| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On one hand we have people who pretend that trans people are exactly the same as cis people and that the biological differences don’t exist even when it matters. On the other hand we have people who deliberately insult trans people and belittle their existence. Both sides are now essentially arguing against straw men. This is why the argument can never be settled at least in the US. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
If it were medically possible for transitioning to be a 100% biologically accurate process, where there are no physical differences between a trans/cis woman to the point that no amount of medical testing would indicate someone was trans, would you still have any biases you have? This is mostly a question for folks with views similar to Taelshin, who have been open about their belief that trans women are not women. I was thinking about our conversations in this thread recently and started to wonder if people's views would be different if trans women truly were biologically identical. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46498 Posts
On July 08 2023 11:28 KwarK wrote: Yeah except as a general rule the trans woman with long her in a dress wants you to use she/her so the fact that your brain unconsciously defaults to those really isn’t an issue. If you don’t think about it at all you’ll get it right. The fact that people have to make an active effort to use male pronouns for trans women is how we know they’re assholes when they do it. I remember Ben Shapiro did this in front of Caitlyn Jenner, and then again when speaking about her during interviews: On occasion, Ben would accidentally *correctly* refer to Caitlyn using she/her, then he'd stop, realize what he'd done, and then make a conscious effort to reverse himself and use the dead pronouns. Pretty sure he's purposely dead-named Caitlyn by calling her Bruce too. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46498 Posts
On July 08 2023 11:54 Mohdoo wrote: Just out of curiosity for anyone who has anything against trans people in whatever context: If it were medically possible for transitioning to be a 100% biologically accurate process, where there are no physical differences between a trans/cis woman to the point that no amount of medical testing would indicate someone was trans, would you still have any biases you have? This is mostly a question for folks with views similar to Taelshin, who have been open about their belief that trans women are not women. I was thinking about our conversations in this thread recently and started to wonder if people's views would be different if trans women truly were biologically identical. I, too, would love to hear anyone's response to your question. + Show Spoiler + I've asked anti-trans non-TLers the same question before, and they simply moved the goalpost from the original "there are too many differences between cis women and trans women" to "even if those differences disappeared, trans women weren't born as cis women, and that distinction is still enough for me to not call them women". Basically, they would never consider trans women to be women, under any circumstances. Women and cis women are identical groups to them; all cis women are women, and all women are cis women. It's a biconditional, for them: a person is a woman if and only if they are a cis woman. I don't know if anyone in this thread feels the same way. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 08 2023 11:28 KwarK wrote: Yeah except as a general rule the trans woman with long hair in a dress wants you to use she/her so the fact that your brain unconsciously defaults to those really isn’t an issue. If you don’t think about it at all you’ll get it right. The fact that people have to make an active effort to use male pronouns for trans women is how we know they’re assholes when they do it. I’d say my determination of whether someone is a biological female or male has little to do with what stereotypical clothing they are wearing Edit: to expand the thought in case it’s not clear if my brain can tell it’s obviously a biological male despite them wearing a dress or having long hair I still have to override what my brain knows to use feminine pronouns. I think few people default to which pronouns to use based on wardrobe or hairstyle | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46498 Posts
On July 08 2023 14:54 BlackJack wrote: I have no problem saying I’m NOT on team “trans women are women” even if that makes me a transphobic bigoted asshole or whatever. If transitioning were a 100% biologically indistinguishable process then I would be on team “trans women are women.” 1. Would you mind elaborating on precisely what criteria would need to match for trans women to be "100% biologically indistinguishable" from cis women? Would they need a vagina? Breasts? XX chromosomes? Wider hips? Shorter? Physically slower or weaker? Certain hormones within certain ranges? Other things? I'm wondering what makes a woman a woman, in your view. 2. What if they had all those things but still didn't look like / pass as a woman visually (where your brain assumed he/him)? Would that person still be a woman to you? 3. What if they didn't have all those things, yet still looked like / passed as a woman visually (where your brain assumed she/her). Would that person still not be a woman to you? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12017 Posts
On July 08 2023 11:54 Mohdoo wrote: Just out of curiosity for anyone who has anything against trans people in whatever context: If it were medically possible for transitioning to be a 100% biologically accurate process, where there are no physical differences between a trans/cis woman to the point that no amount of medical testing would indicate someone was trans, would you still have any biases you have? This is mostly a question for folks with views similar to Taelshin, who have been open about their belief that trans women are not women. I was thinking about our conversations in this thread recently and started to wonder if people's views would be different if trans women truly were biologically identical. So, i absolutely do not count myself as "a person who has anything against trans people in whatever context". However, i still think that even if transitioning was 100% accurate, there would still need to be some care taken when children and teenagers want to transition. In my ideal world, there would be some non-permanent phases of transition that teenagers could do, with the total medical transition happening after they are adults. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 08 2023 15:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 1. Would you mind elaborating on precisely what criteria would need to match for trans women to be "100% biologically indistinguishable" from cis women? Would they need a vagina? Breasts? XX chromosomes? Wider hips? Shorter? Physically slower or weaker? Certain hormones within certain ranges? Other things? I'm wondering what makes a woman a woman, in your view. 2. What if they had all those things but still didn't look like / pass as a woman visually (where your brain assumed he/him)? Would that person still be a woman to you? 3. What if they didn't have all those things, yet still looked like / passed as a woman visually (where your brain assumed she/her). Would that person still not be a woman to you? 1. Yeah, XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, breasts, etc. sounds like a good start. What makes a woman a woman in your view? 2. Yeah. If a female bodybuilder takes testosterone and steroids to the point she takes on extremely masculine features I wouldn’t believe them to be less of a woman. That would be rather insulting as well 3. No, looking like a woman is not what makes someone a woman. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On July 08 2023 16:53 BlackJack wrote: Yeah, XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, breasts, etc. sounds like a good start. What makes a woman a woman in your view? I’m pretty sure a person could be missing nearly every one of those criteria and you’d still consider them a woman. This is the problem with these definition questions, people tend to jump to things that are typical rather than things that are actually required elements. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18453 Posts
On July 08 2023 16:53 BlackJack wrote: 1. Yeah, XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, breasts, etc. sounds like a good start. What makes a woman a woman in your view? 2. Yeah. If a female bodybuilder takes testosterone and steroids to the point she takes on extremely masculine features I wouldn’t believe them to be less of a woman. That would be rather insulting as well 3. No, looking like a woman is not what makes someone a woman. Does a woman with XXX chromosomes, who had a histerectomy and double mastectomy cease to be a woman? I'm quite naive, though. I think someone is a woman if they say they are. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 08 2023 16:59 ChristianS wrote: I’m pretty sure a person could be missing nearly every one of those criteria and you’d still consider them a woman. This is the problem with these definition questions, people tend to jump to things that are typical rather than things that are actually required elements. That’s kind of how definitions work though, they define what is typical, not every single genetic mutation imaginable. If we say dogs have 4 legs you wouldn’t argue that definition doesn’t work because you know a dog with 3 legs. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12017 Posts
On July 08 2023 17:27 BlackJack wrote: That’s kind of how definitions work though, they define what is typical, not every single genetic mutation imaginable. If we say dogs have 4 legs you wouldn’t argue that definition doesn’t work because you know a dog with 3 legs. No, they don't. Definitions define a thing. That means that they can be used to clearly differentiate if something is that thing, or not. A good definition does not give room for interpretation or wriggling. For example, in maths, a definition looks kinda like this: "A series is called a Cauchy series if and only if it fulfills the following criteria: It a) blablah b) blah" and so forth. "A series is typically called a Cauchy series if it does blah, but sometimes not, and sometimes other stuff is also called Cauchy" is not a good definition. (Unless you clearly deliniate what those other situations are in your definition, once again making it clear and decisive. Similarly, "A dog has 4 legs" is not a good definition of a dog. It isn't even part of a good definition for a dog for exactly the reason you mentioned. Dogs with 3 legs exist. A good definition means that you can clearly decide if something is or is not a dog. 4-leggedness doesn't help, because neither are all 4-legged animals dogs, nor do all dogs have 4 legs. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18453 Posts
On July 08 2023 17:27 BlackJack wrote: That’s kind of how definitions work though, they define what is typical, not every single genetic mutation imaginable. If we say dogs have 4 legs you wouldn’t argue that definition doesn’t work because you know a dog with 3 legs. The definition of a dog isn't that it has 4 legs, though. That's just a general descriptor. The definition is that it is a member of the species Canis familiaris. Now I do agree with you that the *how* of how biologists decide that some animal is one species or another is another whole can of worms that is nowhere near as precise as some here would like it. And putting dividing lines in things that are on a spectrum comes down to choices that different individuals make differently. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 08 2023 17:33 Simberto wrote: No, they don't. Definitions define a thing. That means that they can be used to clearly differentiate if something is that thing, or not. A good definition does not give room for interpretation or wriggling. For example, in maths, a definition looks kinda like this: "A series is called a Cauchy series if and only if it fulfills the following criteria: It a) blablah b) blah" and so forth. "A series is typically called a Cauchy series if it does blah, but sometimes not, and sometimes other stuff is also called Cauchy" is not a good definition. (Unless you clearly deliniate what those other situations are in your definition, once again making it clear and decisive. Similarly, "A dog has 4 legs" is not a good definition of a dog. It isn't even part of a good definition for a dog for exactly the reason you mentioned. Dogs with 3 legs exist. A good definition means that you can clearly decide if something is or is not a dog. 4-leggedness doesn't help, because neither are all 4-legged animals dogs, nor do all dogs have 4 legs. Well when I google the definition of dog the first thing it offers me is this a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, nonretractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. Underline for emphasis. I'm quite certain that all of those attributes is not something that's present in every single dog Edit: also to clarify, it seems like you misunderstood my post to mean that I think a good "definition" of a dog is "a dog has 4 legs." That's clearly not what I meant | ||
|
ZeroByte13
799 Posts
1. What I do/say to trans-folks 2. What I think about trans-folks I can easily adapt 1st, and it's hard to change 2nd. If aforementioned BBM (big bearded man) says "I am Maria, she/her" and I have to communicate with them or talk to someone about them for some reason, I might use their desired pronounces - but this doesn't mean I'd think "oh, they're surely a woman if they say so". If they look like a typical woman (i.e. my brain recognizes them as a woman right away) - then I'd probably not know they're trans-woman in the first place, unless they mention this (but why would they?) | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12017 Posts
On July 08 2023 17:54 BlackJack wrote: Well when I google the definition of dog the first thing it offers me is this Underline for emphasis. I'm quite certain that all of those attributes is not something that's present in every single dog Because you are not the only one who is bad at definitions. Or, conversely, because the definitions in a dictionary aren't actual definitions, but descriptions. I studied maths at university. I know what a definition is. That isn't. That is a description. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46498 Posts
On July 08 2023 16:53 BlackJack wrote: 1. Yeah, XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, breasts, etc. sounds like a good start. What makes a woman a woman in your view? 2. Yeah. If a female bodybuilder takes testosterone and steroids to the point she takes on extremely masculine features I wouldn’t believe them to be less of a woman. That would be rather insulting as well 3. No, looking like a woman is not what makes someone a woman. Thanks for the responses! I figured those would be your answers to #2 and #3, although I didn't want to assume. I can see that multiple people are already debating the virtue of a definition - is it supposed to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a perfectly described entity, or do we go down an often more practical route by describing typical attributes for the average entity? The former is used more in mathematics and scientific research, while the latter is used more colloquially, and I think how we use definitions depends on context. Putting trans aside for a second: Most cis-women have all the things you included in your definition of women, such as a vagina, breasts, and XX chromosomes. However, there do exist exceptions for each of those, and I think you'd agree that removing breasts, for example, wouldn't make a cis-woman no longer a woman. Do you agree with that? I don't know if the definition of a woman can ever be as precise as, say, a square. In terms of technical semantics, I can't think of a necessary criterion for a woman (if they're missing X, then they absolutely cannot be a woman, by definition). In everyday use, when we're not medical doctors performing examinations on trans patients (and therefore never verify a vagina or uterus or XX chromosomes), I'm fine with colloquially defining a woman as a person who sincerely identifies as a woman. And for that, I freely confess that such a definition requires me to trust a person when they tell me they identify as such. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46498 Posts
On July 08 2023 17:56 Simberto wrote: Because you are not the only one who is bad at definitions. Or, conversely, because the definitions in a dictionary aren't actual definitions, but descriptions. I studied maths at university. I know what a definition is. That isn't. That is a description. I do think that most people and most dictionaries use "typical descriptions" when talking about "definitions". It's more practical in many cases. For example, it's less helpful and perhaps even circular to define "dog" as "canis lupus familiaris", when a person just wants to know what puppies tend to do and look like. Not everything is as well-defined as our beloved mathematical terms! | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
Patches Events
The PondCast
INu's Battles
Percival vs TBD
TBD vs herO
OSC
Replay Cast
OSC
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Patches Events
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
