards to apply to straight cis white guys ("oh, the job requirements are more of a wish list, you don't need all of them") and another with stricter standards to apply to marginalized groups ("I'm sorry, but you're missing this one single thing we're looking for"). When hiring requirements are entirely subjective, it's very easy to blame not hiring someone on anything but protected classes. And even if a marginalized person does get the job, that's no guarantee they'll be able to keep it. Maybe they'll find themselves "let go" because they "weren't fitting in," or maybe they committed some trivial workplace violation never actionable in the case of a straight cis white guy ("you left crumbs on the break room floor").

    Double standards don't just end there. Employers can get pretty creative with what they'll do to keep their workplaces free of marginalized groups they don't like.

    You could easily come back (yet again) with "I personally know trans who were denied housing for being trans" to which I'd tell you - Call a lawyer like anyone else.


    Great on paper, terrible in practice. Highly marginalized groups generally don't have the resources to be able to take things to court, much less win. And even when they do win, a lot of cases are simply appealed. It'd be great if "calling a lawyer like anyone else [who's privileged]" worked for everyone, but it doesn't, and that's part of the problem.

    Quote from Blinking Spirit
    ...or "female means having a female identity". You forgot that one.


    I'm not sure I claimed that one to be objective.

    Complete non sequitur.


    Also missing the point of what I said. The point was to highlight the double standard at play here: Apparently painting others' arguments in a negative light is okay when done to me, but not when done by me.

    You have said that anyone who identifies as female and has female encephalic sex is female. You have said that female identity is a "truly all-encompassing trait". And you have said that once upon a time you did not identify as female. If you don't like the logical consequences of these propositions taken together, that's your problem, not mine.


    I'm not going to go into the details my life story, so I'm just going to generalize a bit (if you want trans people's life stories, they're all over the Internet, but you're not getting mine). In the case of trans people still in the closet, the "I identify as <assigned gender>" is merely a statement, not actually backed up by anything. It's not backed up by one's encephalic sex at all. It's simply an erroneous statement made due to incomplete information about oneself. People can be made to believe a wide variety of untrue things if they're so indoctrinated.

    Your reluctance to abandon the concept is what keeps tripping you up when people draw parallels to other forms of identity.


    Gender identity is simply one subset of identity. It's a common mistake to assume that all types of identity share exactly the same traits.

    I called you the Boy Who Cried Wolf just now. Did you complain because you're not a boy


    Thought about asking you what's wrong with saying "girl who cried wolf," but I decided the inevitable answer (probably "well the story isn't about a girl so 'girl who cried wolf' would be wrong" in the vein of when someone said "strawperson" and got flak for it) wasn't worth asking the question for.

    Quote from YamahaR1
    Tei claimed that housing bilaws were in place, tho largely not enforced, to keep transgendered out. My post explains those bilaws, their origination, why their still there, and how they don't prevent Tei from buying a house because of being transgender.


    Nope. I said that discrimination exists, not that specific bylaws do. You're confusing it with the air travel example, where I cited the specific portion of the rules in which trans people are prohibited by the rules from flying.
    "Being a Hero has a lot of perks, you know. You get the respect of the people, cheap rates at inns, and you can even walk into people's houses and take stuff!"

    Have questions or comments? Need your rabbit shod? Visit Teia's Rabbit Shoe Boutique today!
  • #1004
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    "If I can drink X, then X is good for me."

    Substitute in water, soft drinks, alcohol, bleach... clearly it's all the same and not related to any actual qualities of X. Also I spent quite a few posts in this thread going over how transsexuality and clinical lycanthropy aren't comparabe.


    A counterexample is only intended to show that the general case is not true. As for the special case, Blinking Spirit and I have raised quite a few objections to this argument that you have apparently chosen to ignore.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu

    People throughout this thread have hidden behind the dictionary with regards to what "female" means in some kind of absolute sense. I propose alternate criteria, and the response is more or less "no, female means XX." If it's so arbitrary, then the XX chromosome definition shouldn't be held as such an ironclad standard.


    If anyone here actually claimed "female is defined as being XX", I'd like that person to stand up and say this, because I don't recall anyone doing so.
    And no one claimed that the definitions that the dictionary gives are objective in the sense that it accurately represent the meaning of words that is distinct from what we intend them to mean, it's because it accurately represents what we mean by certain words, which is all there is to them.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu

    I've seen dictionaries thrown around all over the place. "Woman means adult female human, female means 46,XY." There were all kinds of dictionaries thrown around, even a medical dictionary. I'm not sure why you pretend this isn't the case.


    If someone quoted a dictionary as saying "female means 46,XX" then I'm sure you can prove that by giving me a link to that post. I'm waiting.\
    Last edited by HTime: 4/26/2012 5:51:29 AM
    That was a pretty sweet limited trick but way to get that into Vintage.
  • #1005
    Quote from HTime
    A counterexample is only intended to show that the general case is not true. As for the special case, Blinking Spirit and I have raised quite a few objections to this argument that you have apparently chosen to ignore or didn't understand because you have not written anything that adresses them.


    Or that got lost/intentionally ignored by people. I mean, the obvious differences between womanhood and eagle-hood aside, if you want to take the "identify as female" case rather than "identify as woman" case, I'm still waiting for you to show how humans can have non-human body maps (as well as the other things I asked of you in that post).

    If anyohe here actually claimed "female is defined as being XX", I'd like that person to stand up and say this, because I don't recall anyone doing so. If I'm wrong, link to that post.

    If someone quoted a dictionary as saying "female means 46,XX" then I'm sure you can prove that by giving me a link to that post as well. I'm waiting.


    "How about we define 'human female' as an individual who has the XX karyotype and who's cell nuclei contain barr bodies and 'human males' as an individual who has the XY karyotype and who's cell nuclei do not contain barr bodies."

    Linking to two dictionary definitions.

    First two I could find off searching this thread for "dictionary." In general, the first thing I quoted is what FoxBlade has been insisting for the bulk of the thread, to the point of trying to dismiss counter-arguments because such counter-arguments don't agree with the dictionary definition of the term. There are other dictionary arguments (including non-medical dictionaries) floating around if you care to look for them.
    "Being a Hero has a lot of perks, you know. You get the respect of the people, cheap rates at inns, and you can even walk into people's houses and take stuff!"

    Have questions or comments? Need your rabbit shod? Visit Teia's Rabbit Shoe Boutique today!
  • #1006
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Or that got lost/intentionally ignored by people. I mean, the obvious differences between womanhood and eagle-hood aside, if you want to take the "identify as female" case rather than "identify as woman" case, I'm still waiting for you to show how humans can have non-human body maps (as well as the other things I asked of you in that post).


    Really? We just ignored that you answered objections like "Your arguments incorrectly assume that there is no such thing as how a word "should" be defined or that science can tell us something relevant when it comes to how things are defined." despite the fact that I repeated this a million times and Blinking Spirit has done the same and you never actually write anything in response? Did you use invisible font?

    It's obvious that it's possible for a human to have a non-human body map since being human isn't defined in terms of having a human body map and a human could develop an abnormal body map for any number of reasons that don't interfere with the species.
    And "being a God" and "being a woman" have the common trait that one can identify as having this property while lacking it. Beyond that, I already explained that counterexamples don't have to be analogous in every way, or even more than one way.



    The first one a proposal by FoxBlade to define the word "female" in a certain way. It's not necessarily a claim about how the word "female" is defined by dictionaries. But I guess I'll let that one count.

    But those two links give definitions of "genetically female", which is not the same as "female". I asked for a dictionary that defines "female" as "being XY". In case you haven't noticed, those links cite the American Heritage Medical Dictionary, which defines the adjective "female" as "of, relating to, or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young" and the noun "(a) female" as "(a) member of the sex that produces ova or bears young/a woman or girl".
    In case you forgot, that was the definition I presented from the beginning. So it's defined in terms of sex, which the same dictionary defines as "The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions."
    What is suspiciously absent That's right, any mention of chromosomes.
    Nice try, but fail.
    Last edited by HTime: 4/26/2012 8:51:58 AM
    That was a pretty sweet limited trick but way to get that into Vintage.
  • #1007
    Quote from Teia »
    "If I can drink X, then X is good for me."


    On the contrary, Teia, this is the form we're using to criticize your argument "identify as X therefore is X." Your statement is a fine example of poor reasoning.

    It doesn't matter if clinical lycanthropy and transgenderism are different in respect to physical possibilities, because your argument, at least for a while, was if a person identifies as female, they are female. By inserting clinical lycanthropy into your "identifies as X therefore is X" reasoning, we can clearly see that this is not the case and that your reasoning is poor.
    Last edited by Ulfsaar: 4/26/2012 7:29:01 AM
    "If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
    "In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."

    Ashcoat Bear of Limited
  • #1008
    Quote from Ulfsaar
    On the contrary, Teia, this is the form we're using to criticize your argument "identify as X therefore is X." Your statement is a fine example of poor reasoning.

    It doesn't matter if clinical lycanthropy and transgenderism are different in respect to physical possibilities, because your argument, at least for a while, was if a person identifies as female, they are female. By inserting clinical lycanthropy into your "identifies as X therefore is X" reasoning, we can clearly see that this is not the case and that your reasoning is poor.


    Exactly. If "I identify as X, then I am X" isn't true for all values of X but you still want to reason "I identify as a woman, therefore I am a woman" then you need to go back to what it means to be a woman and show that identifying is sufficient to meet the definition of a woman. But as Teia has admitted, it isn't unless the word "woman" gets arbitrarily redefined.
    That was a pretty sweet limited trick but way to get that into Vintage.
  • #1009
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    I'm not sure I claimed that one to be objective.

    You didn't, but it was conspicuous in its absence. Dismiss all the others as arbitrary, you have to dismiss that one too. Where does that leave you? Where do you go from there?

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Also missing the point of what I said. The point was to highlight the double standard at play here: Apparently painting others' arguments in a negative light is okay when done to me, but not when done by me.

    It is of course not okay in either case. Which is why I never did it. You used "You're not educated on this subject" as an excuse to avoid explanations that might lead to stating facts you don't like, which was not only patronizing but dishonest. But nobody has used "How is transsexuality like lycanthropy?" to try to avoid anything. On the contrary, we were prompting you to explain yourself further. (Which you now avoid by dismissing it as "ridicule". :rolleyes:) There is no connection between your action and mine. Hence: non sequitur.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    In the case of trans people still in the closet, the "I identify as <assigned gender>" is merely a statement, not actually backed up by anything. It's not backed up by one's encephalic sex at all. It's simply an erroneous statement made due to incomplete information about oneself. People can be made to believe a wide variety of untrue things if they're so indoctrinated.

    Gender identity is simply one subset of identity. It's a common mistake to assume that all types of identity share exactly the same traits.

    By "merely a statement" I'm going to assume you mean a conscious belief. Anyone can state "I'm Irish" for whatever reason, but we don't think that they self-identify* in the relevant sense as Irish unless they believe what they just said. Now, if someone believes they are Irish, it is true that they self-identify as Irish. But is it true that they are Irish? That's still an open question. And it depends on how you define "Irish". If to be Irish is to self-identify as Irish, then of course it's tautologically true (and meaningless). If it's to have Irish genetics then it's probably true, but maybe they're adopted and don't know it. If it's to be familiar with and participate in Irish culture, then it may be true, but there are many Irish-Americans who don't know a shamrock from a shillelagh but just like to get plastered on St. Patrick's Day, and so self-identify as "Irish" erroneously by this definition. And if it's to actually live in Ireland, then of course those Irish-Americans are wrong there.

    The term "self-identity" refers to what people believe they are. And you're absolutely correct that this belief can coincide with or even be based on a mistaken understanding of the facts. In the case of our adopted Irishmen and Irish-American posers above, we might say that their self-identification is untrue. But here's the thing: we would not say it's untrue that they self-identify as Irish. Right or wrong, they do.

    And, right or wrong, closeted transsexuals do self-identify as their physiological sex. By your definition of sex, in their belief that they are male or female they are mistaken about certain neurological facts. This doesn't change the fact that they believe it. This doesn't change how they self-identify. Your problem is that you're trying to use the term "identity" to refer to these neurological facts as well as to conscious self-identification. That's not a "subset" of identity, that's something else entirely. You're using the same term for two different concepts at two different levels of description. That's like calling genetics "identity" and saying that the adopted Irishman's Irish identity is mistaken because he doesn't have an Irish identity. Just a little bit confusing, right?

    So no, it is not a "common mistake" to expect that when you use the same term you mean the same thing; that's just good ambiguity-avoiding argumentative practice. What is a common mistake is equivocation. And that is precisely what you're doing here. Don't blame me for it. Swallow your pride and accept that the word you've been indoctrinated to repeat ad nauseam may not be appropriate in every circumstance.

    *I'm going to start appending "self-" to "identity" so as not to confuse it with the mathematical/logical concept of identity.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Thought about asking you what's wrong with saying "girl who cried wolf," but I decided the inevitable answer (probably "well the story isn't about a girl so 'girl who cried wolf' would be wrong" in the vein of when someone said "strawperson" and got flak for it) wasn't worth asking the question for.

    Actually, the answer would have been "you fail metaphors... again", with an exposition of relevant and irrelevant facts in metaphor very similar to what you just saw (and, I can't help but notice, did not acknowledge, but instead focused on this irrelevance... do I have to start the List again?).
    Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
    candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.


    My Helpdesk | Debate Board | Forum Rules | Debate Rules
  • #1011
    Quote from HTime
    It's obvious that it's possible for a human to have a non-human body map since being human isn't defined in terms of having a human body map and a human could develop an abnormal body map for any number of reasons that don't interfere with the species.


    This argument is utter nonsense backed up by mere supposition. If a human "could" develop an abnormal body map like you describe, then back it up with sources. I remind you that this is the same body map issues that causes phantom limb pain even in people born without the relevant limb. It's not some kind of abstract idea without scientific grounding.

    And "being a God" and "being a woman" have the common trait that one can identify as having this property while lacking it. Beyond that, I already explained that counterexamples don't have to be analogous in every way, or even more than one way.


    Ah, so a person can indeed identify as a god while simultaneously being a god?

    But those two links give definitions of "genetically female", which is not the same as "female".


    This guy cites dictionary.com's definition for "female."

    And does it again

    And a third time.

    What is suspiciously absent That's right, any mention of chromosomes.
    Nice try, but fail.


    Being that you were around in the thread when those arguments were thrown around originally, it strikes me as a little bit odd that I'm expected to have perfect memory and yet you're apparently allowed to forget specific arguments were ever made. Either way, as above, it seems my memory isn't quite as bad as you imply.

    Quote from Ulfsaar
    It doesn't matter if clinical lycanthropy and transgenderism are different in respect to physical possibilities, because your argument, at least for a while, was if a person identifies as female, they are female. By inserting clinical lycanthropy into your "identifies as X therefore is X" reasoning, we can clearly see that this is not the case and that your reasoning is poor.


    By trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, it seems. The whole "identify as X, therefore is X" argument is the vastly simplified version, where even from the start the central argument has been more nuanced. It's not my fault nuance is so often lost out of others' zeal to reduce everything to be as simplistic as possible even when such reductionism does no good at all.

    Quote from HTime
    ]But as Teia has admitted, it isn't unless the word "woman" gets arbitrarily redefined.


    I'm quite curious as to just where I said that.

    Quote from Blinking Spirit
    It is of course not okay in either case. Which is why I never did it. You used "You're not educated on this subject" as an excuse to avoid explanations that might lead to stating facts you don't like, which was not only patronizing but dishonest. But nobody has used "How is transsexuality like lycanthropy?" to try to avoid anything. On the contrary, we were prompting you to explain yourself further. (Which you now avoid by dismissing it as "ridicule". :rolleyes:) There is no connection between your action and mine. Hence: non sequitur.


    Here you took me saying that others aren't very experienced with this subject as "disparaging... other posters' intelligence."

    And, right or wrong, closeted transsexuals do self-identify as their physiological sex.


    This is a bit of a dangerous oversimplification, but for the sake of this post (as distinct from this thread), I'll roll with it for the sake of argument and amend that this is speaking strictly of closeted trans people who identify as cisgender members of their assigned gender (not all closeted trans people do this).

    That said, someone's identity might be wrong, but that doesn't mean it's to be tossed aside and disrespected. In the trans community, you regularly see people questioning themselves and asking for their assigned/currently-identified gender to be respected until and unless they say otherwise. Such a closeted trans woman might be wrong about being male, but what you aren't going to see is people telling her such in contradiction to her current identity, even if it does wind up being true that she is, in fact, female.

    Your problem is that you're trying to use the term "identity" to refer to these neurological facts as well as to conscious self-identification.


    The neurological facts tend to be what I call "encephalic sex" while the conscious self-identification tends to be what I call "gender identity."

    Also, I don't see much difference between saying there are different kinds of identities that don't all share the same characteristics, and saying that there are different kinds of forces that don't all share the same characteristics. This is why I use adjectival forms like "gender identity," in the same way people differentiate between, say, "gravitational force" and "frictional force."

    *I'm going to start appending "self-" to "identity" so as not to confuse it with the mathematical/logical concept of identity.


    Is there any danger of someone actually mixing those up?
    "Being a Hero has a lot of perks, you know. You get the respect of the people, cheap rates at inns, and you can even walk into people's houses and take stuff!"

    Have questions or comments? Need your rabbit shod? Visit Teia's Rabbit Shoe Boutique today!
  • #1012
    Quote from Teia Rabishu

    That said, someone's identity might be wrong, but that doesn't mean it's to be tossed aside and disrespected. In the trans community, you regularly see people questioning themselves and asking for their assigned/currently-identified gender to be respected until and unless they say otherwise. Such a closeted trans woman might be wrong about being male, but what you aren't going to see is people telling her such in contradiction to her current identity, even if it does wind up being true that she is, in fact, female.



    By your own arguments and definitions this statement is completely and 100% incorrect. If anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman (and similarly anyone who identifies as a man is a man) then it is logically impossible for someones identity to be wrong.
    Quote from LandBoySteve
    Mark my words...2 years from now, the ONLY viable archetype in standard is going to be aggro or tempo, maybe.

    Control will be dead.
    LD is already dead.
    Combo will never exist again.
    Card discard will be BBB to get rid of 1 card.


    5/16/2012
  • #1013
    Without having read the rest of the 67 pages of this thread, isn't it sad that the thing you are fighting over is admission to a contest that objectifies women? Don't you think it would be more noble if this transgenedered person was trying to do something noble and good like get entry to a college, instead they are trying to sell themselves into an objectification contest.

    Personally I think it is fine that they said no, the contest is already sexist and biased at it's core because it a pageant to judge someone based on gender. Since they are judging that gender based on the rules they defined, I see no reason they could not summary dismiss anyone who did not fit the entry criteria they set. Maybe the problem is beauty pageants?

    It would be like if I had an ice cream contest, where everyone was supposed to come in and be judge on the ice cream they created in a specified fashion and someone brought sherbert. I would say that is not ice cream, it cannot be entered into the contest. They could not then say, well it started as sherbert but I then put some cream and sugar on top of it so now its ice cream.

    I mean at the end of the day I fully support this persons choice to try to be more like what they feel through transgender treatment, but I believe there are some things you simply cannot change. I will never be black, no matter how much I would want to be nor what surgery's I get. I can get surgery to darken my skin or go tanning or what have you, but I will always be what I am. The genes I pass on to my children will be that of a white person, the genes I come from will be white, and no amount of money or wishing will change that.

    I also think that at the best the law is fuzzy here. Let's stop acting like we know what the law says in this regard, because the law clearly was not created to account for this surgery as it is a fairly recent thing to be able to do.

    Also isn't saying this person is a woman and should be able to compete in this pageant because they had the surgery's and hormone treatments very elitist? What about all the men out there who feel exactly the same as this person but simply cannot afford the treatments. Is discriminating by money more ok than gender?
    This is my podcast:

    Http://www.fantasticneighborhood.com/
    Comedy gaming podcast. Listening to it makes you cool.
  • #1014
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    By trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, it seems. The whole "identify as X, therefore is X" argument is the vastly simplified version, where even from the start the central argument has been more nuanced. It's not my fault nuance is so often lost out of others' zeal to reduce everything to be as simplistic as possible even when such reductionism does no good at all.


    Oh really?

    Quote from Teia Rabishu »
    You know what, I'm a trans woman. Here's what I have to say about this subject: I was never really male.

    I presented as male. I had a male gender role assigned to me at birth, and for some reason this assignation is supposed to hold sway over anything I actually have to say about myself. I had certain traits and continue to have certain other traits more commonly associated with masculinity and arbitrarily assigned as sexually male (because the scientific definition tries to lump everyone into one of two categories with no overlap or possibility of others), but that doesn't change the underlying reality of the situation. You can't make someone into a gender that they aren't—the case of David Reimer proves that point rather well. That leaves the sexually dimorphic "masculine" traits, which seem to be the major sticking point. To that all I really have to say is that drawing strict and uncrossable lines based upon arbitrary physical traits is always going to leave some people on the wrong side. Putting too much stock in there is necessarily going to cause friction with those left-out-in-the-cold people. Far better is to go with how one identifies, how their brain is structured.


    Looks like that's exactly what you're arguing. When it was pointed out that your brain isn't even structured as a female, you use identity (as BS pointed out) in a different way and just state that you'll ignore what you don't like:

    Quote from Teia Rabishu »
    I'd agree. The difference between us is in what we get out of our readings of the source material. For instance, take the "there's no implication of a third sex" line. I look at it, and look at the data about having a brain that's masculinized in some respects and feminized in others, then in my case I use identity to decide on which side of the line the ball lies, so to speak.


    I especially loved this gem here Teia:

    Quote from Teia Rabishu »
    No, not in the slightest. Trans women don't "become" female except in terms of adjusting our gender presentations to match female norms. We take estrogen shots because, in a nutshell, it corrects the hormonal imbalance inherent in our bodies, and we get surgery the same as anyone seeking to correct a birth defect would. It's the implicit "trans women are really men whose 'womanhood' is mere artifice" part that really trips up what you're trying to say—and the taking of your personal opinion to be worth more than science or even what trans people simply have to say about our own identities strikes me as more than a little bit over-entitled, barging in and declaring oneself an expert on a subject despite little to no real knowledge of it.


    You just argue that since you identify as X, therefore are X - you get surgery to remove a birth defect and take estrogen shots because it corrects a hormonal imbalance.

    I've come to conclude that there isn't any reasoning with you. I think you're an arrogant, fallacious, lying, unreasonable, hypocrite, who just ignores facts you don't like in favor of ones you do. That's fine, but I'm just going to ignore you from now on because I don't think that anything you say in this thread is worth listening to.

    Flame warning.
    Last edited by Blinking Spirit: 4/30/2012 3:43:15 PM
    "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." -Richard Dawkins
  • #1015
    By trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, it seems. The whole "identify as X, therefore is X" argument is the vastly simplified version, where even from the start the central argument has been more nuanced. It's not my fault nuance is so often lost out of others' zeal to reduce everything to be as simplistic as possible even when such reductionism does no good at all.


    You keep saying this, we keep having you explain further, and you fail to deliver anything that can escape basic levels of scrutiny. Stop wasting my time.
    "If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
    "In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."

    Ashcoat Bear of Limited
  • #1016
    Quote from Ulfsaar
    You keep saying this, we keep having you explain further, and you fail to deliver anything that can escape basic levels of scrutiny. Stop wasting my time.
    Why do I get it then? I'm not trans. i'm not LGBT. But most of what Teia makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't seem that complicated.

    Teia's science arguments aren't all valid, but the science is not disprove her primary thesis either.

    Just historically follow the evolution of what has changed over the last several decades in Western culture when it comes to perception of gender/sex roles, for LGB, and for T.

    Once you realize the changes that have occurred already, and realize that the world didn't end, you can easily extrapolate to where enlightened thinking would take you in terms of not trying to pigeonhole people. Legal gender-blindness naturally leads to an examination of gender role variations across cultures, which is vast.

    I don't recognize the 'critical' need to defend the binary, when the nature of biology itself isn't binary.

    It's not (1) male set, (2) female set, and (3) everybody who doesn't fit into (1) or (2). You might argue there's 20 or 30 classes. Or 1000.

    Does a black pygmy tribe male with sickle cell really have more genetic resemblance to a rare asian male with cystic fibrosis, than his pygmy tribe female cousin with sickle cell?

    -

    Gender is at its heart, a taxonomy, and far from the most important one defining classes of human beings. It originally divided breeder and non-breeder, but it's not the "word of God", and it's not the scientific/biologic dividing line that defines the most important binary division of humans. Its no more or less significant than srY(+) vs srY(-), neither of which is sufficient to define breeder/nonbreeder status either. 46XY is not sufficient to define sperm maker/breeder, 46XX is not sufficient to define sperm maker/breeder.

    Male/female is just something we learn as little kids: "boys have penises, girls have vaginas". But then we also segregate based on those classes, and define all sorts of stereotypes to those classes (boys love girls, girls love boys)... etc.

    -

    I come from the world of disability, and have encountered that arbitrary social classification of "disability" and "non-disability" which makes sense in terms of accommodation so that we can all have a seat at the table, but doesn't make sense in terms of prejudice and patronizing perception of the disabled as being recipients of pity.

    I view us all as abled and disabled (with certain classes of disability requiring reasonable accommodation from a practical standpoint making the world better...e.g. wheelchair access).

    From an identification standpoint, view trans issues, GID, klinefelter, complete androgen insensitivity, as no more "special" disabilities than another person here not being as quick as I am at math or science.

    Somebody with Klinefelter may need an accommodation to increase probability, let's say reproduce sexually (IVF with ICSI), but I say that *I* as non-Klinefelter, am "normal", and somebody with Klinefelter is "abnormal".

    Same with GID. Psych establishment calls it a disorder, just as they called gay a mental illness once... Yes, there is a problem, and it's a big problem, to be born with gender dysphoria... but I would not use that to say that *I* am "normal" and somebody with gender dysphoria is "abnormal". They have some problems due to their situation of birth, and there is a remedy (in the form of major surgical intervention), and maybe some different societal attitude would help a lot as well, an attitude adjustment that I am certainly willing to make.


    "male", "female", "abnormal" does not seem to be a taxonomy worth saving to me.
  • #1017

    Yes, I can remember what I wrote a week ago. This doesn't tell me anything.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    This is a bit of a dangerous oversimplification, but for the sake of this post (as distinct from this thread), I'll roll with it for the sake of argument and amend that this is speaking strictly of closeted trans people who identify as cisgender members of their assigned gender (not all closeted trans people do this).

    I thought we were talking about sex.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    That said, someone's identity might be wrong, but that doesn't mean it's to be tossed aside and disrespected. In the trans community, you regularly see people questioning themselves and asking for their assigned/currently-identified gender to be respected until and unless they say otherwise. Such a closeted trans woman might be wrong about being male, but what you aren't going to see is people telling her such in contradiction to her current identity, even if it does wind up being true that she is, in fact, female.

    Okay, first of all, since there are insensitive jerks in every community, I'm pretty sure that if he hangs around for long enough someone will tell him that, or perhaps contradict his current self-identity in some less direct way. And second, I'm not an insensitive jerk (well, not right now anyway), and I'm not suggesting that anyone's identity be tossed aside and disrespected, so I'm not sure what this paragraph is supposed to show.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    The neurological facts tend to be what I call "encephalic sex" while the conscious self-identification tends to be what I call "gender identity."

    And that's a perfectly good terminological distinction, but if you made it consistently there is no way you could call gender sex identity a "truly all-encompassing trait" for females and also maintain that you were female before you identified as such.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Is there any danger of someone actually mixing those up?

    Not so much directly. But since mathematical identity is a firm and final statement about what something is, while self-identity emphatically is not, it seems like a good idea to avoid any unnecessary transfer of connotation that could be brought about by the equivocation.
    Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
    candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.


    My Helpdesk | Debate Board | Forum Rules | Debate Rules
  • #1018
    Quote from dcartist
    Why do I get it then? I'm not trans. i'm not LGBT. But most of what Teia makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't seem that complicated.

    Teia's science arguments aren't all valid, but the science is not disprove her primary thesis either.

    Just historically follow the evolution of what has changed over the last several decades in Western culture when it comes to perception of gender/sex roles, for LGB, and for T.

    Once you realize the changes that have occurred already, and realize that the world didn't end, you can easily extrapolate to where enlightened thinking would take you in terms of not trying to pigeonhole people. Legal gender-blindness naturally leads to an examination of gender role variations across cultures, which is vast.

    I don't recognize the 'critical' need to defend the binary, when the nature of biology itself isn't binary.

    It's not (1) male set, (2) female set, and (3) everybody who doesn't fit into (1) or (2). You might argue there's 20 or 30 classes. Or 1000.

    Does a black pygmy tribe male with sickle cell really have more genetic resemblance to a rare asian male with cystic fibrosis, than his pygmy tribe female cousin with sickle cell?

    -

    Gender is at its heart, a taxonomy, and far from the most important one defining classes of human beings. It originally divided breeder and non-breeder, but it's not the "word of God", and it's not the scientific/biologic dividing line that defines the most important binary division of humans. Its no more or less significant than srY(+) vs srY(-), neither of which is sufficient to define breeder/nonbreeder status either. 46XY is not sufficient to define sperm maker/breeder, 46XX is not sufficient to define sperm maker/breeder.

    Male/female is just something we learn as little kids: "boys have penises, girls have vaginas". But then we also segregate based on those classes, and define all sorts of stereotypes to those classes (boys love girls, girls love boys)... etc.

    -

    I come from the world of disability, and have encountered that arbitrary social classification of "disability" and "non-disability" which makes sense in terms of accommodation so that we can all have a seat at the table, but doesn't make sense in terms of prejudice and patronizing perception of the disabled as being recipients of pity.

    I view us all as abled and disabled (with certain classes of disability requiring reasonable accommodation from a practical standpoint making the world better...e.g. wheelchair access).

    From an identification standpoint, view trans issues, GID, klinefelter, complete androgen insensitivity, as no more "special" disabilities than another person here not being as quick as I am at math or science.

    Somebody with Klinefelter may need an accommodation to increase probability, let's say reproduce sexually (IVF with ICSI), but I say that *I* as non-Klinefelter, am "normal", and somebody with Klinefelter is "abnormal".

    Same with GID. Psych establishment calls it a disorder, just as they called gay a mental illness once... Yes, there is a problem, and it's a big problem, to be born with gender dysphoria... but I would not use that to say that *I* am "normal" and somebody with gender dysphoria is "abnormal". They have some problems due to their situation of birth, and there is a remedy (in the form of major surgical intervention), and maybe some different societal attitude would help a lot as well, an attitude adjustment that I am certainly willing to make.


    "male", "female", "abnormal" does not seem to be a taxonomy worth saving to me.


    Just wanted to say thank you for this post. I whole heartedly agree with the assessment.

    Spam infraction.
    Last edited by Blinking Spirit: 4/30/2012 3:47:11 PM
  • #1019
    Quote from bLatch
    By your own arguments and definitions this statement is completely and 100% incorrect. If anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman (and similarly anyone who identifies as a man is a man) then it is logically impossible for someones identity to be wrong.


    Not quite. Reread what I said more carefully. I said that such a closeted person might ask for their assigned/currently-identified gender (including pronouns, etc) to be respected until further notice, and still be wrong about being male (sex, which doesn't affect a whole lot, and if I'd meant gender here I'd have said "wrong about being a man").

    Quote from protoaddict
    Without having read the rest of the 67 pages of this thread, isn't it sad that the thing you are fighting over is admission to a contest that objectifies women? Don't you think it would be more noble if this transgenedered person was trying to do something noble and good like get entry to a college, instead they are trying to sell themselves into an objectification contest.


    Objectification is a problem, but it's not really Jenna's fault. Regardless, the principle is that since trans women are women, we should be regarded as such in all circumstances, including things like beauty pageants. Just because the issue centres itself around something you don't find "noble" doesn't reduce the significance of the civil rights issue involved. To say otherwise would be to say that Rosa Parks just wanting to sit at the front of the bus was ignoble compared to the other kinds of stands that could have been made at the time.

    It would be like if I had an ice cream contest, where everyone was supposed to come in and be judge on the ice cream they created in a specified fashion and someone brought sherbert. I would say that is not ice cream, it cannot be entered into the contest. They could not then say, well it started as sherbert but I then put some cream and sugar on top of it so now its ice cream.


    It'd be more like if someone brought a flavour of ice cream you don't like and you tried to disqualify it because of that.

    I mean at the end of the day I fully support this persons choice to try to be more like what they feel through transgender treatment, but I believe there are some things you simply cannot change. I will never be black, no matter how much I would want to be nor what surgery's I get. I can get surgery to darken my skin or go tanning or what have you, but I will always be what I am. The genes I pass on to my children will be that of a white person, the genes I come from will be white, and no amount of money or wishing will change that.


    Genetically and neurologically speaking, though, trans women don't start off male and then become female. Even early on in pregnancy, our brain structures are hardcoded, so we're literally born trans. No one can change that, just like a cis person can never be made trans.

    Also isn't saying this person is a woman and should be able to compete in this pageant because they had the surgery's and hormone treatments very elitist? What about all the men out there who feel exactly the same as this person but simply cannot afford the treatments. Is discriminating by money more ok than gender?


    You actually hit a decent point, albeit in a rather cissexist way. Yes, restricting "female" categorization to those who have the money and resources to get HRT and SRS is rather classist. However, what I've been arguing in this thread regarding gender identity and encephalic sex doesn't run into this problem because my arguments aren't based on things requiring hormones or surgery.

    Quote from FoxBlade
    When it was pointed out that your brain isn't even structured as a female


    Well, it's not really structured as male, either.

    Also what I said was, "Far better is to go with how one identifies, how their brain is structured." That's two separate things, just phrased without conjunction for effect.

    You just argue that since you identify as X, therefore are X - you get surgery to remove a birth defect and take estrogen shots because it corrects a hormonal imbalance.


    You forgot, "...the taking of your personal opinion to be worth more than science..."

    Quote from dcartist
    Why do I get it then? I'm not trans. i'm not LGBT. But most of what Teia makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't seem that complicated.


    It's really not. The hard part is in getting past the simplistic views of sex and gender (them being the same thing, them being immutable, them being based on simple external/chromosomal characteristics, etc) that get ingrained into people from pretty much the moment they're born. What I'm arguing is pretty simple once you get used to the conceptual framework—one of the major problems in this thread comes from people attempting to refute this conceptual framework out of hand.

    I don't recognize the 'critical' need to defend the binary, when the nature of biology itself isn't binary.


    Interpretations of biology are, though. People are hardwired to like simple, black-and-white dichotomies, and most people being XX or XY plays into that. It's easy to defend that simplified binary to the exclusion of people who don't fit into it. This is why you see this:

    It's not (1) male set, (2) female set, and (3) everybody who doesn't fit into (1) or (2). You might argue there's 20 or 30 classes. Or 1000.


    Furthermore, being cis is not the null hypothesis. Here's something you might find interesting. It's basically a huge thing about how treating cissexuality as the null hypothesis isn't scientific at all, and the problems that arise with treating cis as "normal."

    Quote from Blinking Spirit
    Yes, I can remember what I wrote a week ago. This doesn't tell me anything.


    It tells you that you read the worst into something when what I really said was far more reasonable (nothing I said in the post you objected to has anything to do with intelligence unless you think this is a subject an intelligent person should be able to pick up extremely quickly).

    I'm not sure what this paragraph is supposed to show.


    It's supposed to show that even when someone's identity would be considered "wrong" by science, proper form is still to respect their identity until they say otherwise.

    And that's a perfectly good terminological distinction, but if you made it consistently there is no way you could call gender sex identity a "truly all-encompassing trait" for females and also maintain that you were female before you identified as such.


    How so? Despite a nominal identity as a boy, a closeted trans woman still has a female encephalic sex. The overall result is kind of what you'd get in an inverse David Reimer situation. Which is actually an interesting parallel here. Would you say that David Reimer was ever female, despite having a female gender role assigned to him and presumably identifying as female for the first part of his life? Or would you say that he was a very unfortunate boy throughout?
    "Being a Hero has a lot of perks, you know. You get the respect of the people, cheap rates at inns, and you can even walk into people's houses and take stuff!"

    Have questions or comments? Need your rabbit shod? Visit Teia's Rabbit Shoe Boutique today!
  • #1020
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Furthermore, being cis is not the null hypothesis. Here's something you might find interesting. It's basically a huge thing about how treating cissexuality as the null hypothesis isn't scientific at all, and the problems that arise with treating cis as "normal."

    There is basically zero relevance of this to what dcartist said, which was about the taxonomy of male and female. (But for the record: Reed is a a trans issues blogger, not a scientist, so what she writes is more likely to be appealing to trans people than it is to be accurate to scientific practice. And saying this is not the same as proposing the null hypothesis that whatever she says about science is false. Get the picture?)

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    It's supposed to show that even when someone's identity would be considered "wrong" by science, proper form is still to respect their identity until they say otherwise.

    But though this proper form has not always been observed, nobody has actually made any claims to the contrary recently, least of all me.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    How so? Despite a nominal identity as a boy, a closeted trans woman still has a female encephalic sex.

    But you didn't say that encephalic sex was a "truly all-encompassing trait". You said that gender identity was a "truly all-encompassing trait". You have just acknowledged that encephalic sex and gender identity are not the same thing, and that gender identity is conscious belief. Closeted trans women consciously believe they are male, and not female. Therefore, their gender identity is male, and not female. Therefore, if they are in fact female, there exist females who do not have female gender identity. Therefore, female gender identity is not a trait shared by all females.

    I am having a difficult time putting this logic any plainer.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Would you say that David Reimer was ever female, despite having a female gender role assigned to him and presumably identifying as female for the first part of his life? Or would you say that he was a very unfortunate boy throughout?

    Again you're shifting from sex to gender, and furthermore from "male"/"female" to "boy"/"girl" (the juvenile counterparts to "man"/"woman"). So I wouldn't know which question to answer. But even if I did, the answer would depend on my definitions of whichever of those terms are relevant, and so is not going to be very useful for clarifying your position.
    Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
    candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.


    My Helpdesk | Debate Board | Forum Rules | Debate Rules
  • #1021
    Quote from Blinking Spirit
    There is basically zero relevance of this to what dcartist said, which was about the taxonomy of male and female.


    I said it was interesting, nothing more. Not everything I post has to be for the sake of making some kind of weighty, large-scale argument, and that link in particular falls more into offering a different perspective than the ones being thrown around in this thread, mainly for the sake of thought and potential discussion (if only because this thread feels like a 1000+ post Ouroboros sometimes, so something different is, in my view, always welcome), nothing more.

    But you didn't say that encephalic sex was a "truly all-encompassing trait". You said that gender identity was a "truly all-encompassing trait". You have just acknowledged that encephalic sex and gender identity are not the same thing, and that gender identity is conscious belief. Closeted trans women consciously believe they are male, and not female. Therefore, their gender identity is male, and not female. Therefore, if they are in fact female, there exist females who do not have female gender identity. Therefore, female gender identity is not a trait shared by all females.


    Okay, first off, I've already said several times that not all closeted trans women identify as cis male. That's highly relevant if it's your intention to make statements about trans women on the whole. Some assert a female identity from the moment they're capable of expressing the concept in words. Some instead (perhaps through lack of context to understand that a female identity is valid for them, or a multitude of other reasons) identify outside the gender binary, basically as transgender if not transsexual. Others insist on performing masculinity in non-cisnormative ways while still asserting some level of masculine identity. And, of course, some (try to) identify as cis male. There's no one single, true trans narrative, and thus trans women experience themselves and express their identities in all kinds of ways. If you want to concern yourself with only the subset that declares themselves to be cis male while in the closet, then that's your prerogative, so long as you accept that the full reality of the subject is much more complex than "closeted trans women consciously believe they are male." That much is a simplification, the same kind I get told off on making.

    Anyway, to speak about closeted trans women who assert a cis male identity, it all falls back to that David Reimer question I asked you. Despite that Reimer was assigned a female gender role and so forth, I wouldn't say he was ever actually female. He was just a very unfortunate male forced to live as a girl. Presumably, he believed himself to be female for at least some period of time, so in that case we'd have someone with a male encephalic sex and a stated female gender identity (yes, I'm using "male/female" as adjectives for both, but that's due more to limitations of the English language than anything else). The two not agreeing with each other, he experienced significant distress, due in no small part to the fact that his stated gender identity would have been based on extrinsic rather than instrinsic factors, i.e. people telling him he's a girl rather than being allowed to weigh the options and determine for himself which he was—and it wasn't just a case of him having a male internal body map, but also masculine intrinsic inclinations (just as hardcoded as the body map) pushing him towards a masculine gender role despite all effort to the contrary.

    Also, after quite some digging, I came up with what I assume to be the offending quote: "The common trait shared between all males is a male identity, and the common trait shared between all females is female identity." Note that I simply said identity, not gender identity.
    Last edited by Teia Rabishu: 5/1/2012 6:48:27 AM
    "Being a Hero has a lot of perks, you know. You get the respect of the people, cheap rates at inns, and you can even walk into people's houses and take stuff!"

    Have questions or comments? Need your rabbit shod? Visit Teia's Rabbit Shoe Boutique today!
  • #1022
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Note that I simply said identity, not gender identity.

    Gaping

    We're done. You've lost. If you don't understand why, that's your problem. Just go away.
    Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
    candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.


    My Helpdesk | Debate Board | Forum Rules | Debate Rules
  • #1023
    I believe I was using the term "sexual identity" (as distinct from "gender identity") at the time, which is where the confusion would have arisen from, i.e. using the word "identity" as distinct from an individual component which may or may not be aligned with said whole (something which you've also expressed disagreement with, I acknowledge, but refer to what I said of forces several posts back—perhaps I should start saying "net identity" to refer to some kind of overall identity, or something). Regardless, consider also that quite a bit of the problem with ambiguity stems from needing contrived workarounds to address the somewhat impressive level of resistance I've seen on this forum to the sheer concept of identity. I definitely see no reason to declare "you've lost" over something like an imperfectly-worded sentence.

    Edit: Also occurs to me that this illustrates the linguistic problem I mentioned of how "male/female identity" is inherently ambiguous due to there only being so many gendered/sexed words in the English language. There may be workarounds for that too (usually in trans discourse the meaning is derived from context), but at this point I'm not sure how well that could be explored.
    Last edited by Teia Rabishu: 5/1/2012 7:38:13 AM
    "Being a Hero has a lot of perks, you know. You get the respect of the people, cheap rates at inns, and you can even walk into people's houses and take stuff!"

    Have questions or comments? Need your rabbit shod? Visit Teia's Rabbit Shoe Boutique today!
  • #1024
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    I believe I was using the term "sexual identity" (as distinct from "gender identity") at the time, which is where the confusion would have arisen from, i.e. using the word "identity" as distinct from an individual component which may or may not be aligned with said whole (something which you've also expressed disagreement with, I acknowledge, but refer to what I said of forces several posts back—perhaps I should start saying "net identity" to refer to some kind of overall identity, or something). Regardless, consider also that quite a bit of the problem with ambiguity stems from needing contrived workarounds to address the somewhat impressive level of resistance I've seen on this forum to the sheer concept of identity. I definitely see no reason to declare "you've lost" over something like an imperfectly-worded sentence.

    Edit: Also occurs to me that this illustrates the linguistic problem I mentioned of how "male/female identity" is inherently ambiguous due to there only being so many gendered/sexed words in the English language. There may be workarounds for that too (usually in trans discourse the meaning is derived from context), but at this point I'm not sure how well that could be explored.


    So basically, you're trying to use something like Gardener's Theory of Multiple Intelligence and apply that to identity? That being identity is a "hydra like" construct with multiple heads going into various directions and to cleft one is to see another rise in it's place?

    It seems that one side is arguing "it's a hydra in totality" and the other is saying "focus on the multi-headed nature of the beast." Monist without being "monist" and considering a duality within the multiple hydra heads that represent various facets of identity.


    Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.

    Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.

    Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.

    Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.


  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes