Drifting into incompatibility
Aw, trouble in paradise.
Tracie Harris, Jen Peeples & Clare Wuellner got on YouTube to discuss the right-ward slide of the Atheist Community of Austin, and their experiences with the transphobic takeover of that organization.
You may have noticed that FtB hosts The Atheist Experience, the blog for the call-in show of the ACA. Although I’m sure the blog isn’t a major contributor to their popularity — it’s primarily driven by YouTube traffic — it does get a good number of comments each week.
We’re currently discussing dropping the blog from our network in our backchannel, because it has drifted into incompatibility with our mission statement, which I’ll remind you is:
Freethoughtblogs is an open platform for freethought writers. We are skeptics and critics of dogma and authoritarianism…
Mmhmm. They are skeptics and critics of dogma and authoritarianism, and if you drift into incompatibility with their mission statement you’re banished.
Our network of blogs is designed to encourage independent thinking and individual autonomy…
Their network of blogs is designed to encourage independent thinking and individual autonomy. and if you dispute the dogma on Trans Idenniny you need to gtfo.
The discussion went the way everyone knew it would.
I’ve emailed the president of ACA, the vice president, and the board, and have received no response. We’ve discussed the matter on the FtB backchannel, and the comments there so far have been unanimous: the ACA is now incompatible with the mission of Freethoughtblogs. Therefore, and regretfully, I have disabled comments on the AXP blog and demoted all of their administrators. Nothing is irreversible yet, but I can’t imagine what kind of defense they could put up that would reverse our decision.
The great and powerful Oz has spoken.
There are many things we will not tolerate on any of the blogs here: racism, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia are all grounds for ejection from the network. The ACA is guilty of the last.
What about trans people expressing misogyny? Who wins in that conflict of non-tolerateds?
You know the answer. She was asking for it.
H/t Holms
Disappointed, but not surprised. Thoughtfreeblogs’ Pharyngulariate is every bit as smug, self-assured, and toxic as any Slyme Pit that might once have provided a contrast. I wonder what it is about organized atheism that turns people into such thoughtless assholes, either way.
What actually happened at the ACA?
So glad I stopped bothering with that pile of smug, self-satisfied gits.
Except…
Is Mano Singham still there? They don’t deserve him.
It seems that in the interest of wanting to be included there are those that will exclude themselves.
Yes, Mano Singham is still there. He even had a post about this issue.
@Ophelia Benson. I suspect that they would change their definition of misogyny.
PS Was this how it ended for you at FtB?
Anyone who voluntarily stays at Freethought Blogs is in the right place. They’re making a free choice to endorse the behavior and values of that collective—including Mano Singham.
WELL then, if the comments are unanimous, then close the case file: it’s decided! It’s interesting how unanimity is so each to achieve just by silencing all dissent, isn’t it, PZ?
I saw that and was both saddened and amused to see PZ quote a mission statement that declares they are “skeptics and critics of dogma and authoritarianism” in support of ejecting a group for not subscribing to the official dogma.
Colin @ 5 – Not exactly, because I left of my own accord. At that point PZ had emailed me in secret pleading with me to stay, as one of the last remaining grownups. He did not, however, do one damn thing to make it possible, so I ended up finding his plea both cowardly and selfish. More recently he has of course groveled in shame for not realizing my evil sooner.
I thought their statement was a parody. They really don’t see a problem with their conclusion, do they?
Skepticism is awesome. But not yours.
Dogma sucks. But not ours.
Ha, no, they mean every word of it.
PZ’s statement here is truly astonishing:
Imagine a judge who is acting as the prosecution, and who tells the defending barrister that his having argued against the prosecution’s case is evidence that he shouldn’t be presenting arguments to begin with.
Eeeep.
I do still enjoy reading Pharyngula, and saw that post. I asked what the specific offense was ( since I wasn’t interested in watching a long video) and was told “transphobia.” Yes, but how? Eventually someone said it partly had to do with sports.
A few attempts by others to address that issue resulted in explanations that even going into areas like relative testosterone were implicit admissions that the speaker didn’t believe trans women were women — which is transphobic.
I thought it was an interesting discussion. I stayed out of it, though, because I’m sure it would have been both wearying and annoying for them to be expected to school the ignorant, or deal with yet another transphobe. Their definition of transphobia seems too broad to me, but no doubt they have oodles and oodles of links to explanations why it’s spot on target, and I’d be unfair to wade in without sufficient background.
Enzyme @12,
It’s also quite reminiscent of the “argument” often thrown at atheists that “if you can’t sense God’s presence, it’s because you have blinded yourself to Him.”
@Screechy:
Yep, it’s a classic move in apologetics. It takes many forms, from the sensus divinitatis to the “you believe but just want to sin” to the “God has written proof of himself on every person’s soul”.
It’s also a Kafkatrap.
Or a witch hunt where you can only prove your innocence by dying or weighing the same as a duck.
I breeze by PZ’s Playhouse now and then to see the amazing sight of people claiming to be atheists and agnostics bow and grovel to the shiny new religion of transgenderism. That latest comment thread had one of the resident TIMs proclaiming that only trans people can have an opinion on trans in sports so everybody who does not agree with the dogma had better shut up. Funny how people who have not done police work are allowed to criticize cops and people who have not held public office are allowed to criticize politicians but trans is some shining special, dare I say, god-like group who must be obeyed always.
So how are they keeping the lights on over there? A bunch of their even more toxic people left to form their own Trans-Slyme Pit so presumably kicking more people out kills ad/donation revenue.
Ophelia @9,
That’s interesting, and disappointing of course.
As far as I’m concerned, a blogger can have whatever kind of comment section he or she wants. And I often enjoyed the free-flowing aggression of Pharyngula, and certainly joined in a bunch of times, so it would be hypocritical of me to complain about lack of civility and respect there or elsewhere.
But PZ has always tried to have it both ways when it comes to his commentariat. Going way back to the Scienceblog days, pre-Deep Rifts etc., he would occasionally lament both on the blog and in interviews that he’d like the comments section to have more discussion and diversity of views, less piling-on and aggression towards dissenters, etc. Yet at other times, he seemed quite proud of the “Horde” and its reputation, and he never really did much to change the commenting environment. I recall that he once announced a “three strikes” guideline by which people were supposed to give a newcomer three posts to explain their position before tearing them a new one, dismissing them as a troll, etc. — but I don’t think he ever made it an actual rule and if so there was no real enforcement. And when you consider all the actual rules that were added over the years, and his general willingness to ban people for breaking those rules or just being a general pain in the ass, it did make his wistfulness for a more civil discussion ring a little hollow. It’s what economists refer to as “revealed preferences” — don’t rely on what people say their priorities are, look at how they spend their resources to find out what their real priorities are.
I note something interesting about the comment thread on the linked post, though: somebody brought up Jessica Yaniv, and the responses I saw were along the lines of “hey, every group has its assholes, it’s transphobic to expect the trans community to be asshole-free,” the implication of which is that Yaniv is (my paraphrase) an asshole and not worth defending. If that is in fact a consensus view, that’s…. something, at least?
Colin, yes Mano has a post up and the reply comments are giving him the benefit of the doubt (for now). The comments are also the nicest collection of straw man arguments about the stance taken by anyone who questions trans-dogma I’ve seen in a long time. Possibly one of the best collections of straw arguments one could find anywhere. Apparently people like me are just cis-men White Knighting because of our underlying transphobia and the very act of asking a question or trying to debate, you know, actual science, is cause to be assumed a transphobe.
I’ve long wondered why Mano stayed at FTB. As he says, he’s stayed in his lane. I might have characterised it as keeping his head down, covering his eyes and ears and repeating “la la la” every time shit went down. Now he’s posted on the topic he has two choices. At some point write a post unequivocally accepting dogma, or eventually be turned on. Reverting to a state of blissful ignorance is no longer a long-term solution.
I can understand him staying there up to now because it was a low friction way of existing, but it also suggests an element of moral weakness I would not have ascribed to him. I do hope that he is seeking and evaluating alternative views, rather than simply accepting what the FTB commentators throw at him. Maybe he’ll surprise me.
My understanding is that The Atheist Experience (AXP) is not the ACA, and the ACA is not The Atheist Experience. Why, then, is AXP being deplatformed?
Is Ally Fogg still posting there? I imagine he’s managed to escape it because his MRA topics repel the FeMRAs already…
Ally hasn’t posted since 29 March, 2018.
But that didn’t stop someone in the Pharyngula thread from proposing him for exile next!
It’s like the days of Survivor: Pharyngula, where there was a contest to vote out a commenter. Only now I guess commenters are too small fry and bloggers must be the target.
@Rob #19
The comments are also the nicest collection of straw man arguments about the stance taken by anyone who questions trans-dogma I’ve seen in a long time.
Not my comments, I hope.
Colin @24, nope, but I see you have now been branded a transphobe by abbeycadabra.
@clamboy #20
My understanding is that AXP is associated with ACA, but rarely blogs, as they mostly produce videos.
Sastra,
I was there, it went more like this:
Dissenter: Men are superior to women at sport, so trans women should not compete with cis women.
Proponent: That argument only makes sense if one considers trans women not to be women.
—
Ophelia in OP:
This only makes sense if you consider having a mission statement to be dogma and authoritarianism.
What? What are you talking about? I was quoting from the mission statement immediately before that. It’s the mission statement that says they are skeptics and critics of dogma and authoritarianism.
I still don’t know what happened with the ACA board, but I listened to 20 minutes of the conversation with Tracie Harris, Jen Peeples & Clare Wuellner, and discovered that they left ACA because a vlogger called Rationality Rules (Stephen Woodcock) was allowed on several ACA-produced shows, when he was known to have a horrible transphobic YouTube video about trans athletes. I watched that video, 20+ minutes, and the guy seemed mostly sensible, and replied on bioligical processes and chemistry to explain his conclusions. Didn’t agree with him totally, because I’m apparently an extremist from the right, but it was by no means the disgusting, horrifying, unbelievably bad spectacle that Tracie Harris, Jen Peeples & Clare Wuellner seemed to think it was. I had seen something recently that suggested to me that Matt Dillahunty had also recently left the ACA, but I don’t know if it was this kind of issue.
John, you do realise you don’t have to “be there”? It’s a blog, you can read it afterwards.
lol
That a collective having and enforcing a mission statement is not contrary to its membership being skeptics and critics of dogma and authoritarianism.
(You mean you weren’t trying to be snarky? Because that’s how I read it)
—
Rob, what made you imagine I thought I had to be there?
(Do you imagine participating in a conversation over the course of several hours provides no more familiarity with it than a hasty reading of it after the fact?)
John, I never imagined for a second that you had to be there. Remember you bought it up as though that actually means something. Since the ‘conversation is not a verbal interaction at all, with all the nuance and non-verbal visual cues that go along with a real time face to face conversation, I don’t actually place any special importance on you apparently hanging over your keyboard continuously without a break for several hours. Even if you did sit there from the start (20 July 2019 at 11:09 am) until your last comment (21 July 2019 at 11:57 pm), a blog conversation thread is just a collection of written statements devoid of any context other than what can be read. Whether one sits there drumming a finger on the desk waiting for the next reply or dips in and out to catch up, or reads through from one end to the other in a single sitting, or scans (identifying the connected threads of interwoven responses), makes no odds.
Rob, I can see this is evidently an important issue for you, but your reading was imprecise.
My question was “what made you imagine I thought I had to be there?”, not “what made you imagine I had to be there?”, which is what you addressed.
It was an informal way of noting I am quite familiar with the discussion, the issues at hand and the milieu and context. Too subtle for you, apparently.
Then it was at best an irrelevance by your estimation, but it was evidently the only thing you thought noteworthy enough upon which to comment.
I think I’ve cracked the code. The prevailing mores, societal norms and such are renamed ‘dogma and authoritarianism’ when they are disliked, and declared Bad on that basis. The small scale dogma and authoritarianism of a blog network is not considered dogma and authoritarianism in the first place because it is Good.
In related news, everyone’s hypocrisy is bad, except FTB’s.
#2 maddog1129
A youtube show called The Atheist Experience (TAE) had a guest host for a handful (I can’t remember) of shows; the guest produces his own youtube channel named Rationality Rules (RR). RR had recently made a video critical of trans women competing in female sports leagues. Cue TRAs bombarding TAE with calls to denounce RR, apologise profusely and cease any affiliation with him. They did, but then they grew a little bit of a spine and took back all or part of their apology and censure of RR; this has been painted as a ‘takeover’ by ‘terfs’ at TAE and the parent organisation, the Atheist Community of Austin (ACA).
TAE and ACA are now of course declared evil.
___
#6 Josh Slocum
I understand the sentiment, yet I am reluctant to go down the path of tarring a reasonable party for their continued association with someone whose views are different. Recall that this watching of associations is part of the poison that led to OB becoming verboten.
___
In previous times, PZ would have correctly identified this as a logical fallacy. He is credited in wikipedia for coining the name for it – the Courtier’s Reply. But do you think he hesitated for even a second before deploying it against those who disagree with trans theory? (Rhetorical)
___
John #27
Dissenter: Men are superior to women at sport, so trans women should not compete with cis women.
Proponent: That argument only makes sense if one considers trans women not to be women.
I guess the clue is in the modifier trans. If trans women really are women, we would have no need for the trans part at all. Women would be women.
And it is not only about sport.
It is about trans women expecting women’s health services to be able to provide prostate care. It is about trans women wanting to able to counsel rape victims and teach children about tampon insertion. It is about trans women wanting to exclude women from womens’ spaces rather than taking the time and energy to create their own.
It is, in short, just another form of misogyny.
And don’t bother labelling me TERF; it’s a badge of honour for me.
@John Morales #27;
Yes, that’s more accurate. And I understood “I was there” just meant you were on that thread ( or that you were over there and read it.)
It’s true of course that if trans women are women in the same sense that Asian women, blond women, and cat-owning women are women, then the entire argument about trans women competing in women’s sports is moot. But I don’t think it’s that simple. And I don’t think it’s “ transphobic” for someone to disagree that trans women are women, if we consider the clinical definition of “ phobia” and its emphasis on extremism and fear.
Though I suppose the term doesn’t really matter, in the long run. It’s a distraction.
One of the most common phrases heard on TAE was Matt Dillahunty (usually, but also other hosts) asking “what do you believe and why do you believe it?” and I can’t even begin to count the number of times a caller would respond with “god exists, and I believe it because I feel his presence.” The TRA equivalent is “I am a woman, and I believe this because I feel female.”
The obvious rebuttal to the religious apologist is to point out that they are simply interpreting their emotional state… hopefully TAE takes this approach to trans theory as well (I’m not sure if they do), but why are so many supposed sceptics letting this slide when trans people say it??
___
Mano has stated repeatedly that he does not ban people based on their behaviour or stance taken elsewhere in the network, but I bet there has been pressure in the backchannel to change his stance, both regarding commenters there such as myself, and the general topic of trans theory. The pressure is only going to mount, and as you note, sooner or later he will be put to it: be with us or against us. And regardless of his answer, I will cease to have any remaining reason to visit FTB – either because it’s last adult was claimed by the horde, or because he left / was booted out.
Sastra,
Terminology is descriptive, not prescriptive.
But here (Ophelia’s place) it is most clear to me that the — not dogma! — is not that trans women are not only not women, but also actually men. That what they are is, at best, is deluded and entitled, and at worst predatory and enabled. That is what I make them to consider as transphobia, whether or not it’s clinically accurate.
Anyway, that’s the basis of the “sports” argument; and at least here, no bones are made about it.
—
As for the term, I have seen pretty much the same reaction to racist and to sexist and to misogynist as I have seen for transphobic, so there’s that.
—
Also, Ophelia, thanks for tolerating my comments, I know I can be irritating.
John, mate, I poked fun at the school yard nature of your first comment and replied out of courtesy to your response, pointing out the, as you say, irrelevance of your argument. Now you’re being boring and refusing to let go. Peace out.
#20 clamboy
I think The Atheist Experience is a weekly show produced by ACA, making ACA its parent organisation. I don’t know how much independence the show has.
___
#25 Rob
abbeycadabra is hands down the most eager to brand people transphobic. Simply mentioning that biological sex exists is enough.
___
#29 maddog1129
I tried watching that video too; unfortunately the normally brilliant and incisive Tracie conflated sex with gender so often that the statement became unbearable shortly after the introductions were completed.
___
#32 John Morales
In which you assume that a reading of a thread after it took place is “hasty” and thus less reliable than participating in it, or reading it contemporaneously.
#40 John Morales
Yes, here we have the zany idea that in the term ‘trans woman/man’, the word trans denotes that the person being referred to is of the male/female sex. Is it your belief that they are actually biologically female/male?
[erratum, one negative too many. Of course readers can see where and perform error correction themselves]
So, I take the opportunity:
Rob, no worries.
Holms, depends. But hastier than, yeah. When I do that, I don’t tend to follow links or fact-check very much, certainly not spend time skimming through other content; when I participate as I did, I do. I take that’s not the case for you.
Holms @43, I see you provided the coda.
Anyway, I didn’t ask for a justification, I asked for a confirmation.
One ‘yes’ so far.
@John Morales #40
Most of the criticism here is specifically aimed at a particular fraction of transsexuals, so I don’t think it ought to be applied to transsexuals in general. But yes, the general consensus seems to be that trans women are men who are convinced they think and feel as women do, which is deluded in the same sense that the religious are deluded. But that doesn’t preclude respect, admiration, or love. They can do as they please; they don’t need to change; they’re just fine and right as they are.
And I think it would be wonderful if they stayed as they are and expanded the idea of what it means to be a man, instead of hating their bodies and boxing themselves into society’s idea of womanhood.
#44 John Morales
It varies. I have noticed that if I am participating in a fast paced thread with multiple people posting and crossposting, comments can easily be missed, especially if I take the time to click and read links. Reading that same thread after the fact however is an easy, linear affair; nothing is likely to be missed as there is no activity to keep up with.
#45
I agreed that trans women are male; I did not agree with your calling it dogma. You are free to disagree with trans women = male, and your continued posting here is not contingent upon agreeing with it. To me, that exonerates the blog from an accusation of dogmatism.
[don’t want to spam, but also do want to respond]
Sastra,
My emphasis. First part, I entirely concur. Emphasised part, I don’t see that here, in fact it does seem precluded.
Point being, I get why they see transphobia when people argue against their participation in sports and those arguments are based on a fundamental denial of their status as women. In fact, in this very thread their very existence was described as misogynistic, and TERF was pre-emptively adduced as a “badge of honour”.
Deep Rifts. I see familiar names around.
—
Holms:
Ahem. “not dogma!” — I even added an exclamation mark. No exoneration required.
Look, there are two positions on what constitutes womanhood, and one side says it’s entirely limited to a preponderance of physical attributes, whereas the other takes a less restrictive view. Each considers the other dogmatic.
Yes, and it was super convincing!
Holms, I explained in the very comment from which you quoted, immediately after your quotation.
Conspicuously, no response to that.
But fine, worry about imaginary accusations and their consequent exonerations, instead.
I’m guessing you’re on the “less restrictive” side of this division? Sounds nice and comfy. Much better than that old, nasty limited, physical school of thought, isn’t it?
But.
Is there anywhere else in the study of the animal or vegetable kingdom where a “Female” organism is defined in this “less restrictive” manner that is not “limited to a preponderance of physical attributes?”
How do you define “woman?” Please feel free to do so without regards to physical attributes. Be as “unrestrictive” as you like. Make sure your definition does not include the word “woman.” It would also be good if this definition, with as little modification as possible, could also be used to define females of other species. After all, female organisms must share some basic characterstics that result in their being united under the descriptive term “female” in the first place. If you can, explain which of those characteristics human females share with other female plants and animals using this less restrictive view.
How does a midwife, obstetrician or ultrasound technician determine the gender identity of a baby? It seems to me a lot of grief and trouble could be avoided if some process or protocol could be worked out to determine this.
Side question: Do you have any pets? What is their gender identity and how do you know it? Is it possible to misgender another species? How would you know?
Snark aside, these are all actual questions I am curious to have you answer.
John,
Pretty much every single awful TERF here has taken great pains to lament the plight of gender-nonconforming people (which includes more or less everyone, to varying degrees), and to proclaim their aspiration—in different voices and with different details—that the world should be a place where nobody has any expectation placed upon how they dress, act, speak, or love simply because of which sexual characteristics they physically possess. That there really is no such thing as ‘essential man/womanhood’ when it comes to someone’s personality, intellect, potential, and humanity, and that feminism is more or less in the business of convincing people of that fact.
If there is anything with respect to transness that can be called a dogma among the commenters here, it’s something along those lines. Though we’re certainly not a horde, nor a monolith, and our gracious host has suffered far more fools (including yours truly) with whom she’s fundamentally disagreed on important issues to ever credibly be accused of even trying to enforce a consistent ideology beyond the supremacy of discourse itself.
Contrast this with a certain collective who pride themselves upon harbouring an independence of thought, and in the same breath gleefully contemplate expelling certain members for thought crimes; who claim to clast every icon and subvert every dogma, but cannot suffer the presence of any who fail to passionately affirm a sequence of magic words; who expect any commenter who joins them to fall in line or simply disappear not just on this but on every single issue that comes up, as though all questions were obvious and any who did not agree with the consensus was not only irremediably stupid but also dangerously deluded.
Perhaps you can’t see a difference, or disagree with my impression of the Horde, or think that a woman taking about female sports and female-only spaces and sex-based rights is as dangerous to trans people as the patriarchy and that it is a rational expenditure of energy for trans activists to go after feminists who discuss these issues rather than the men who violently enforce gendered expectations. But I think that if you reflect, you’ll notice that your continued presence here and the general lack of harassment, histrionics, or threats posed by those of us who find something of a home in these content threads should provide a compelling contrast with those of the blogging network in question.
I know that John, but I was commenting on your silly assertion that your “not dogma!” comment was not an accusation of dogmatism. We’re adults, such fig leafs do not wash.
As to the other, I too would love to hear a coherent and non-circular definition of womanhood from your perspective.
No worries.
Q: I’m guessing you’re on the “less restrictive” side of this division?
A: I’m not on any side. Don’t much care either way, I just like to argue and seek to be right when I do, but settle for being not wrong. Sometimes I am. Point being, that’s what the sides are, in my estimation.
Q: Is there anywhere else in the study of the animal or vegetable kingdom where a “Female” organism is defined in this “less restrictive” manner that is not “limited to a preponderance of physical attributes?”
A: I don’t know. But wasn’t the subject at hand women?
Anyway, I get it: you appeal to biology, which is your sole determinant for womanhood.
So, your appeal will appeal (heh) to one side, and will repeal the other.
Q: How do you define “woman?”
A: I don’t get to define it, the concept is around and I use whatever sense of it is appropriate at the time.
But let me not be evasive — basically, same as you: biologically, except that I’m also sanguine with trans women being women other than in that particular aspect.
Q: How does a midwife, obstetrician or ultrasound technician determine the gender identity of a baby?
A: I don’t know; presumably there is some protocol.
I suppose it is not just medically-essential to determine the sex (which is perforce and forever more the gender, too) of a neonate, right? Or at least very important. I think I get implication of your question.
Q: Do you have any pets?
A: Yes.
Q: What is their gender identity and how do you know it?
A: Are you serious? A desexed male dog, a desexed female cat.
(Frankly, neither ones care one whit about it, and they’re better off for it. We’re not in the wilderness, and those are the regulations where I live)
—
Holms, there you go. Answered best as I can, it’s not a thing that consumes me, this essence of woman.
Also, re “We’re adults, such fig leafs do not wash.”, you’re fooling yourself.
(But we’re already been down this little debouch into the thickets before, no? Futility itself)
Not very biological after all.
The question asked about their gender identity, and you responded by speaking of their sex. Which suggests to me, in combination with the above, that your approach conflates the two concepts.
Holms,
Think set theory, perhaps it will be clearer to you that way.
The superset of cis women (aka biological women, in your terminology) and of trans women (men, in your terminology) includes all biological women, so it is no less biological than your set.
Since you insist, I’ll be more literal: neither of them has any concept of gender whatsoever, nor of sex (they still lick their bits, you know that classic cat pose!). They don’t have gender identity, they’re instinctual creatures and both house pets.
And my dog still pees like a girl, and only to relieve himself. Much better in that regard than other dogs I’ve had, who could make a bladder last at least a dozen squirts.
But you do make a point about not conflating sex and gender, which I accept.
So therefore sex is perforce different to gender, lest they not be conflatable, which you hold they are.
But you further hold that one’s gender must perforce be one’s sex, no?
(You see the tension there?)
The most charitable view of trans people on offer here is not that they are “deluded.” It’s that they are mistaken.
You don’t have to be deluded, crazy, or depraved to be mistaken. You just need to be incorrect. And it’s no sin to be incorrect.
I’ve even done it myself!
So, biological females, plus whichever males feel like it. Again, not very biological after all.
There’s actually no tension here. The meaning of any word in a natural language is determined by common use, and in common use, woman is used to refer to those entities that are human and female and adult, therefore it means ‘human adult female’. And yes, female in the sense of biological sex. Similarly, man means ‘human adult male’.
Pretty easy.
“They don’t have gender identity, they’re instinctual creatures and both house pets.”
And. in your opinion, how did they come into being?
Screechy @14; Nullius @15:
Before PZ went mad, he came up with the “Courtier’s Reply”. That was a really nice move.
I wonder if someone ought to remind him of it now.
Holms:
Actually, not all biological females, only the cis ones. Trans men belong in the superset of men, which is obviously the converse.
So, gender and sex are different, you don’t dispute that.
And you simultaneously believe there is a 100% correlation between them.
And you simultaneously believe there is no tension between those two claims in any discussion about the nature of womanhood.
(You might not see it, but I do)
—
Sea Monster, you exemplify whereof I speak. To you, their sex is their gender, and so you imagine they have a gender identity, contrary to my claim. No?
Where did I talk of gender?
Their sex is their sex. And biological sex has a precise definition. The word “woman” has a precise definition built on blocks that include that definition.
Elsewhere women’s sport was devised to overcome their dimorphic disadvantages and allow women to participate.
The “good” you are promoting with your sophistry is sidelining women and girls from the health and social benefits of sport.
John, in #56 you wrote
Then in #61 you wrote
Did you misspeak in #56, and correct yourself in #61, to clarify a coherent position (in your view)? Or did you contradict yourself?
Where you responded to that which you quoted: “They don’t have gender identity, they’re instinctual creatures and both house pets.”
The subject is their gender identity, and to address that you invoked the biological sex act that enabled gametes to mix, obliquely saying that they are sexed creatures. Which was never in dispute, thus my original response.
Now, that is dogmatic. That most words change meanings over time is not in dispute, but the word ‘woman’ being subject to the same fate as other words is not to be contemplated. Perish the thought!
So? Maybe it can be revised again to allow trans people to participate.
(Again with the trans women only; but if you have a prob with trans women, you have to have one with trans men, too. I mean, you wouldn’t want to be inconsistent, I get that)
I get this a lot. I’m not an SJW, I’m not a feminist, and I am not a trans advocate except by effect.
I already wrote that I do this because I like to argue and at worst not be wrong. Any good that may or may not come off that is incidental.
—
Dave @63, the former. Again, it’s this focus on trans women that makes me sloppy, I’d much prefer to argue on the basis of trans people. Good pickup, and thanks for the opportunity for me to clarify.
John Morales, #64
Words can change meanings, but the meaning of any word should be clear and coherent. Is there a clear and coherent definition of ‘woman’ (or ‘man’) that is not biologically based? If there is, I haven’t found it.
Trans people already have exactly the same opportunity to participate in sports as everyone else does.
Like sophistry?
Apparently there is to at least some people, thus this Deep Rift.
Again, words can have multiple senses.
You seem to imagine that adding new senses to an existing term negates existing senses, but really, that typically takes many years. A bit like straight marriage proponents argued that marriage had an exact definition, and that widening it would somehow breach the natural order.
Heh. You do know I am familiar with posts here, I still read it in my spare time?
But I will take you at your word. Let’s examine the coherence of your claim.
If your objection is that only women should compete against women, and therefore trans women (being men) shouldn’t compete against women, it follows that trans men (being women) should be able to compete against women. Right?
Seth @52, sorry. Missed you. You deserve a response.
FtB, presumably. Funny, during this very convo I participated in a comment thread there where at least two commenters also in this thread participated. They obviously don’t avoid the place.
Perhaps ask them, they will know their opinions and you may trust them.
Me, I don’t think that way. But I do note a tendency (not just here) of using FtB as a synechdoce for either its particular blogs or bloggers. I also noted the comments about Mano Singham, above.
I do get your drift; this place is virtuous, that other place is a cesspit.
Of course I see a difference, but not the one you see. If anything, the similarities are greater than the discrepancies. For example, does this place tolerate “racism, misogyny, homophobia”? I think not.
(That makes it 3 out of 4)
Perhaps remember, Ophelia was a blogger there for years.
Also, the Horde hasn’t been a thing for many years now, any more than Mollies, porcupines or pharyngulation. Its heyday was the SB days, and I was around before it was at SB. Since 2005, even. I am quite familiar with the place, and — here’s the funny thing — with Ophelia’s blog on the basis that it became part of FtB. Before that, my only interaction with her was an email expressing appreciation for one of her articles, back around… I can’t recall, 2003 or 2004. And all the time it has been getting gentler, in my estimation.
So, pointless as it may be to note, I’ve been around both places for ages, in internet time.
(“I was there”)
#61 Morales
Ah, I see what happened. In my comment #58, I quoted and responded to your text, which contained the line “But you further hold that one’s gender must perforce be one’s sex, no?” Now I have no idea where you got that impression, but my response to that was to describe ‘woman’ as denoting the sex of a person; I left it implicit rather than explicit that therefore it did not denote the gender of a person.
Pretty simple.
At least, I thought the implication would be obvious, but then I should have remembered that my view is not your view and vice versa and hence explicit would have been better. I will do so now.
Woman and man are words that denote someone’s sex, and not gender. because sex and gender are not the same thing. In fact, ‘denoting someone’s gender’ is somewhat nonsensical: we people have a sex, we do not actually have a gender. Gender is not a thing that is applicable to biological beings, it is applicable to other things which become associated with one sex or the other.
Consider the colours green, pink and blue. Two of those are associated with a sex, and therefore are termed ‘gendered’, the other is not and therefore is not. Virtually anything can be gendered – associated with one sex or the other – such as: garments, jobs, personality traits, hobbies, toys, hairstyles… all sorts of shit. These are or are not gendered, based on whether they have become associated with one sex or the other.
Maybe the reason you believed there was tension between my view of sex and my view of gender as a result of not knowing my view of one or both of those…? Hopefully it is resolved now, or at least closer to being resolved. Or, feel free to ask for clarification.
___
#64 Morales
Where did he state or imply that the word was forbidden from natural change? I scanned his posts and saw only a statement as to the current meaning of the word.
How are they being forbidden from competing? I’ve yet to see that position advanced on this blog by a single person.
If we take issue with trans women competing against women, but do not take issue with trans men competing against men, it can’t be animus against them being trans otherwise it would be applied to both, as you note. Therefore… have you considered that that is not the basis of our objection to trans women competing against women?
The person you are replying to even stated the reason, and you quoted it: dimorphism, more commonly called sexual dimorphism. You know, the disparity in size and musculature between the sexes, making many athletics events biased towards the male sex. Splitting the sexes permits the female sex – women – their own competitive environment in which they can have fair races and etc. with their own ladders and such. Letting male developed people – men or trans women – compete against women is unfair to the women due to the bias towards the male body; letting female developed people – women and trans men – compete against men is not unfair to the men as they retain the advantage.
Holmes, enough for now, I think. Don’t want to impose too much here, any more than at Mano’s place, or dominate the conversation. I’ve certainly had my say, and tried to engage. The AMA is over.
Sure, see you next thread or whatever – but it would be great if you took in the explanation regarding sex vs. gender, and the reason behind objecting to trans women in women’s leagues but not trans men in men’s leagues.
@ Joh Morales #48
I think you’ve left this thread, but I’ve been thinking about this and wanted to do a better job explaining.
I’m not referring to trans activism goals, but to the goals of the person themselves. Someone thinks “ I like things and feel things and want to do things that many people believe are only thought, felt, and wanted by the opposite sex. But that doesn’t mean I’m in the ‘ wrong’ sex. It means those people are wrong.” And then they live the way they wish to live. Accept the biology, but reject the gender stereotypes. They don’t need to change ‘who they are;’ they don’t need to change the sex that they and others see them as. They’re both fine.
Perhaps we see the idea of being ‘ trans’ as analogous to a person of color disliking the cultural preferences ascribed to their race and concluding “I must really be white.” Or a white person believing “My identify is black.” And then they go to a cosmetic dermatologist to have the mistake corrected. There is no “ mistake” with their body. The mistake is internalizing stereotypes.
I also think it’s a mistake to consider this view to be more narrow and unaccepting than being ‘ trans-positive’ ( or whatever the term is.)
Sastra @71; very well put.
“Sastra @71; very well put.”
Seconding this, very well stated.
Trans men can compete in sports against men without shoving aside men. There might even be a few cases where they could succeed, though the statistics are against that. Trans men are not pushing to force men’s teams to accept them for reasons – the same reasons, in fact, that we are rejecting the idea that trans women compete against women in women’s sports. The physical differences that accrue to the natal sex of these two groups are the reason, and their gender identity is simply irrelevant. Calling yourself a woman (and even taking estrogen) does not negate the sexually dimorphic differences in the sexes once they’ve passed puberty.
If testosterone were indeed the issue, then transmen would be more prominent in men’s sports.
Sastra @ 71 –
Exactly that. Not conforming to the rules of “gender,” aka gender-nonconforming, aka GNC. The rules of gender are bullshit, and we should be free to ignore and/or flout them. We should be free-er than we are currently. It’s easy for me to walk around in jeans and sweatshirts, it’s not so easy for men to walk around in skirts and Manolos. That part needs a lot of work.
The very few instances I can recall of women wanting to compete in men’s tournaments have focused on whether the women were capable of being competitive, not on whether it was fair to the other competitors (other than in an “I don’t want to hurt a girl” sense). It’s simply not the same set of issues.
@Sastra
What is the reason for you to believe that this is analogous to what a trans person feels ? i.e. why do you feel that the majority of trans people have bought into gender stereotypes and if those stereotypes did not exist then the trans category would not need to exist ?
Deepak – but Sastra didn’t claim to feel that the majority of trans people have bought into gender stereotypes and if those stereotypes did not exist then the trans category would not need to exist. Note the “perhaps” and then the alternative example.
What is the reason for you to believe, if you do, that the majority of trans people have not bought into gender stereotypes?
@Deepak Shetty #77:
It seems plausible that gender stereotypes are involved, but yes, I thought I should check with some actual trans people. A few months ago I asked a hypothetical question at Pharyngula, something like “ if one day all assumptions about gender were eliminated so that the words “ masculine “ and “ feminine” were meaningless to the average person, would some people still be trans?” After making it clear that this is NOT the world as it is, the answer from several sources ( including I think some who claim to be trans) was “ no.”
So that’s one reason. But I’m afraid I don’t remember which post.
[Sastra: https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/11/22/mrpeterlmorris-demands-that-i-explain-gender-and-all-of-biology-to-him/#comment-1978297 – also, response appreciated]
@ John Morales Is A God #80
Whoa. That’s amazing. Either you have first class computer techniques or a memory we need to keep out of enemy hands. Thanks for finding that!
@Deepak Shetty
Okay, here’s an example. Way back in November “Crip Dyke” ( transgender expert and maybe transgender?) kindly answered my hypothetical, and wrote:
And yet, others seemed to disagree:
^ Just another day in that benighted pit of arseholes crafted by PZ’s comment curation.
Sastra, heh.
This was my Google search term:
site:https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ +sastra masculine transgender, then I set the search for ‘last year’ in the search options. Only took a few seconds.So, site-specific, forced term, selected date range.
@John Morales Is Still AGod #84:
Still impressive.
@Ophelia
Sure , Sastra didnt use the word majority- but if only a minority of the trans community are mistakenly trans because they bought into stereotypes then the current problem still exists. The hypothesis only works if thats the majority reason.
Ill note that I didn’t advance any theory as to why trans people are how they are so this challenge is misplaced.
However my views are shaped by the fact that almost everyone I know or have interacted with about this topic , trans people or trans supporters do not buy into any of the stereotypes – it therefore seems implausible to me that these people are unaware of the stereotypes .
@Sastra
Ok. Im not sure how I should interpret all *assumptions* though – Men are assumed smarter /more logical then women – When you say all assumptions are eliminated – that might also mean that there is a definitive answer to that question -Men are smarter, Women are smarter, Both are same.- If the answer happened to be that one gender definitively IS(for whichever question) then would you not expect the same situation as today ?
If on the other hand you mean that individuals are important and their general category(male,female) irrelevant even if there are differences ,on average , between categories , then that means that the categories themselves are meaningless barring say something like medicine.
But that analogy is sort of like saying if no country boundaries existed would we still have immigrants ?
Holly Lawford-Smith wrote an article that begins with a taxonomy of the category ‘transwomen’ containing different kinds of people:
Then, for example, she considers two people seeing two things:
Then she has an opinion:
I agree with her opinion as an example, but more generally, her article helps me see that the claim Trans Women Are Women (TWAW) is a claim about different kinds of people in different kinds of situations, so I can’t see TWAW as just one yes-or-no proposition. I also haven’t seen any analyses to evaluate TWAW on the subsets of the category ‘transwomen’.
TWAW makes less and less sense the more I think about it.
Deepak – sorry your comment got held overnight. I have no idea why it did when your previous one didn’t. Just want to make clear I didn’t ask you a question and then put a hold on your comments.
Yes, that’s what I think too. I’m guessing these are the loudest voices calling for self ID, who will ride the coattails of intersex people and bring up “gotcha” arguments using post-menopausal, or infertile women to argue (in bad faith) against biological definitions of femaleness, saying these descriptions “reduce” women to their genitalia. Then the claim will be made that any “biological” definition will render those using it “biological determinists,” conflating the sexist, biological determinist position that being female automatically and inescapably makes one unfit or incapable of many tasks, jobs or professions, and relegated to particular, culturally defined sex roles and behaviours (gender roles?), with the BIOLOGICAL definition of the female sex, which in and of itself makes no claims whatsoever as to what social roles one may or may not persue or fulfill. Same crew will say that “trans” is just another adjective like “tall” or “black” which, if you reject, means you’re also excluding tall or black women from your feminism. The continued use of refuted, bad faith definitions and arguments makes TRAs much like creationists in that regard.
@Ophelia
I find it sad that my default assumption was that you had put me into moderation (my fault, not yours).
Thank you for clarifying.
It’s a natural assumption to make though and I would make it too.
@Deepak #85:
Yes, you’re right— my hypothetical question assumes that there aren’t inherent biological foundations for things like “ men are smarter and more creative than women; women are gentle followers.” If that were added to the question, then the concept of a male- bodied person having an internal female orientation would steer us towards looking for physical explanations as opposed to cultural. And it would make sense for a trans person to refer to the possibility and answer “ yes, I’d still be trans.”
Which is I think what my question was getting at. If a trans person is not affirming the stereotypes are true and biologically based, then they’re reinforcing cultural stereotypes needlessly. They can both be who they are and love or at least accept the body they’re in.
But you brought up an interesting point: there are apparently trans people who believe they have the internal orientation of the opposite sex, but they reject both biological and cultural foundations for masculinity and femininity ( i.e. my passionate butch/ lesbian trans woman example.) How do I account for them?
I don’t think I can without more information. What exactly is it that makes someone who is, say, biologically male, raised as a boy, attracted to women, and suitably “ masculine” in their pursuits and interests conclude “ But I’m a woman?” And be certain? Maybe you can articulate it. I’m genuinely curious, but suspect they’ve already been there and done that at Pharyngula.
Thanks.
@Sastra
Ill just say that almost everyone on this side(trans-friendly?) is against the stereotypes associated with men/women so we are not opposing the demolition of stereotypes. And if that means that in future there is less reason for people to cross over this disappearing boundary- so be it. However that doesnt answer what should be done now – where such stereo-types exist and where they matter deeply to some people .
The Anti-stereotype(?) side seems to think that actions favoring Trans folk , in some instances are reinforcing the stereotypes or taking some steps backwards for feminism – I dont think thats the case, broadly speaking
Unlikely. I have never had a strong gender identity and I find it difficult to imagine what it means to say I am of a different gender despite that. I’ve approached this topic usually as What is the benefit/harm caused by different approaches proposed or discussed.
Crip Dyke and Mano have a deal in which one will elaborate on Trans topics and Mano will write on Dark Matter and Crip Dyke was taking questions. I have however found some of the stuff difficult to follow because they are semantically heavy and use words differently than my normal speak.
Deepak – it’s not correct to say that everyone who is pro trans ideology is against the stereotypes associated with men/women. That’s one of the main points of contention. If one really thinks gender stereotypes are bullshit there isn’t all that much reason to be trans.
It’s nice that you don’t think that’s the case, but why don’t you think that’s the case? Based on what?
But in any case, it’s not your ox that’s being gored. Feminists dissent from some of the claims of trans dogma because they are in tension with feminism, and because trans activism is absolutely overflowing with hatred of women, disguised as hatred of “TERFs.” A movement that spends 90% of its energy bullying and threatening a subordinate group is not a healthy movement.
#85 Deepak
Not a single trans person or trans supporter you know has bought into any of the gendered stereotypes? Maybe your circle is remarkably freed from acculturation, but are you saying that not a single one of them has let’s say… changed their hairstyle and put on makeup and described that as “exploring their femininity” or similar?
Very minor quibble: if we are talking about the biology of males and females, then I think the highlighted use of the word ‘gender’ should instead be ‘sex’.
As to the point you are making, yes, it would no longer be an assumption in the case that you outline. We would have definitive evidence that men are smarter / women are smarter / men and women are equally smart. Of course getting to that point of research is currently out of reach, as any data we might try to gather on the subject is currently of low quality because at present, social influences abound. Those would need to be eliminated first; whatever is left behind, if there is any trend left at all, can at last be attributed to biology.
Assuming we ever reach that point.
@Ophelia
I didn’t mean everyone – I meant the subset of people , probably loosely associated with the FtB set of blogs that splintered on the trans issue. Who among the set of people who argued with you or the commenters here supported female stereotypes ? (This does not imply any other comment about other aspects of their behavior – some people are too quick too judge on the basis of a few paragraphs, and too quick to act on the basis of that judgement .)
Perhaps. However this view is sort of like – If some gay people think marriage is bullshit then those gay people shouldnt be fighting for equal rights to marry. If I think wearing the burkha is stupid I shouldnt stand up for the right of adult women to wear whatever the heck they want ? Lets get to the world where everyone believes Gender stereotypes are bullshit then we can see about this view. Till that time – the world is as it is and some trans movement is necessary. In an ideal world there wouldnt be any need to label oneself feminist either – yet there is a need to that today.
I am not gay. Nor am I a woman. Nor black. Nor trans. Nor religious. Nor disabled . Nor homeless.
But there are feminists ,who are women, biologically too , who oppose your viewpoint. Now what ?
I dont know about the accuracy of the above statement.
@Holms
Sure – but how many have said that a particular hairstyle or the length of hair or the type of eye shadow is essential to the femininity ? or have called women who dont conform as male ? I think we might be saying 2 different things here – A trans-woman might say when they were forced to act male they had to hide their emotions and now they are free to cry when they are sad which might be what you mean by they conform to stereotypes – but that doesnt mean they think crying is feminine – only that they can do certain things now without the society (that is deeply prejudiced and biased) judging them for it. (made up example).
Note my subset is the non – religious , non – conservative . We dont conform much and we havent ever bought into the stereo-types in general. (The we is the both sides arguing this on 2 threads over 150 posts)
It was posed as a thought experiment by someone else.
Holms:
There’s a distinction between enculturation and inculcation, though all inculcation is enculturation.
(Not really that subtle, either, the distinction, and I see where the rhetorical focus lies)
Deepak Shetty #95 wrote:
Not good analogies, because the inconsistency lies in the individual. It’s more like a gay person who wants society to eliminate marriage eagerly getting married, or a woman who is ideologically opposed to what the burka represents nevertheless choosing to wear a burka. “ I don’t believe there are any innate differences between male and female ways of thinking and feeling, but I’m a woman in a man’s body.” Contradiction.
Deepak Shetty #96 wrote:
If, as they claim, no group is judged more harshly than trans people, then they would be more free to cry as their own sex than when claiming to be the other. Jumping from the frying pan to the fire.
Sastra, you might find this article by Kathleen Stock relevant to your thoughts about gender:
https://medium.com/@kathleenstock/can-you-change-your-gender-7b0c469e0b4b
@ J.A. #99:
Thanks for the link; I registered and read the article. In general, it tracks with my understanding of the varied meanings and nuances of the terms. But I don’t think it really answers my question regarding how trans people can simultaneously reject the idea that women and men should be expected to behave and think differently, and at the same time believe that they behave and think like the opposite sex ( assuming you brought it up hoping it would, which might not be the case.)
Stock defines “ gender-identity” as “a person’s individual feelings of ease, or lack of ease, with their sex, and with the sociocultural expectations placed upon that sex.” It seems to me that if the two are connected, then the trans individual is buying in to the ‘sociocultural expectations placed on the sexes’ ( which is I think another way of saying that men and women should be expected to behave and think differently.)
One form of body dysmorphia involves someone believing that one of their limbs is alien. There was a controversial case recently where a surgeon cut off the healthy leg of a woman with that condition. She did claim to be happier — and so I guess I can make a similar analogy to those virulent cases of trans sexualism. Rather, I could if there wasn’t all the cultural baggage and insistence that “ I really AM a woman/ man.” As far as I know, the leg- free woman never claimed there was a fact of the matter about the leg being genuinely foreign.
Sastra, there’s also this by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper:
https://sexandgenderintro.com/gender/
“But I don’t think it really answers my question regarding how trans people can simultaneously reject the idea that women and men should be expected to behave and think differently, and at the same time believe that they behave and think like the opposite sex…”
Aren’t trans-gender people wanting to *be* the opposite sex, as opposed to behaving and thinking like it? So it’s not gender role-playing but rather self-identification as _being_ the opposite sex. Stock’s article points out how this personal preference runs into the fact that a trans-gender person can’t control how other people perceive them. From Stock’s article:
“To sum up: the answer to the question “Can an individual change their gender?” depends on which of the many different meanings of “gender” is being invoked by the questioner. For two of these — gender as fitting a social role and as gender-identity — the answer is yes, sometimes. (This conclusion doesn’t entail whether these are notions of gender a society should legislate around; that is a separate question). For three of these — gender as sex, as sets of normative stereotypes applied to sex, and as socially-constructed sex — the answer is no.”
@Ophelia #101:
Thanks, I’ll read it.
@ JA #102:
My understanding is that transgender people don’t want to be the opposite sex — to become it — but claim that they already are. Since they’re not appealing to a physical condition like undiscovered testicles or something, wouldn’t it have to be an internal awareness that, in their opinion, they behave and think like someone of the opposite sex does?
If so, it’s that opinion I see as contradicting their other opinion.
@ Sastra #103:
Yes, the problem with self-identification with respect to gender isn’t, as Stock relates, thinking and behaving like the opposite sex. It’s with the claim that said gender identification makes them the opposite sex. This is the dispute when it comes to matters such as waxing, restrooms, or other sex-segregated activities and spaces.
@JA
I think that, as with any controversial issue, the problems come in levels, starting with “that’s not true;” moving on to “that’s not right;” arriving at “fine, then, do what you want just don’t expect me to like it” till it reaches “hey — not that!” Then start over.
@Sastra
I’m all for “wash rinse repeat” when it comes to laundry. The issue here though is whether or not self-identification with respect to gender entitles trans-gender persons to participate in sex-segregated activities (such as sports) or enter sex-segregated spaces (like washrooms).
@Sastra
The gay person’s to be spouse might want it – perhaps adoption/kids is easier with marriage (in the current world) and so on – The world you live in usually doesnt match the ideal world and that can lead to all types of understandable inconsistencies between principles and actions.
I dont understand your point. Being straight (or religious) has its advantages – sometimes people choose to come out (or declare their atheism). Saying that they are now free to do something that they couldnt previously do openly is understandable even though they may have newer or worse issues. Why should it be any different for trans people ? But thats it for now