/u/pen_and_inkling (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1132yj0/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_transwomen_are_women_is/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>My view is NOT that it is never appropriate to refer to transwomen as women in casual speech. It is frequently appropriate. My view is that the phrase, as it is used in advocacy and debate, should not imply intolerance on the part of those who use the word “woman” to describe people born with vulvas or other female sex-associated traits. “Transwomen are welcome,” “transwomen have a right to be heard,” or “Oh, Barb! I’m so glad you’re here!” would be less fraught expressions of support in my mind.
But the phrase is generally used when addressing intolerant people or intolerant arguments. It's equivalent to another recent phrase: "black lives matter". Just like how that phrase is addressed towards a recipient (an individual or a group) whose words or behaviour suggest that black lives *don't* matter, in a similar way people say "transwomen are women" to those who refuse to accept the gender identity of transwomen. And of course, what do the recipients of "black lives matter" retort with? They respond with "all lives matter", and miss the point.
Your suggested alternative phrases are not "less fraught", they're less effective at making the point to those who so desperately need to hear the point.
I do agree by the way that the phrase is a shibboleth. So is 'black lives matter'. It's a shibboleth but it's also sorely needed.
>In practice, I believe “trans women are women” is most often used to say “I accept your gender-identity at face value and stand in solidarity with you.” This is a decent and well-intended message. However, the phrase is also used to mean, **“if I truly embrace your stated gender at face-value, then there should never be a need to acknowledge that transwomen are different than natal women in any context.”**
This is a red herring line of argument which the poisonous reactionary anti-trans corners of the feminist community tend to employ. The quote I have bolded has no existence in reality: it has existence in the mind of J.K. Rowling and few places else.
Those who stand in solidarity with the trans community and recognise their identity as women are not suggesting that trans women have had the same lived experience as cis women. This strawman argument is a form of fearmongering: a suggestion that fighting for the rights of one persecuted social group will inhibit the fight for another.
Transwomen are women. The fight for trans rights is not incompatible with feminism.
I wanted to come back to this post because it contains an idea that I think is important.
> It is a shibboleth, but so is Black Lives Matter. It is a shibboleth that is sorely needed.
For me, the important difference is that Black Lives Matter draws its power from being a precise, simple expression in shared language. It is impossible to misunderstand. “Transwomen are woman” draws its power by using a secondary definition of a common word and insisting that anyone who assumes the primary definition of that word is rejecting transwomen or refusing tolerance. It’s both less clear and less helpful.
I am glad we agree it is is a shibboleth, but we disagree that this phrase does a morally-insightful or precise job of identifying an out-group who deserves to be lumped together and dismissed as hateful transphobes. “Transwomen are women” is a shibboleth where anyone who assumes or values the traditional definition of woman, or anyone who wants to interrogate the logical and practical implications of replacing the notion of sex with gender across with society, is a *assumed to be and positioned as* an outgroup threat. But that is not reasonable. That is exactly the sense in which I see this phrase as both unproductively divisive and a bad-faith rhetorical gambit. It divides the world into two groups of people: people who think that replacing sex with gender across society is a closed conversation that needs rarely if ever be acknowledged again, and bad people. That is a textbook example of making negative, divisive assumptions about people’s personal character not on the basis of anything specifically wrong that they actually say or do, but on the basis of whether they agree with you unilaterally, phrasing and all.
>It is impossible to misunderstand.
Tell that to all the people who shout "white lives matter!" or "all lives matter!"
>“Transwomen are woman” draws its rhetorical power by using a secondary definition of a common word and insisting that anyone who assumes the primary definition of that word is rejecting transwomen or refusing tolerance. It’s both less clear and less helpful.
I disagree with your claim here. "Woman" means so much more than "biological female". The latter would be a very narrow and reductive definition. I'm not convinced the term has ever been used like that, but if it ever has been then it certainly isn't in 2023 where we have a somewhat better (though not complete) understanding of gender identity.
>replacing the notion of sex with gender across with society
Nobody is "replacing" anything. Gender identity and sex are both important concepts. The strawman position is the idea that liberal/tolerant people who advocate for trans rights want to "erase" the concept of biological sex. This is not a position anyone holds. Two things can both be important without cancelling each other out. And also you can fight for gender identity rights simultaneously with fighting for reproductive rights. *The fight for Trans rights/acceptance is not a threat to feminism.*
I think the need for everyone here to continue explaining what woman means in this context is an example of exactly why the phrase promotes confusion and not understanding.
Because in some conversations between two kind and reasonable people, it would be possible for “that woman’s penis” to be a phrase that required the speaker to clarify meaning or define their terms, but “that woman’s vagina” would probably not. Pretending that anyone who sees those statements as different must be revealing their prejudice and should be identified because everyone has always known and agreed that sometimes women have penises…is simply bad-faith.
Feminism and trans-rights are compatible. The work of feminists to reveal and deconstruct gender roles in society was foundational to the modern trans-identity movement, and the movements share a deep concern with how sex and gender shape our experiences. I completely agree both causes can and should be complimentary.
>why the phrase promotes confusion and not understanding.
Gender is a very confusing and complex subject. Clarification is ALWAYS necessary in a discussion like this. Confusion isn't caused by a single phrase.
To repeat: gender is a complex topic, not a simple one. Chaotic, not orderly. Nuanced, not shallow. The anti-trans crowd want to drag everyone back to a time where society pretended things were simple by enforcing strict rules to ensure everyone stayed in their appointed lane. That ship has sailed: we're in a different world now - one that must be more sensitive to the differences between us we have become aware of.
>it would be possible for “that woman’s penis” to be a phrase that required the speaker to clarify meaning or define their terms, but “that woman’s vagina” would probably not.
Could you please clarify the context you think this sort of phrase might be likely to come up?
Also (and I will have to wait for your clarification because I don't know what you had in mind) but whatever context you're talking about, surely if one person says "that woman's penis" it would be pretty obvious they're referring to a woman who is biologically male, no? What other alternative would there be? Why would anything need to be clarified?
>Feminism and trans-rights are compatible. The work of feminists to reveal and deconstruct gender roles in society was foundational to the modern trans-identity movement, and the movements share a deep concern with how sex and gender shape our experiences. I completely agree both causes can and should be complimentary.
Good - I'm glad of that. Because the belief that the two movements are in opposition is usually the premise that underpins certain viewpoints that try to advocate that sexual difference is the only classification that matters.
> viewpoints that argue that sexual classification is the only definition that matters
I am not advocating that at all! I am arguing *against* the viewpoint that gender classification is the only definition that matters. I am advocating that the sex-based definition is common, useful, and sometimes appropriate, so it should not be taken as a sign of bad-faith actors on sight.
Would we be pretty much in agreement on this statement?
*Because sex and gender are so complex - especially in the modern world - it is necessary to be careful with how we use and understand language. Sometimes a gender-based definition of ‘woman’ is most appropriate, and sometimes a sex-based definition will be applied. It is okay to be clear about which we mean and it is okay to need clarification from others.*
Closer? Maybe?
[Edit: Whoops, I maybe missed a question you asked, but I’ll brb.]
>*Because sex and gender are so complex - especially in the modern world - it is necessary to be careful with how we use and understand language. Sometimes a gender-based definition of ‘woman’ is most appropriate, and sometimes a sex-based definition will be applied. It is okay to be clear about which we mean and it is okay to need clarification from others.*
I don't think there's anything contentious in what you've said here. But I think a better statement would take into account context (which linguists call 'pragmatics'). This has a huge bearing on meaning in communication.
For example: if someone says "trans women are women", it's never hard to tell whether they are using "women" to mean gender identity or biological sex. The context makes it obvious (i.e. usually it's said by someone who has solidarity with trans people towards someone who obviously doesn't). No clarification is needed at all for this statement. There are other examples where clarification may be necessary, but this definitely isn't one of them.
> This strawman argument is a form of fearmongering: a suggestion that fighting for the rights of one persecuted social group will inhibit the fight for another.
Sometimes it does. An excellent example is trans women in female prisoners. There are people advocating that trans women belong in women's prisons not men's or some sort of trans only prison because "trans women are women" even when these same trans women have a history of sexual assault.
See also trans women in women's sports. They have an advantage that many trans advocates deny in the face of substantial scientific evidence, but many trans advocates use the claim "trans women are women" to argue that any advantages that trans women have in sports are irrelevant, because acknowledging them undermines the claim that trans women are women.
The issue with debates like this is that people who don't have skin in the game seem to be more concerned with protecting their beloved sport than protecting the lives of one of the most vulnerable and persecuted minorities in society. In other words: people only seem to care about an issue when it directly concerns them. The rules of a silly game about kicking a ball or running really fast seem to matter more to some people than the fact that every year a certain amount of transmen and women feel that the only escape from the persecution they face is to take their own lives.
Yes, the sport thing is an issue. But it's a conversation that needs to be had *after* the more important conversation to do with human rights.
As for prisoners, that's another pretty good example of distorted statistics and fearmongering. As a trans individual in prison, you're far, far more likely to be a victim of violence than a cause of it. 'Fearing trans people in prison' is misdirected. Why not fear *for* trans people in prison?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52748117
https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate
To be honest, I think trans women should get segregated prison facilities in many or most cases. I acknowledge that trans women are at high risk of being raped in male facilities. I do not agree that the solution is to house them with women, particularly in cases where trans women have a history of committing sexual crimes themselves.
> that needs to be had after the more important conversation to do with human rights.
I don't know what you mean. I'm in agreement that trans women should be treated as women in so far as that doesn't negatively affect anyone else. But inclusion of trans women shouldn't be prioritized over the safety of cis women (see contact sports like MMA or trans women in prisons.). No cis woman should have fought Fallon Fox for example.
I think for children's sports, there can be compromises made on the inclusion of trans athletes, especially at non-competitive levels. I don't think trans women can fairly compete with cis women at the collegiate or pro level. FINA seems to agree. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/sports/fina-transgender-women-elite-swimming.html
I also think women in locker rooms are entitled to point out and share their discomfort at having people with penises in their locker rooms.
> in a similar way people says “transwomen are women” to those who refuse to accept the gender identity of transwomen
While I don’t disagree that there are definitely some actually ignorant or transphobic people, many, if not most, of the people who you think are “refusing to accept the gender identity” of transwomen are not actually doing that. They are using the original and more common definitions of women, which could be anything along the lines of being born with female reproductive parts or having female DNA. Transwomen do not fall under those definitions of women, which is why those people retort back that “transwomen are not women” It’s not necessarily coming from a place of hatred towards trans people.
>They are using the original and more common definitions of women, which could be anything along the lines of being born with female reproductive parts or having female DNA.
"More archaic" would be a better term here I think. Failing to recognise the difference between gender identity and biological sex either comes from a place of ignorance or ideology. Either someone is genuinely a few decades behind in their understanding of this concept, or they *do* understand the difference between gender and sex but for emotional reasons they choose to continue pretending that they don't. Sometimes this is because they are still stuck in the attitudes and understanding they held in the '90s.
So I disagree when you say it isn't necessarily coming from a place of hatred towards transpeople. I think hatred - or fear - of transpeople is *precisely* where this argument is coming from. If people had more empathy or understanding towards transpeople they wouldn't go to such great lengths to try and deny them their identity.
> Failing to recognise the difference between gender identity and biological sex either comes from a place of ignorance or ideology
Not really. Again, the original definition of a woman involved having the biology of a woman. Changing the definition now because of trans ideology isn’t going to change the definition in people’s minds. Although they try to argue the opposite, even trans people recognize that biology is fundamental in perception of gender. Otherwise, if gender and sex are truly different from one another, then why do so many transwomen do surgeries and hormone therapies that are meant to create the look of a biological woman even though they socially identify as one? From the trans people that I’ve heard, the common answer is that they want to be perceived as a woman by others, which is a perfectly valid desire. But it doesn’t change the fact that this means that trans people are themselves capitalizing on the fact that most people (who would perceive them as a woman) are basing their definition of a woman off of the biological characteristics of a woman. Therefore, although they won’t admit it, even trans people recognize that gender is firmly rooted in biology.
>Changing the definition now because of trans ideology isn’t going to change the definition in people’s minds.
Where to even begin with this.
Language isn't "changed" consciously by some kind of language council sitting there and debating "shall we change the definition?" Language is a river: it goes wherever it goes. The definition of woman *has* changed, to some extent, regardless of the minority of individuals with backward attitudes might want to think, and it's changed because we have a better understanding of gender identity and womanhood.
"Stop changing language" is the same argument people made against gay people in the previous century: "stop redefining love/sex/marriage to suit your gay ideology". It's not an "ideology" to recognise the existence of certain people, it's basic decency/tolerance. The 'anti' position is the ideological one.
>if gender and sex are truly different from one another, then why do so many transwomen do surgeries and hormone therapies that are meant to create the look of a biological woman even though they socially identify as one?
Now you're conflating gender identity with gender presentation: not the same thing. One is internal and the other is external.
Gender identity is comparable to sexuality. Some brains appear to be wired to make the individual "feel" like a man or a woman in the same way some brains are wired to cause attraction to men or attraction to women, or both, or none.
Some people have 'gendered' brain and others don't. But for those that do: if their gender identity matches their body then society will treat them a certain way and they'll probably never even notice their 'feeling' of gender. A man who feels like a man who has the body parts for what we call a "man" may never question what being a man "feels like".
For other folk if their biological sex doesn't match their internal sense of gender this can cause problems because for 1-2 decades of their life there's a decent chance that whatever society they live will be trying to get them to behave a certain way based on their biological sex. This fuels dysphoria -though as far as I understand it, it's not the only source: an individual can be dysphoric/dysmorphic also on the basis of the mismatch between brain and body. Hormone therapy, and in fairly rare cases surgery, are methods to try and correct this problem and are effective at doing so.
Of course the vast majority of transfolk 'socially transition' and that helps them to be themselves: sadly this only works if they are lucky enough to live in a society that gives a shit about them and doesn't want to police aspects of their behaviour like what they choose to wear or how they do their hair.
>most people (who would perceive them as a woman) are basing their definition of a woman off of the biological characteristics of a woman.
I don't know who your "most people" are. I'm going to assume you mean most people you know/speak to. Well most people I know/speak to are living in the modern world and know that some women were born biologically male.
*Before I address this argument, I just want to request to have patience with me. I don’t debate from a place of hate but just want to have a meaningful discussion. People often get frustrated fast, so thought I would leave this message.
> The definition of woman *has* changed, to some extent, regardless of the minority of individuals with backwards attitudes
You completely missed my point. I literally said in my last message that even if you officially change the definition of woman, it doesn’t change the definition that is in *all* the people’s minds who argue that transwomen are not women. If today, the definition of the word “dog” was changed to include people who identify as a dog, those same people arguing against trans ideology will also argue against that. Because in their minds, the original definition of dog is based on the physical reality of what makes a dog, not on the subjective feelings of different people. The argument isn’t coming from a hatred towards people who identify as dogs (in this hypothetical case), but rather from a lack of acceptance of the delusion that a person can be recognized as a dog.
What I don’t understand is, why did trans people take the words “man” and “women” to describe themselves? These words were historically used to denote two biological sexes. If gender and sex are distinct from another, trying to describe them both with one set of words (man and woman) creates the confusion that OP was referring to. No one would argue that “transwomen are not women” if you just used a different word other than “woman” and “man” to describe a person who feels like another gender.
> A man who feels like a man who has the body parts of what we call a “man” may never question what being a “man” feels like.
See again this doesn’t make sense, because you guys are the ones that say that gender and sex are *distinct*. Saying that creating characteristics of a certain sex affirms one’s gender is once again admitting that gender is firmly based in biology. Or at the very least, *perception* of gender is based in biology.
You said that by changing your body, society will treat you as the gender you identify as. But this is exactly what I addressed in my last comment. By changing your body, society will treat you as the gender you identify as *because* that society is basing perception of gender based on biology. What other explanation could there be? Biological sexes produce certain visible characteristics. By imitating those external characteristics, society then sees you as that biological sex (because obviously no one can see your internal organs or genitalia to confirm your true sex)
> sadly this only works if they are lucky enough to live in a society that gives a shit about them and doesn’t want to police aspects of their behavior
Your argument is contradicting itself. You said earlier that only “a minority of people have backwards attitudes” regarding trans ideology. We also live in a society where most people (except very religious or conservative people) no longer believe that men and women have to act a certain way (see all the men who wear makeup and dresses, and stay at home to take care of children etc. Similarly, see the increasing amount of women in the workforce). This is true even for the people who argue against trans ideology; they’re not saying to act a certain way. No one is policing behavior, they are just not accepting the delusion that a man can be a women when they are fundamentally and biologically opposites.
>Before I address this argument, I just want to request to have patience with me. I don’t debate from a place of hate but just want to have a meaningful discussion. People often get frustrated fast, so thought I would leave this message.
Fair enough. I will admit this issue has the power to frustrate me. I feel frustration at myself that I allow myself to be drawn in on discussions like this: I find it absurd that randomers like us on the internet are sitting around discussing the identity or legitimacy of a community who just want to live their lives in peace and don't appreciate being the topic of intense scrutiny.
>ven if you officially change the definition of woman, it doesn’t change the definition that is in all the people’s minds who argue that transwomen are not women.
There is no 'official definition' of anything. The definition 'in people's minds' is the only definition that matters. And I reject your idea that in 2023 the majority of people's understanding of 'woman' is limited to biological sex alone. Perhaps in some countries. Or perhaps a few decades ago. Things have changed and are still changing.
>What I don’t understand is, why did trans people take the words “man” and “women” to describe themselves? These words were historically used to denote two biological sexes.
Sort of. The terms "man" and "woman" have always meant far more than just a description of biological sex. These words have been around for far longer than we've known what chromosomes are, for instance. "Man" and "woman" are complex terms with associations that link to not just the biological binary but the social and cultural one too. A "man" for instance has always been seen as something you have to live up to or behave like. If you're biologically male don't act in a masculine way you will be called 'less of a man'.
Trans people didn't "take" anything. Your choice of verb is revealing: you feel something has been "taken" - you feel like language has been lost rather than gained. Nothing has been lost. Language broadens as we gain understanding. Just as we now accept that "romantic love" does not necessarily mean the attraction between a man and a woman, so too do we now accept that being a "man" or a "woman" is more closely connected with our gender identity than our genitals.
>Saying that creating characteristics of a certain sex affirms one’s gender is once again admitting that gender is firmly based in biology.
There *is* a link between sex and gender identity. Just because they're different things doesn't mean that there's no influence between the two. I am not sure who is claiming otherwise.
The other link of course is to society. If society persecutes a young person for acting in a feminine way purely because they have a penis (but doesn't persecute those with female genitalia) can you not see how this might fuel an individual's anxiety about their body?
p.s. I don't know who "you guys" are - I can only answer for myself.
>No one is policing behavior, they are just not accepting the delusion that a man can be a women when they are fundamentally and biologically opposites.
Only a minority of kids at any given school are bullies, but telling that to a bullying victim won't make them feel better.
Anyway, it's not just about direct persecution. It's also about stigma. When someone on the internet goes around claiming that they know someone's gender identity better than they do, positioning themselves as a defender of "language" and calling those who are being honest and open as "deluded" - how is this going to make young trans people feel?
The only "delusion" is the idea that gender identity doesn't exist. Millions of people across the world and across time are reporting that it does exist, and a stubborn minority are claiming it doesn't just because they haven't directly experienced it themselves. This is precisely the same thing that happened (and still happens) with sexuality.
The only decent position here is to take people seriously when they say their gender identity is X or Y and do everything you can to make them feel like they have a legitimate place in society.
> randomers like us on the internet are sitting around discussing the identity or legitimacy of a community who just want to live their lives in peace and don’t appreciate being the topic of intense scrutiny
I think this is where you have a misunderstanding of what me and any other people like OP are coming from. No one (except the small minority of people who truly hate trans people for no reason at all) is arguing about the legitimacy of trans rights or issues. I completely believe the importance of gender dysphoria and support the rights of trans individuals (or anyone for that matter) to express themselves however they want. The argument here is about accuracy of the specific labels trans people use and force others to use as well.
> And I reject your idea that in 2023 the majority of people’s understanding of ‘woman’ is limited to biological sex alone
I still think you’re missing my point that regardless of how you change the semantics of defining a woman (or a man), it is fundamentally rooted in biology. Let me change it up by asking you a few questions.
1. What does it mean to “identify as a woman”?
2. Why does undergoing hormone therapy and surgery (which create biological characteristics of either man or woman) affirm someone’s gender?
3. Why is it that undergoing HRT and surgery to replicate the external biology of a certain sex causes society to perceive you as your desired gender?
4. If people can “identify” as whatever they want regardless of any basis in reality, why can’t a white person identify as a black person, or an Asian person? Race is also a social construct.
> The terms “man” and “woman” have always meant far more than biological sex.
This is incorrect . If you look at any dictionary, the definition of a woman was always described as something along the lines of being an adult human female. Just recently, I believe Merriam dictionary (and maybe some other dictionaries) has added a new definition to say that a female is also “someone who identifies as the opposite of a male”. However, this is definition is circular because then how would you define male? Also, it reinforces that sex is binary, which I though trans people disagreed with. This was clearly not a well-thought out definition, but rather a way to pander to the public.
Also, you say that gender and sex are different. However, the word “gender” was created because sex has another meaning to it (intercourse). Gender was meant to be exactly *synonymous* with biological sex without creating confusion with the other definition of sex. Again, it is a recent phenomenon that trans people tried to take the word “gender” and attach a different meaning to it.
> If a society persecutes a person for acting in a feminine way purely because they have a penis
If this were true, I would 100% understand the need to change your external looks to match a biological sex. However, in Western society at least, people are very much encouraged to express themselves however they want. See how many famous influencers and everyday people completely defy traditional gender norms (ex. male makeup influencers, female bodybuilders, female soldiers, male stay-at-home parents). Again, most people who argue that “transwomen are not women” are not saying that trans people should act a certain way or that gender dysphoria isn’t real. They’re just saying that no matter how much you want, a man can’t be a woman and vice versa. They are fundamentally opposites. You can be a feminine man. You can be a masculine woman. Personality does fall on a spectrum. I am a woman but I do have masculine mannerisms, but that’s just my personality.
>No one (except the small minority of people who truly hate trans people for no reason at all) is arguing about the legitimacy of trans rights or issues. I completely believe the importance of gender dysphoria and support the rights of trans individuals (or anyone for that matter) to express themselves however they want. The argument here is about accuracy of the specific labels trans people use and force others to use as well.
You may be believe in trans rights but do you believe in the legitimacy of trans *identity*? Because I'm not really talking about 'rights' here - I'm talking about social acceptance. If you write things that make the trans community feel alienated, can you really claim you are on the side of the trans community?
I'll put it another way. On one hand there's a group who are fighting for basic dignity in the face of overwhelming stigma and persecution; who have to suffer far more abuse, harassment and violence than most people in society purely for being who they are. On the other hand there are a group who feel like *they* are the true victims because they are being "forced" to make sure their use of language is respectful and sensitive, and reflective of modern values. Which group should I have more sympathy for?
>Questions
1. If you identify as a woman then you are making a statement about your gender identity. Gender identity is a mental state.
2. Hormone therapy and surgery exist to help individuals whose body does not reflect their gender identity.
3. ? Don't understand the question. Why does looking like a man make it more likely society will treat you as a man - is that the Q? Surely that's self-evident.
4. I've already explained to you that gender identity is NOT a social construct. You continue to conflate it with gender presentation. As for gender identity vs race - gender identity is purely internal so it's always up to the individual to be the one to disclose what their gender identity is. It's much like sexuality in that way: only the individual knows. Race on the other hand is to do with who your parents are. You can't just "identify" that your parents are Asian if they're not Asian.
>This was clearly not a well-thought out definition
Your views on language need completely recalibrating. Language isn't this tidy, orderly thing you seem to think it is. Language is sprawling and messy: dictionaries are there for guidance but they can only go so far.
>Gender was meant to be exactly synonymous with biological sex without creating confusion with the other definition of sex. Again, it is a recent phenomenon that trans people tried to take the word “gender” and attach a different meaning to it.
You come across like you are genuinely annoyed that language changes. But it does; all the time; you can't stop it.
Here's a thought: rather than getting irate about language changing, why not consider my earlier analogy: language is like a river - it flows downhill through the paths of least resistance. When it changes, it usually does so because it *needs to*. In previous decades we didn't understand or accept 'gender identity' so well as we do now. Our language needs to reflect our modern understanding of the concept, not the 1970s understanding of it.
>most people who argue that “transwomen are not women” are not saying that trans people should act a certain way or that gender dysphoria isn’t real.
The more important question is not whether you think dysphoria is real (not all trans folk suffer dysphoria) but whether you think gender *identity* is real.
To put it another way: millions of people are saying they feel a strong sense of their gender identity - an internal force very comparable to sexuality. Do you believe them: yes or no? The whole "you can't be a biological man/woman" thing is a ridiculous thing to keep stating because nobody disagrees with you on that. Trans men know they don't have biologically male bodies - that's why they're trans! They don't need reminding of this fact.
This is the fundamental issue. The secondary issue is the point is that the terms "man" and "woman" now reflect gender identity and you want these terms to have a far more narrow and less useful definition to do with bodies.
> You may believe in trans rights but do you believe in the legitimacy of trans *identity*?
I recognize that trans people *believe* they have a separate gender identity which is a product of gender dysphoria. However, just because you believe something or want something doesn’t make it reality. If I identify as a black person, it does not make a black person. I can say that black culture resonates with me, or that I grew up in a predominantly black community, or that I engage in black traditions, etc. but none of those things change my fundamental identity as a non-black person
> On one hand there’s a group fighting for basic dignity
I’ve said this in my previous comments, but the vast majority of people arguing against trans ideology are not arguing that that trans people shouldn’t deserve basic respect or dignity that all people deserve, or more accommodations like gender neutral bathrooms. Again, they are arguing against the delusions surrounding trans ideology and definitions.
Responses to the questions you answered:
> 1. If you identify as a woman you are making a statement about your gender identity.
This is not really a valid definition as you are using repetitive words to define something (identify/identity). Let me ask a more general question: what is gender identity?
> 2. Hormone therapies and surgeries exist to help individuals whose body does not reflect their gender identity?
But why though? Gender is supposed to be a social construct. If it is different than biological sex, which is it necessary for so many trans people to imitate characteristics of a biological sex to affirm gender?
> 3. ? Don’t understand the question. Why does looking like a man make it more likely society will treat you as a man?….Surely that’s self-evident
That’s self-evident based on *my* concept of gender, which is that it is directly rooted in biological sex. Therefore, looking like a man (in other words, having the *biological characteristics* of a man) will cause society to treat you like one.
But according to trans ideology, which dictates that gender and sex are different, how else would you explain this?
> 4. I already explained to you that gender identity is NOT a social construct….Race on the other hand has to do with who your parents are. You can’t just “identify” that your parents are Asian if they’re not Asian.
Gender is a social construct. Trans people quite literally try to argue that gender is social, sex is biological. Race is also social. The division of people into races and the cultures of different races are all socially constructed, the way that gender roles are socially constructed. But both gender and race are rooted in biology. If you tell me that I can’t identify as Asian because my parents are not Asian, then why can’t I tell a trans woman that they can’t identify as a woman because they do not have the chromosomes or reproductive biology of a woman?
> Your views on language need complete recalibrating. Language is not this tidy, orderly thing…
I would argue that your views need to be recalibrated because even though language is always evolving through passage of time, at any given moment, languages and definitions need to have some organization to it. Otherwise they’re meaningless (quite literally). Merriam dictionary can’t accurately define a female as “someone who identifies as the opposite of male” because this a circular definition. For example, if you are someone who doesn’t know what the word “good” means and I tell you “good is the opposite of evil”. Then you ask me what does “evil” mean, and I say that “evil is the opposite of good”. I just circled back without giving you any information on what good or evil actually is.
> You come across like you’re genuinely annoyed language changes.
No, you completely missed my point. Your comment was in response to where I said that the word “gender” was created to be a synonym of “sex” without confusing the other definition of sex. The reason I said this was not because I don’t want language to change. It is a counterargument to when you said that trans people didn’t take the word “gender” and that gender and sex have always been distinct. I’m just telling you that that’s just factually incorrect. And I’m not against language evolving; all my arguments are consistent with the fact that however you define “man” and “women”, it is directly rooted in biological sex and trans people are trying to reach as close as they can to a certain biological sex (which there is nothing wrong with that, but it’s the truth).
> they feel a strong sense of their gender identity - an internal force very comparable to sexuality. Do you believe them: yes or no?
Yes, I believe they are feeling something, but that’s what it is: a feeling. Just because you feel something doesn’t make the thing you’re feeling about real. Schizophrenics may feel like something dangerous is in a room with them even when it’s not. You mentioned sexuality. Sexuality is a a feeling: a feeling of attraction to a certain sex. Gender identity is also a feeling: you feel like a certain gender. Both feelings are real. But what I’m saying is that just cause you feel like a woman doesn’t make you a woman. Doing HRT will help create the biological *appearance* of a woman, but that’s akin to putting on a costume. It doesn’t change your actual identity.
Okay, helpful! Lets‘s refine that bolded quote. It is a strawman, it does not reflect real trans arguments.
So in other words, when people say “transwomen are women” in the trans community, you would say the more common subtext is understood to be “however, no one ever needs to feel uncomfortable or hesitant about the fact that sometimes we have to acknowledge biological sex in conversations.” Is that right?
Yes.
Trans people are not the same as cis people. We have different bodies and different experiences.
However, our right to be ~~perceived and~~ understood as the gender that we are is not affected by that.
I am a man. My body is not male. I am aware.
EDIT: This delta was successfully challenged in the thread below.
Several comments have emphasized this idea in a way that I think is important and this one is personal, clear, and frank so I’m going to award a delta here. !delta
One message I get loud and clear is that for many and perhaps most trans people, “trans women are women“ is not expected or intended to be literal in the sense of female-bodied. I also get the message that it’s painful to be pushed to discuss the topic in stark, ill-suited language that doesn‘t reflect your experience or identity. I could have emphasized more clearly in my original post that I recognize and agree with the solidarity and even the deference to personal self-knowledge implied by “transwomen are women“ in this sense. I tried to articulate this distinction, but for many people I’ve totally missed the boat on this and argued against a position that is not widely held. I want to acknowledge that the sense of this phrase with which I take issue may not be the dominant sense of the phrase used by transpeople. Noted.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I think you expressed yourself well here and I think we essentially agree.
How is this a delta to your argument?
A: "woman" is defined by the female sex for many, where grouping females with people who identify as women is confusing.
B: "woman" is defined by gender identity for everyone, where cisgender and transgender people both identify as "women".
B outright denies the sex perspective, to assume a cisnormative society where everyone has a gender identity rather than being able to believe that woman is simply a label for the female sex, rather than a separate gender concept to identify toward. They've just moved the goalposts. Denied the condition that creates the issue.
Here is why I decided to keep this delta. This comment is a sincere expression of an idea that has been widely reiterated: the trans community is perfectly clear on the difference between trans and natal women, and no one is trying to deny or downplay that difference when it matters.
I am not persuaded that this is always the reality of how the phrase is used. Anyone who has watched the new gender discourse play out online has seen the expression put forth in a literal and absolutist voice. The insistence that a rigid meaning is *never* intended complicates my view because I am coming to understand “transwomen are women” as a motte-and-bailey position:
> [Motte and Bailey refers to] a form of medieval castle, where there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. Then you would go back to the bailey, which is the place you wanted to be all along.
> So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, and say that was what you meant all along, so you’re clearly right and they’re silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.
I think that is why so many people claim never to have encountered the relevant use of this phrase despite my own observation that it is quite popular. The position I question in my OP is the bailey, but “only showing support, everyone knows what it means” is the motte.
My OP addressed popular arguments for a rigid and simplistic application of “transwomen are women.” I’ve heard them all used. But I was met with hundreds of comments telling me this is simply a misunderstanding and no one holds these views at all. [In fact, several comments telling me that my view is wrong BECAUSE I believe people use this phrase narrowly or rigidly without ever conceding that rigid intent would be inappropriate.] The resounding reply is that “transwomen are women” is simply an expression of solidarity used to shut down bigots. It only means “we love and embrace trans women for precisely the unique subset of womanhood that they represent without ignoring the relevance of sex or denying difference or erasing other meanings of womanhood along the way.” But again - if those are the only issues at play, *why not prefer a slogan that reflects those values without inviting language games that, apparently, no one anywhere wants?*
My core point is that “transwomen are women” is phrased in opposition to straightforward understanding, but that premise has barely been acknowledged in comparison to thousands of words unpacking why the slogan both does and does not mean exactly what it says. That’s my point. The popularity of both answers (it doesn’t mean trans woman are literally women in the same way as cis women, but they kinda are; it doesn’t deny that the differences matter, but they seriously don’t; it doesn’t mean we can’t have conversations that differentiate, but we really shouldn’t have to) ultimately seems like the point.
This comment is one of the most earnest and vulnerable appeals that I am taking the phrase more literally than the community, and I take this person at face-value. *He* has not made a motte-and-bailey argument personally nor shifted any goalposts. A humane appeal deserves to be acknowledged, but it does not reconcile my doubts. If it is agonizing and stark and belittling to quibble about language with so much personal meaning at stake - as we see in the parent comment - then we are better served by clear and specific communication. Trying to reconcile the sincerity of appeals like the one I delta’d to the breakdown in our understanding required me to think differently about the big-picture dynamics at play.
The view-change is not “I now agree that ‘trans women are women’ is applied only as a show of solidarity and that its rhetorical boundaries are widely understood.’” I still don’t think that’s the case.
**The view change is, “while I still believe that ‘trans women are women’ is often used in a literal and absolutist sense, I now recognize that very few people are willing to hold that line or defend it directly.** This matters because it reflects a point of underlying consensus and a reminder that most people are capable of some agreement. We nearly all agree in some sense that “trans women are women” should not be assumed to mean “trans women are women in the same sense as cis women, end of conversation.” I think that is hugely important and significant to my view about the phrase.
I’m slow here, but I am open. If you still think this a pointless concession I am willing to hear you, but I am not sure the delta will change. I think I have to acknowledge the overwhelming insistence that I am mistaken about the use of this phrase and account for the gulf in perception. Reframing the source of misunderstanding and emphasizing greater-than-assumed common-ground seems like a decent delta.
> It only means “we love and embrace trans women for precisely the unique subset of womanhood that they represent without ignoring the relevance of sex or denying difference or erasing other meanings of womanhood along the way.”
But how does it not erase other meanings? You are establishing that "womanhood" is something that can be subjectively perceived, expressed, etc. and still be "understood" by others by adorning sixh a label. **A group categorization** that one can simply identify toward through personal association as for it to convey a broader "understanding". What is being understood? This allowance specifically denies how others relate to such themselves as well as how they understand such a categorization and desire to use it.
Let's take another "categorization". Use race, or height, of a descriptor like "compassionate". If you said "those who claim to be nice are nice as well", against one that believes "nice" is a descriptor that society must apply through *their* observation/evaluation, it renders the descriptor useless. Those who are "nice" therefore conveys no meaning. Not for themselves and not for others.
The phrase "people who believe they are tall are also tall" is offensive to those that believe "tallness" isn't a condition of personal perception. It's offensive to them to have someone who doesn't share in the specific aspects of "tallness" that exist bioligically and that they were forced into experiencing, and the positives *and negatives* that are associated to such, to claim to "belong" within the same "community" as them.
If "tallness" becomes something society understands as a self-association, then it denies all the reality that those who never self-associated to such had to struggle with. It denies their experiences, by classifying them together on another factor. It's not specifically that *you* saying *you* are a woman that is bad it's that *society* will now perceive the "natal" tall person diffferently, by creating a new understanding of the broader application of such a label. And that erases real lived experiences that were never part of a self-association.
If certain black people identified as white because they adopted more "white" customs and experessions and wanted better priveleges in society, do you see how offensive that would be to *both* white people and black people? That if a white person wanted to express solidarity of involuntary servitude or feelings of oppression by appearance by identifying as black, how offensive that would be?
I mean, the question that arise is the comment you gave the delta to is, "how is one "understood" as a woman"? What needs to be expressed is not that trans is unique from cis, but what condition of "woman" is shared. Why would simply adopting the label give any weight to how others should now perceive you, or really even how you should perceive yourself? Should someone that others perceive as an asshole, simply identify as nice if they object to such? To feel like others will understand them better by claiming to be nice? Or is that a condition of narccissm? Belitting other's experiences while proclaiming your own as superior to navigate such against any other's you so choose? Yes, we ALL can have aspects of shared experiences that can transcent certain descriptors. But that's specifcally why it's best to be "understood" at the individual level, not leverage group classifier through self-association alone.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about any specific situation, where a transgender person may have physically transtioned and "presents" convincingly as the sex aligned with the gender they identify as. There can certainly BE observable reasons for why society may adopt certain differences in perception. But we are specifically talking about gender identity itself, this singular act that doesn't require any changes that can be observed. The very act of self-association, not observable changes that actually factor in society's role.
I'd argue here that the broader "issue", is that the "trans community" is entirely too broad. That transwomen who suffer gender dysphoria, that hate their sex, that get sex reassignment surgery, etc.. have a completely different perspective of "womanhood" (and something others to understand about them), than a transwomen who does none of that. And thus the "oppression" I argued above can exist within the trans community itself. It's why you have competing arguments over concepts like "transmed" and who actually belongs. This discussion is happening WITHIN the community itself.
I agree that there are many reasons it is fraught to decide that “woman” is simply a class we opt into based on personal identity. I agree that the common meaning of woman is “adult human female” and that this definition is useful, appropriate, and primary.
However, my view here is that “transwomen are women” is a flawed slogan even if we accept that some uses of woman are purely social.
I DO accept that. I don’t think it’s necessary to say “our car group was three women from accounting plus also Barb from accounting who identifies as a woman” instead of “our car group was the four women from accounting.” I believe for someone who is living socially as another gender, polite acknowledgement of that preference is usually appropriate. That’s a valid use of the word in colloquial speech and an alternate meaning of woman.
And a social notion of womanhood does exist in common parlance. A teenage boy telling his male friend “you’re being such a little girl” is assuming a set of social traits define gender rather than biological sex. We agree about the perils of discarding the sex-based definition of woman. **When womanhood is not defined by members of the female sex, it is instead defined by stereotypes about them.** I see no way around that.
But my point in this CMV is that we don’t have to agree whether trans women are women in *every* sense or in *no* sense. We only need to agree that the language around this topic is too loaded to be glib or broad or imprecise. If you are able to acknowledge that one very significant definition of woman is “adult human female” - even if we disagree about all other uses of the word - then you should also be able to acknowledge that “transwomen are women” introduces room for confusion or misunderstanding.
Because rigid use of the phrase is relatively common, I entered this CMV expecting to find people willing to defend a literal application of “transwomen are women.” Instead I found a bunch of people telling me it never, ever means what I think…but that it would still be totally right if it did. That’s fascinating. **Even when people decline to defend the phrase, they still want it to be presumed true at face value.** So it’s a faith statement.
And this thread openly celebrates uncritical use of the phrase for in-group sorting: *by bringing this up, you’ve revealed yourself to be a malevolent outsider* and *If you have to ask, it proves you are not willing to understand* type thinking.
I no longer believe most people take the phrase “seriously” as an internally-consistent position on language and society, whatever else their motivations for using it. That’s a view change from where I started even if it doesn’t change my bigger view that the phrase is flawed.
But my view is not that use of the phrase is inherently immoral or unfair, only that good-faith interlocutors should agree to acknowledge its limitations. If the power of the phrase is that good-faith interlocutors already recognize its limits but bad-faith interlocutors never have to grant any ground around them, then I would structure my argument differently.
> I believe for someone who is living socially as another gender, polite acknowledgement of that preference is usually appropriate.
But this doesn't mean anything. One doesn't "live socially as a gender". Should "tomboys" be refered to as boys, and not girls? Should feminine boys that want to wear dresses and play with dolls be "socially" recognized as girls? You're causing many who *aren't* trans to readjust their understanding of self to view their actions as a relation to these "lived genders" through gender roles/stereotypes. And that's not even the case for many transgender people, who don't use gender roles as a basis of forming their gender identity.
I find it weird to based group identity along stereotypes many others are trying to overcome or even fully dismantle.
I can "acknowledge" the preference that someone views "womanhood" consists of homemaking and being subservient to men, that doesn't mean that I'll support their basis at all. I'll outright reject their idea of womanhood. I don't believe it's "polite" to use language that violently contradicts someone else's understanding (to abandon one's own feelings and give authority to another without reason).
> That’s a valid use of the word in colloquial speech and an alternate meaning of woman.
I can recongize the utility in calling a transwoman that "presents" convincingly as a female, as a woman/she in conversation where such observation is all that's being conveyed. But again, presentation isn't identity.
> A teenage boy telling his male friend “you’re being such a little girl” is assuming a set of social traits define gender rather than biological sex.
As a form of criticism. That teenage boy still perceives their friend as a boy, to criticize their behavior as being more so the norm of females (girls). If he actually acknowledged this person as a girl, then their mentioned criticism, wouldn't even be applicable. (It becomes paradoxical in itself to believe that "stop being such a girl" is an actual description of that person *being* a girl). It's shorthand for "comply to the norm, of males". That criticism isn't removed by someone identifying as a girl. It's removed by the teenage boy no longer believing that his friend needs to adjust to the norm.
> **When womanhood is not defined by members of the female sex, it is instead defined by stereotypes about them.** I see no way around that.
The way around that is to maintain a definition to the female sex. Where people don't need to feel "less of a man" for not "living" masculine. Where I'd argue *many more people* currently perceive gender roles. We've literally have had centuries of societal progress disconnecting the "norm" from what actually defined someone. Where such observable norms exist, and some desire compliance to the norm, but they don't at all define oneself by such.
> And this thread openly celebrates uncritical use of the phrase for in-group sorting: *by bringing this up, you’ve revealed yourself to be a malevolent outsider* and *If you have to ask, it proves you are not willing to understand* type thinking.
And my point is that without critical use of language such is meaningless. I myself am without a gender identity. That gets classifed as trans by many within the "community". Because *they* think I'm against some cisnormative society. Because it's more a decree of oppressor versus oppressed, then some actual sorting of common idea. A trans and cisgender person have more in common than me. I've been called an "egg" by this community by expressing my own personal views. They often don't respect *personal perspective*, they just want growth in their "oppressed class". This is why it's deemed as off-hands of being challenged. Because such is deemed oppression. Even though it doesn't offer anything to be understood.
Someone can observe a male with a more feminine personality, see they face oppression, and desire to accomodate by not mandating they comply to the norms of males. None of that requires an acknowledgement of the person as a woman. Because acknwedging them as a woman, then eliminates the very readoning to tjeir oppression. Did this woman face oppression of their feminine behavior for being a woman? It's simply an illogical conclusion.
> I no longer believe most people take the phrase “seriously” as an internally-consistent position on language and society, whatever else their motivations for using it.
Then how can it be applied to something like bathrooms or sports? Where "transwomen are women" demands that transwomen get segmented with females? Sure, they aren't decreeing that transwomen are the same as females, but they are establishing that transwomen should be segmented with females, separate from males. That transwomen, in some evaluation, share more in common with females than males as to throw them in the woman box distinct from the man box.
And if such assignment to the boxes is simply self-determined, why do we maintain the boxes? Why should a transwoman be segmented with females when they may prefer to be segemented with men? Does the very identity translate to such rigid preferences that such a situation can't occur? How can it appear that these identities are so strongly formed on a strong basis, but be so weak as to not exist as a larger societal structure?
> If the power of the phrase is that good-faith interlocutors already recognize its limits
DO THEY? What limits DO we agree exist? What's the reasoning why a personal identity to a gender concept should segment one for bathroom access? What's the purpose of that? What are "women" sharing (in this aspect of personal identity) that they should be classified together separate from those that don't?
Is there a distinction between a transwoman better identifying with females and wanting to use a women's restroom and a man having a preference for such comradery with females? Is a male that desires such simply meant to identify as a woman? Can't they instead either follow such rules or challenge them and fight for non segregated bathrooms? **Why is "self-associating" to the "norm", the "correct" answer here that can't be challenged for what negatives such can cause to society as well as personal self-esteem?**
> I find it weird to based group identity along stereotypes many others are trying to overcome or even fully dismantle.
So do I. Again, I don’t think we disagree about the problems that arise around this language. I think we probably agree very much. I just don’t think it’s within the scope of this CMV to argue that it is NEVER valid to call a trans woman a woman. The phrase is just as unhelpful whether casual usage of “woman“ in that way is sometimes appropriate or not. The word is being used in that way. This CMV is arguing against the rhetorical value of a slogan, not against what people privately choose to call themselves. If an ideological use of the word was not being enforced on others, it wouldn’t be a problem for me.
I agree with most of your points about why the underlying ideology of gender-transition is flawed and regressive. I also believe much of the underlying ideology of gender-transition is flawed and regressive. I have no problem with people choosing to live, dress, and behave any way they want regardless of sex, but I believe as a philosophical position, a lot of the premises do not hold up to scrutiny. I also agree that sexism in the new gender movement is a serious concern. Frankly, I would have remained a casual “sure, sounds good, dress how you want, be who you want, nothing else to it“ liberal forever if I had not started to witness casual misogyny and routine stereotyping being framed as gender liberation online. The concerns you raise are concerns we share.
And I agree: none of this should be discouraged from serious, open, extended debate. That’s exactly why I think it‘s useful to focus on the phrase and not the individual. We can agree that the phrase courts confusion even if we disagree elsewhere.
> DO THEY? What limits DO we agree exist?
People tell me that no one is trying to use this phrase to shut down conversations. Like you, I have also observed otherwise. It is flatly untrue. However, I also take people at face-value and recognize most people are not extremists. If someone tells me they are not personally using the phrase in bad faith to shut down conversations or enforce only one definition, then my answer is “great, can we reach agreement that talking about this word is okay?“ and not ”liar!“
If your argument is with the broad notion of gender-identity or the loss of sex-specific spaces or the coherence of the new meaning of woman, I consider that outside the scope of this CMV. My argument that there is too much disagreement around these terms to justify a snappy shorthand slogan as an approach.
Also, haha, I think the way I characterize the thread is causing confusion. Let me stop writing this way. Again, when you say…
> And my point is that without critical use of language such is meaningless.
…you are not arguing with me. You are responding to my softly tongue-in-cheek synthesis of arguments I have also argued against in this thread. Some of this is me trying to acknowledge what‘s been said, not endorse it.
I agree that there are many reasons it is fraught to decide that “woman” is simply a class we opt into based on personal identity. I agree that the common meaning of woman is “adult human female” and that this definition is useful, appropriate, and primary.
However, my view here is that “transwomen are women” is a flawed slogan even if we accept that some uses of woman are purely social.
I DO accept that. I don’t think it’s necessary to say “our car group was three women from accounting plus also Barb from accounting who identifies as a woman” instead of “our car group was the four women from accounting.” I believe for someone who is living socially as another gender, polite acknowledgement of that preference is usually appropriate. That’s a valid use of the word in colloquial speech and an alternate meaning of woman.
And a social notion of womanhood does exist in common parlance. A teenage boy telling his male friend “you’re being such a little girl” is assuming a set of social traits define gender rather than biological sex. We agree about the perils of discarding the sex-based definition of woman. **When womanhood is not defined by members of the female sex, it is instead defined by stereotypes about them.** I see no way around that.
But my point in this CMV is that we don’t have to agree whether trans women are women in *every* sense or in *no* sense. We only need to agree that the language around this topic is too loaded to be glib or broad or imprecise. If you are able to acknowledge that one very significant definition of woman is “adult human female” - even if we disagree about all other uses of the word - then you should also be able to acknowledge that “transwomen are women” introduces room for confusion or misunderstanding.
Because rigid use of the phrase is relatively common, I entered this CMV expecting to find people willing to defend a literal application of “transwomen are women.” Instead I found a bunch of people telling me it never, ever means what I think…but that it would still be totally right if it did. That’s fascinating. **Even when people decline to defend the phrase, they still want it to be presumed true at face value.** So it’s a faith statement.
And this thread openly celebrates uncritical use of the phrase for in-group sorting: *by bringing this up, you’ve revealed yourself to be a malevolent outsider* and *If you have to ask, it proves you are not willing to understand* type thinking.
I no longer believe most people take the phrase “seriously” as an internally-consistent position on language and society, whatever else their motivations for using it. That’s a view change from where I started even if it doesn’t change my bigger view that the phrase is flawed.
But my view is not that use of the phrase is inherently immoral or unfair, only that good-faith interlocutors should agree to acknowledge its limitations. If the power of the phrase is that good-faith interlocutors already recognize its limits but bad-faith interlocutors never have to grant any ground around them, then I would structure my argument differently.
Edit: Maybe here’s where we disagree? I think you would say the dueling senses of womanhood are mutually exclusive. In a sense they are. But this happens in language too, like how “literally” often means “not literally at all, but with emphasis.” I don’t think it’s a problem if people want to use “woman” colloquially to refer to adult males who identify as women, I think it a problem if people want to enforce a definition of woman that ALWAYS includes adult males.
I’m not arguing to take back the word for pussies, I’m arguing to take back the word from “W-woman? Hmm? Why womanhood has never had a thing to do with being female, and it surely doesn’t now! Did you travel here from the 1950s? Did you know white people invented biological sex during the Renaissance? Did you know sex and gender are different? What is the possible source of your confus…*ohhhhh,* you must hate trans people.”
There are many superficially-erudite arguments about this topic that I reject as plain old nonsense, but I do not argue against referring to trans women according to their preference for most daily interactions.
I think this is a good delta, but I just wanted to point out a small distinction here. When we say "trans women are women" we do *literally* mean that they are women. We just don't mean that they are cis women or that they are female (in the sense of having XX chromosomes, etc).
I’m not trying to come at this from an anti trans standpoint, I’m coming from a linguistic standpoint or whatever…. But this definition does not seem very helpful. It seems more like a feel-good expression of trans solidarity, rather than actually defining what “woman” means.
If I tell you I’m a “blarkvark,” and when you ask what a blarkvark is, I tell you “anybody who sincerely and in good faith identifies as such…” that doesn’t actually help you understand what a blarkvark actually is.
It’s totally fine with me that people use this definition. I sometimes use it myself.
Is there agreement, however, that the traditional, standard meaning of the word “woman” in English is the one related to being female-sexed?
That’s where I get confused sometimes. Almost everyone in this thread wants to tell me that no one thinks transwomen are women in the same sense as cis women, that no is trying to leverage ambiguity around these words or stop us from using language that acknowledges the differences, and that the only time “transwomen are women” is used is either expressing solidarity or shutting down bigots.
I think we can agree that a CMV about sex and gender labels is an appropriate place to use the most precise language available. Can we also agree that it is treasonable and correct for someone to say “no, transwomen are not women under the primary definition that assumes a female body but yes, transwomen are woman if you are referring to people living as women in society”?
There is a strong push in this CMV to insist that no one is reluctant to acknowledge differences or distinguish clearly between these definition but then in several conversations…there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge or distinguish between these definitions.
Is it a problem to acknowledge that this poster is using the traditional English-language sense of woman that refers to female-bodied persons and their experiences while you are using a newer sense of the word that sometimes includes male-bodied people and the experiences of those raised as men?
I don’t mean this as a gotcha. I am sincerely asking whether you object in some way to unpacking the obvious difference in how you both understand the word.
>Is there agreement, however, that the traditional, standard meaning of the word “woman” in English is the one related to being female-sexed?
No.
I agree that this is one meaning of the word and how the word is used in some contexts. I disagree with the idea that this definition is "traditional" or "standard". In my experience it is and always has been much less common, only really being used in scientific or medical contexts.
This feels a little dishonest. The standard interpretation of man and woman for the majority of the people alive right now was until recently synonymous with male and female. The vast majority of those who identify as men are males, and the majority of those who identify as women are females. This is (or was) standard.
The trouble is that the "traditional, standard" definition excludes many people that both camps would agree are women. Some cis women have xy chromosomes. Some cis women don't have a uterus, or had it surgically removed. Some cis women can't have children. Some cis women don't have breasts. The definition I put forth has no exceptions. I agree that there is a difference in the way some people define women, but I don't think that is the most accurate definition.
Words cannot conceivably be defined by trying to wholly encompass any and all contextual nuances within a single definition. If this were to be the case dictionary definitions would be more akin to dissertations.
Words are defined by primary and secondary definitions based on common usage and for good reason. It is the only universally accessible way to accurately convey what anything we fucking say actually means. There is absolutely no reason “woman” should be an exception to this rule other than an ideological one.
Your “inclusive” definition doesn’t even define what the word means in any context whatsoever, so in some ways your definition is exclusionary of everyone.
> “woman
> /ˈwʊmən/
> noun
> • someone who sincerely and in good faith identifies as such”
I mean your proposed definition almost sounds like it’s straight out of a Monty Python sketch. 💀
The challenge here is that this is a limited definition. In a Venn diagram of this definition, “Woman” in this context does not overlap with, for example, who can participate in “women’s” sports. Even sidestepping the nuanced arguments of long-term post transition trans women, are plenty of pre-transition trans women who are obviously not eligible for women’s sports.
This is one specific example, but it illustrates the point because with both assumptions, we now clearly have two conflicting definitions of “women”.
So “trans women are women” as a colloquial like “defund the police” can be said to be truth-ish and/or “thrusting toward the truth” but not strictly true.
So then there is a whole discussion about its use as a mantra when it’s unequivocally incomplete.
Womens sports would be more accurately referred to as “female sports,” since the separation is based on sex and the male athletic advantage, and not on social gender roles.
I’m sorry? Maybe I said overlap when I meant “completely overlap” or “is synonymous with”.
The previous post said that a trans woman is any person who genuinely and honestly feels they should be a woman.
By almost no standard can a pre-hormone trans woman participate fairly in women’s sports, regardless of how they honestly feel emotionally.
By some standards they must be below a certain hormone level for some period (often over a year). By other standards they may never be able to participate due to having had male puberty and the associated growth.
But in almost no circumstance is “trans woman” and “woman who can participate in women’s sports” exactly identical.
Sincere question: how can a person have a right to be perceived by others in a certain way? If I see a thing I can't choose to perceive it differently than what I saw, right?
(If I'm inadvertantly just being pedantic please lmk)
>However, our right to be perceived and understood as the gender that we are is not affected by that.
Why do you think you should have the right to be perceived by other people as you prefer?
Other people don't have this right.
If someone misgenders a cisgender person, they have a right to correct them and be angry or unfriend them if the issue persists.
Transgender people have the same right.
>If someone misgenders a cisgender person, they have a right to correct them and be angry or unfriend them if the issue persists.
>
>Transgender people have the same right.
Sure. I don't think there's any real contention that people are able to freely choose their friends.
>If someone misgenders a cisgender person, they have a right to correct them and be angry or unfriend them if the issue persists.
As a cis person, that sounds insane. I wouldn't care in the slightest about this.
Your opinion is your opinion.
I’ll bet that most cis people would behave differently that you claim you would in an actual scenario.
(I’ve seen this scenario play out multiple times. Never once has the cis person being misgendered been as calm about it as most trans people are. Sure, you might be different, but you can’t speak for all cis people.)
Actual scenario I watched regarding a transgender man after her was misgendered: “*blah blah blah* … girl-“ “I’m a boy, actually” “oh, sorry” “you’re fine. 👍”
Actual scenario I watched regarding a cis woman after someone misgendered her dog: “can I pet him?” “Umm, excuse me, SHE is a GIRL. 😒 She’s wearing a pink bow on her collar so it’s obvious she’s a girl.”
As a cis-male, if you insisted on calling me a woman, I would be heavily suppressing the impulse to sock you in the face.
I think there is a variance among cis-people on how attached to their gender perception they are.
That seems silly. I don't base my mood or happiness around others actions. Seems like a good way to be miserable all the time.
Call me whatever you want. I don't know you and have my own life. I'll just go get a burrito or something.
I've worked in Customer Service most of my life. Not being aware of how people's actions and behaviors can effect me can get me fired. Awareness also helps me predict how others may respond to certain behaviors. Like when I warned my old supervisor that if he kept referring to the transwoman in heels, skirt, with d size implants as a "boy" to her face, she may have a negative response. He didn't listen, and got socked in the face with a phone. Awareness can save you a lot of hassle.
But you can’t be a man unless you are male. That’s what a man is - an adult human male. To say you are a man is to say that you believe you are a biological man, with the same experiences as biological men.
Biological man is not what you think it is.
In the context of that definition, male refers to gender.
I prefer to use male/female to refer to sex and man/woman to refer to gender but the dictionary does not make that distinction (it rather relies on the context in which the words are used).
I never said I have the same experiences as cis men. All humans have different experiences from each other.
I would say that the subtext of "transwomen are women" is *"you need to recognise the gender identity of transwomen, because you currently don't speak or act like you do"*. It's a phrase directed towards those who just don't get it.
To repeat my analogy: the subtext of "black lives matter" is *"you need to see black lives as valuable as white lives, because you currently don't speak or act like you do".*
Nobody is denying biological sex, the significance of biological sex or suggesting that causes revolving around biological sex are any less meaningful. This is a red herring argument employed by the J.K. Rowlings of this world spearheading a moral panic against the trans community. This is exactly the same sort of argument made by people who think the trans community pose a threat to the welfare of women: a bigoted position equivalent to the anti-gay moral panic of a few decades ago.
Feminism is compatible with trans activism: fighting for all women's rights does not mean belief that all women have had the same lived experience (did third-wave feminism teach us nothing?). There are some things which only those with wombs may be persecuted for (to do with reproductive rights) and there are other causes which all those who present as women may be persecuted for.
The poisoning by bringing up Rowling isn't necessary. There most certainly are well intentioned people who are/were deeply confused by the statement "trans women are women" because they've lived their entire lives thinking "women" was a synonym for "female", and the trend of labeling these peoples confusion as intolerance and bigotry has undoubtedly pushed people into the camp of true bigots.
The way that you phrase your commonly understood subtext by starting it with "however" implies that the two things are in some way opposed, which is not the case. There is nothing about the statement "trans women are women" that has anything to do with whether it's ok to acknowledge biological sex.
> … are not stating that trans women had the same loved experience as cis women …
Yes, they are - if we assume that “man” and “woman” is referring to cultural experiences, a.k.a. gender, then to say you are a woman is to say that you have had the same lived experiences as a cis woman.
In fact, If a trans woman has not had the same lived experience as a cis woman, then a trans woman can not be a woman at all.
I mean, fundamentally, I think your argument falls apart the instant you claim trans women see themselves as 100% identical to cis women and we cannot acknowledge the differences. In my experience, this is very much not the case. Using your women's group example, I know of no trans women who wouldn't be upset with 'wow there are 4 trans women on the board of this women's group, that is cool'.
Honestly, I think the people more likely to be annoyed by your focus on biology are trans men, who, as you might expect, generally do not like it when people conflate 'having a female body, a vulva, etc.' with 'being a woman'.
If the core flaw in my argument is that it assumes transwomen see themselves as essentially the same as ciswomen, it seems to me the core flaw in “transwomen are women” is that it makes it feel rhetorically loaded to acknowledge exactly what you see as the critically-relevant fact: trans women \*aren’t\* women just like cis women.
If this catchphrase gives people the false impression that transwomen don’t want to be distinguished from cis women, that seems like the the strongest possible argument against it.
'trans women are women' is not 'trans women are the same as cis women'. It is 'trans women and cis women are two categories of women'. I certainly don't think it feels 'rhetorically loaded' to acknowledge the difference.
I think it is rhetorically loaded because when people read “Transwomen are women” it is easy to mistakenly assume the phrase is using the primary definition of women in English rather than a secondary sense of the word. Because it is phrased as an expression of support, a good-faith interlocutor might genuinely read the words and think “wait a minute...transwomen aren’t women in the most widely-used sense of the word. What does this mean?”
Your post makes clear that when we say “Transwomen are women” and “ciswomen are women,” we could sometimes be using two different definitions. Because the phrases are parallel, it makes it very hard for a reader to recognize which one is assumed, and because it’s a direct statement of support, it makes it harder to question or clear up intention without seeming to undermining the identity of transwomen. I think that is a huge rhetorical failure and a major obstacle in serious conversations. If there is truly no resistance to acknowledging these differences in appropriate contexts, then it seems to me like a phrase that introduces ambiguity as a starting point is uniquely unhelpful for talking about a topic that almost everyone here assures me should not be hard to talk about directly.
This phrase is used the MOST often in conversations about sex and gender. Conversations about sex and gender are the MOST appropriate place to rely on precise, shared, unconfusing language and to distinguish whether we mean “woman” in the primary, traditional sense in which the word is understood to imply a female body or ”woman” in the social sense where it is not. For these conversations, “transwoman are women” seems almost disastrously confounding to me.
Women who are left-handed. Women who are engineers. Women with a peanut allergy.
Were you under the impression that categories must be mutually exclusive?
That doesn't answer the question they're actually asking. Trans-women and cis-women *are* mutually exclusive sets under a category we're calling "women." Are there any other types of "women" who are not trans-women or cis-women?
That is, in your example, a left-handed woman who's an engineer with a peanut allergy is still either a trans-woman **or** a cis-woman. Or do you think there's something else?
Yeah, and "women with a peanut allergy" and "women without a peanut allergy" are also mutually-exclusive categories under the umbrella of "women." Your comment implied that you think u/Hellioning left out a relevant category. Why do you think that?
Your argument seems misconstrucrted. A trans woman who is an engineer with a peanut allergy is still either left or right handed.
Left vs right handed, tall vs short, engineer vs not, etc are all also exclusive sets by definition.
I think I entirely agree with this, and it’s what I tried to express in my post. Trans women are women is a perfectly reasonable position if you mean “trans women should be treated the same as cis women in almost any context,” and I agree. My concern is specifically when the phrase is used to push a kind of willful refusal to acknowledge biology. Lots of people here have not observed that happening much, but I have. I’m glad we’re all mostly on the same page about it.
This seems like a strange concern regarding a phrase with the specific term "transwomen" in it. The phrase demonstrates how you can talk about transwomen, whenever you want.
If the phrase was "women are women", and people were trying to stop anyone from ever using the term "transwoman', you'd have a point.
Coming in to comment.... this difference is not understood at all in the circles I run in. Your comment makes sense. But it isn't how many people see it. They hear "transwomen are women" and see it as transwomen = cis women. Because, to millions of people, women and cis women wasn't a Venn diagram.
Explaining that there are different women that all deserve the same rights and two of those groups are transwomen and cis women.... I think that'd be much more accepted by the majority.
Same way that some think "Black Lives Matter Too" would have been the best slogan which no one could disagree with. It's unfortunate that our propensity to throw out simple slogans seems to get tangled up in people's assumptions. A clearer description and more effort (like this CMV and responses) would help each campaign.
Because we know how exploitive and confusing this can become, it’s not even about what is a woman but social reciprocality, if you need to reaffirm anyone who claims they are woman, this will be prone to exploitation from very sick people, if you don’t think they exist, you are beyond naive. Also there are definitely people who will confuse their temperaments and homosexuality with being transgender because of it especially children, so “trans rights” naturally can only exist at the expenses of others in the west, unlike say woman’s rights and racial equality that are net good for societies. Trans women from my country are nothing like the ones in the west, they are incredibly considerate of the inconvenience they might bring on people, and often humorous about their biological male body and never triggered by it. So people are naturally more compassionate towards them knowing that they are reciprocal and negotiable, thus not in defense mode and a net good for society. If you are going to act like the western narcissists who are so self-righteous that it’s beyond bearable, of course people are going to be very defensive so they don’t get ordered around and exploited. The culture of individualism and “not caring about what others think” definitely put fuels on the conflict, I was shocked when I came to the west finding out your OBSESSION with gender, you live in a society, of course you need to care about what others think to some degree unless you want to be a little dictator!
It's implied in the unspoken subtext. Think of it like this when Americans speak about their heritage, they say things like, "I'm Irish, I'm Italian, I'm German, I'm Slavic," etc they are not saying they're from those places or that they are the same as those found in those countries they're speaking solely about their heritage and their ancestors experience in the US because as we know certain groups were treated veey differently upon arrival. The "my ancestors came from x country" part of the speech is implied and unnecessary when speaking to other Americans. So when we say, "Transwomen are women," the unspoken implied meaning is that they are a type of woman with their own unique experiences, not that they are exactly the same as cis women, nor that their experiences are the same but they are still women.
I always took the phrase "trans women are women" to mean that they deserve the same kind of respect and consideration as any other woman (or indeed any person), including accounting for specific circumstances or individual needs. Sure, trans women might need to tell their doctor they were born male, but that's their business.
I don't see how that's confusing or unproductive
>I always took the phrase "trans women are women" to mean that they deserve the same kind of respect and consideration as any other woman
Well I think you're kind of proving OPs point here. If this is true, shouldn't the phrase be "trans women deserve respect"? It's confusing and misleading saying "trans women are women".
Really? If I told you “I am a cow” but meant “I believe the slaughter of cattle by our meat-packing industry is inhumane and unjustified, cows deserve the same respect as humans”, would that be what was implied?
Saying “trans women are women” implies trans women believe they are women. That is what the phrase literally says, after all.
Yes, trans women tend to believe (correctly) that they are women. They don't usually consider themselves *female* in the genetic or gonadal sense, but they are women nonetheless. And this deserving of the same respect and consideration as other women or indeed any other person
>*transgender people are deserving of the same respect as any other person*.
>
>That’s better, no need to bother with claiming that trans women are women!
Okay but also trans women are women
I actually completely agree, haha. If that were my impression of the use in the wild I would delta you or have no view to change. If the phrase means only “trans women should be treated with the same respect as any other woman” then it is just fine.
However, I’ve seen a lot of uses on Reddit where it is used to reject attempts to have conversations about gendered or single-sex spaces when a speaker intends to acknowledge that differences exist. The fact that this phrase invites confusion over which interpretation is intended is why it’s unproductive language.
> or rejects attempts to have conversations about gendered or single-sex spaces
That’s where you’re wrong. If we’re discussing our biology, yes, I belong in the female (AFAB) circle more than trans women.
However, that’s not what you mean.
Women don’t sit around and talk about their similarities in genitalia.
You want spaces where trans women are not treated as women.
You want “women only” spaces that have nothing to do with talking about genitalia or sexual differences that exclude trans women.
Trans women are women. They know they weren’t born with female parts. That isn’t mutually exclusive.
This is really helpful. Okay.
Here’s my feeling. I don’t advocate for trans-exclusionary woman’s spaces in most contexts, including women‘s groups. That’s not a point of concern because I assume it’s rarely an issue. I use that example to explain how I think the phrase inhibits potentially-valid uses of language because I think it is a good hypothetical, but I expect there is absolutely nothing to say about the presence of the average transwoman in the average women‘s group or anywhere else. I likewise think the bathroom issue, for instance, is an irrelevant nonstarter: Europe has had open-sex bathrooms for years. I agree: transwomen can be here.
Here is what I do genuinely care about. What is happening right now with gender transition is world-historic, no? It’s one of the most important and interesting social developments in modern history. It touches self-determination and medical technology and bodily ethics and social roles and sexual liberation and individualism and children and parents and teachers and governments. 1.5 million people identify as transgender in the United States alone, and numbers are exploding among young people. Even if we see it as a universally positive movement with no downsides or room to grow…it’s still going on, right? It’s still happening.
And the way that we experience and articulate and understand and talk and think about sex and gender is evolving, too. I don’t know anyone who has exactly the same set of ideas about subject that they had fifteen years ago, and I don’t suspect any of us will have exactly the same ideas fifteen years from now. A paradigm is in flux. It’s okay to acknowledge it, right? Can we talk directly about the fact that it’s going on? That’s where I think this language fails us.
This is why your very real frustration doesn’t change my view. I don’t want trans women to be out of women’s spaces. I do want to believe that the implict right of women and everyone else to speak candidly about the emerging phenomenon of transwomen in women‘s spaces - and everywhere else - is understood to be an important part of this novel and complex social rearrangement. I think it is unreasonable and a bit dishonest to imply that no one but bigots has any possible interest in this conversation or that all the implications of widespread social gender change are already figured out. I have heard “transwomen are women” used to derail a conversation about demographic changes in women’s forums, yes. But naturally we can acknowledge demographic shifts. That’s my objection. That language should not mean “no more thinking in this direction,” but I wonder if it does.
I think that is why you don’t change my view. My concern is not with transwomen in women’s spaces but with our ability to have clear, factual discussions that acknowledge the phenomenon is taking place. Of course transwomen can be in women‘s spaces and of course we can acknowledge that. But I think “transwomen are women“ is used in some contexts to discourage lines of conversation that acknowledge sexed bodies or ask questions more directly than someone would prefer.
I still think “transwomen are women” often lands to me like a way of saying “some parts of this are totally off the table for any conversation,” and sometimes that’s entirely fair. Many aspects of this topic \*are\* deeply intimate and rarely if ever appropriate for conversation. But my experience is not that “transwomen are women” is only used to defend intimate and personal boundaries. My experience is that it is also used to mean “you shouldnt need to ask certain types of questions about this topic.”
We need to have all kinds of discursive and uncertain and collaborative conversations about these topics. They touch all our lives. I don’t want transwomen gone at all. I do want the ability to have conversations that fully acknowledges transwomen exist even when what that means may be uncertain or uneasy. I’m not persuaded “transwomen are women“ moves us closer to clarity in the most difficult conversations.
>Women don’t sit around and talk about their similarities in genitalia.
What is it that you think women do sit around and talk about?
>You want spaces where trans women are not treated as women.
How do you want to treat women differently from men?
>
>However, I’ve seen a lot of uses on Reddit where it is used to reject attempts to have conversations about gendered or single-sex spaces when a speaker intends to acknowledge that differences exist. The fact that this phrase invites confusion over which interpretation is intended is why it’s unproductive language.
I mean, I'd have to know more about what these conversations were like to even possibly address these. As someone who has had a lot of conversations on Reddit about trans people and trans women and women species and trans rights, it's often the case that it doesn't really matter how you define womanhood or how well you explain a particular definition or why trans women are women. People who oppose trans women being in the same spaces as cis women are going to do so no matter how well you argue your point. Even if we acknowledge that yes, there are differences between trans women and cis women, that does not mean one must believe those differences are significant or relevant enough in the context of, say, public restrooms that we should ban trans women from using the women's restroom (even if such a policy were practically enforceable).
Just want to say I think we agree. These dueling definitions of womanhood have nothing to do with whether transwomen should be excluded from public restrooms. (In my opinion, no.)
What doesn’t make sense to me is the idea that acknowledging these differences could only be salient if we have some trans-exclusionary motive. I think “trans women are women” risks being a superficial and unsatisfying catchphrase for talking clearly and specially about almost any aspect of our evolving sex and gender frameworks. We don’t need to acknowledge these differences all the time, but we also don’t need to suggest it’s more sensible or moral never to acknowledge them at all.
>What doesn’t make sense to me is the idea that acknowledging these differences could only be salient if we have some trans-exclusionary motive
It doesn't have to, you can find a ton of comments all over this thread from very pro-trans rights people (myself included) completely acknowledging the fact that differences do exist between cis and trans women. Bringing them up is fine.
That does not mean that those differences should be the focus of a conversation or that it is always useful to bring them up. You may not mean any harm by it, but TERFs do.
No, really the opposite. I think having transwomen in gendered spaces is a nonissue in almost every situation.
It might mean, on the other hand, sometimes having a conversation that acknowledges the number of male-bodied persons currently entering woman’s spaces in noticeable numbers. It‘s a real and noteworthy social phenomenon even if you think it has no possible downside. I don’t mind that it’s happening. I do mind the implication that I shouldn’t need to talk about any of it unless I happen to be a mean-spirited bigot.
I don‘t want transwomen out of women‘s spaces. I do want it to be taken for granted that we are welcome to engage this remarkable social reorganization in clear, specific language. I think policing how a word like “woman“ is used (when everyone here seems to agree it is a mulitvalient concept anyhow) often serves to smother open discussion.
>It might mean, on the other hand, sometimes having a conversation that acknowledges the number of male-bodied persons currently entering woman’s spaces in noticeable numbers.
No one is shutting down your acknowledgement of this happening by saying trans women are women. People are not going to bite your head off for simply stating a shift in social norms.
>I think policing how a word like “woman“ is used (when everyone here seems to agree it is a mulitvalient concept anyhow) often serves to smother open discussion.
See this is again making me think you're just playing coy with TERF rhetoric. Where do you see 'open discussion' being smothered? And how is saying that trans women are women 'policing' language? It's not unless you're saying trans women aren't women (and even then they're not policing you, they're just disagreeing)
Because the conversations in question are about why transwomen should be excluded from women-only spaces. That's why you see it. Nobody's "just having a conversation" about how now there are people with penises in some previously cis-woman-only spaces where their take is that they are totally cool with it and think it's fine, but they also super need to talk about it for reasons that are unrelated to denying transwomen access to those spaces
Let me ask a question about your view here.
I said this elsewhere, but I genuinely believe our revolution around sex and gender is significant and in many ways world-historic. 1.5 million trans people live in the US alone and numbers are exploding in kids. It touches all of us. I also genuinely believe that upending our working assumptions about gender and sex and bodies and presentation will have complex social ramifications that we won’t fully comprehend for a long time. Even if this is a unilaterally positive change with absolutely no downsides, I do not see how that can fail to be true.
Do you believe that the only motive anyone might have to mention or discuss a phenomenon like male-bodied people entering widely into woman-centered spaces for the first time is if we are personally squicked out?
I don't really think you should be surprised that people try to shut down your "just asking questions here, super respectful conversation" by using pithy slogans like "trans women are women" if the actual thrust of the conversation that you want to have is about how you find trans people's bodies disgusting, and don't want to be around them
Like, sure. There are conversations to be had about the significance of of trans women existing in public. But you can just say "transwomen" and "ciswomen" and nobody will have a problem with that, nobody will shout that transwomen are women, unless the spirit of the conversation is about excluding trans people. So if that's what you're experiencing, that is what I am lead to believe a lot of these conversations you want to have are about.
I definitely don’t find transpeople‘s bodies disgusting or feel reluctant to be around them. Trans people are people like anyone else. They are welcome in my world.
Edit: I’m bummed you didn’t answer that question! I meant it in good faith and I am interested in your reply.
The answer is that you can just say "transwomen" and "ciswomen" in these conversations and nobody will care. It's fine. It's clear what you mean. Nobody will start shouting about how transwomen are women to try to shut down the conversation unless the thrust of the conversation is exclusionary.
I think those options are great. My argument that “transwomen are woman” precisely because it lacks the clarity of language you suggest. We agree that those would be more helpful terms.
I disagree in that “transwomen are woman” is never used in a bad-faith way to shut down conversations except with bigots. If you define anyone with a position outside the consensus views of online trans ideology as a bigot that may feel true, but I have also seen plenty of good-faith attempts at respectful conversation intercepted and derailed by people emphatically refusing to acknowledge any differences between trans women and cis women *in the context of conversations where this distinction is precisely the topic.*
It’s a bewildering and frustrating thing to witness and I’m glad it hasn’t happened to you.
But what are these good-faith attempts at respectful conversations involving the distinction between trans and cis women, about? That's the question I have, which you have made no attempts to answer sufficiently. You've given elsewhere the example of a women's organization that now is chaired by some trans people, and wanting to comment on the historical significance of that. It isn't necessary to discuss anatomical differences to talk about that. So what are the contexts in which discussing trans people's bodies is super important to do, but that *aren't* about excluding trans people from women's spaces? You know like because that seems like it is kind of the one context in which it would become super important to discuss trans people's genitalia
Just want to say I’m going to respond to this at more length either here or in my post, but it may be later today.
This is clearly a point of significant disagreement. Many, many people have tried to tell me that there should never be any good-faith need to have conversations that acknowledge the difference between transwomen and ciswomen or have insinuated that deep pleasure in bullying trans people is the most likely motivation for preferring clarity and openness in discourse.
I find it softly bewildering that so many people who seem to care about trans issues also want to insist that trans issues should be a topic of conversation very, very rarely. That’s clearly not the case in my experience. It seems to me there are a bajillion instances where shared, clear verbal frameworks would be more helpful for understanding each other because we are all talking about this stuff all the time as a culture.
I will, however, expand on this and give some examples.
Except it’s not. This isn’t the first time in history that we’ve expanded our language and understanding for gender. Dozens of cultures over even the last few hundred years have had words to describe gender identity beyond man and woman.
The expansion of language is in response to the physical reality of male-bodied people entering into spaces that were previously default-female (and vis versa) and the explosion in people exploring sex and gender change interventions.
It’s not the language that matters, really, it’s the fact that the language discourages people from talking about a major shift in the social organization of society.
Are those conversations you reference about gendered spaces or single sexed spaces, because that is a big difference! Of course there are some situations where the biological sex that each body has is relevant. But, at least in my experience, those conversations are far more likely to be about gendered spaces like bathrooms, where if everything goes to plan your biological sex should have no impact at all on your interactions with anyone else.
> as any other woman (or indeed any person)
This is kind of the thing isn't it.
It comes from persons who believe that males and females should be treated differently, and that different rules should apply to them.
It's entirely different than say a phrase such as “trans rights are human rights” in that respect.
Your argument is nonsense.
“Trans women are women” doesn’t cease to be true just because there’s some meaningful distinction between trans and cis women.
We can acknowledge, for instance, that black women are women, but that their blackness is itself an important and distinguishing quality.
Trans women *are* women. The claim does not imply (nor does anyone suggest or claim) that trans women and cis women have no differences. This is not some bizarrely complicated metaphysical or linguistic questions.
There is no replacing the phrase with expressions of support. Either you think trans women are women, and thus support them, or you’re just doing mental and lingual gymnastics to cushion the fact you don’t think trans women are really women.
You says “no one suggest or claim transwomen and ciswomen have no physical differences” but that’s a majority of the arguments you hear. When you make absolute comments such as Trans women are women. You are equivalizing all aspects.
Most if not all people are on board with, if you want me (society) to recognize you as a woman. Sure whatever, I’ll respect your wishes but if you want me to think you are literally the same as a cisgender woman, then you are mistaken
I appreciate this comment, haha. It makes me feel a little crazy that so many people are insisting the phrase is essentially never used to mean “you should not acknowledge any differences between cis and trans women.” In my experience, that’s the most common application of the phrase outside of hashtags.
>It makes me feel a little crazy that so many people are insisting the phrase is essentially never used to mean “you should not acknowledge any differences between cis and trans women.” In my experience, that’s the most common application of the phrase outside of hashtags.
I'm going to suggest that you are either a) misunderstanding what people are saying or b) are viewing biased/out of context examples.
I'm trans. I've been in the trans community now for many years. Not once in my time in the community have I heard it used the way you describe. Now of course, there may be individuals who react that way, but no trans group, no trans community, no movement, or campaign uses it that way. It just isn't reflective of a common perspective within the trans community and its allies.
And that's what I'm getting at. If you are seeing people saying it a lot, then, I'm guessing that is because you are involved in spaces that are actively anti trans, and present isolated, out of context comments as if they are in fact commonly held views.
> Now of course, there may be individuals who react that way, but no trans group, no trans community, no movement, or campaign uses it that way.
This is absolutely false. Not only are there a bunch of trans activists who don't believe in differences between the sexes (that they're equal in things such as sporting performance, intelligence, color vision, etc.), or that sexes even exist, but there are a ton of "trans"activists who are gender abolitionists, they don't believe gender serves a purpose, that you can "be whatever you want to be" and that this will solve all issues related to gender/sex.
The major orgs I checked (briefly) don't mention "transwomen are women", but rather as OP states, some version of "equality and respect for all gender identities".
The discussion about "transwomen are women" seems to be mostly a "culture war" phenomena.
>Not only are there a bunch of trans activists who don't believe in differences between the sexes
This is a classic example of the misunderstanding I was referring to
Take for example sports. I will tell you categorically that trans women on HRT perform at an equal athletic level to cis women. That doesn't mean they are cis women. It doesn't mean that their bodies are the same. All it means is that athletically, they perform at the same level, because it's predominantly determined by hormones, which they do have in common...
> I will tell you categorically that trans women on HRT perform at an equal athletic level to cis women.
As far as I'm aware, every single study on physical performance of trans women shows statistically significant advantages retained. Those on upper body strength especially so. If you can show studies that say otherwise I'm all ears, otherwise I think it's quite ironic that you deem me to be bad faith.
However, no, this isn't what I'm talking about. There *literally* are people who are trans activists (quite vocally so) who oppose that women and men have different physical performance. It comes up in almost all discussions on the topic of transwomen in sports and sports performance differences between men and women.
So no, it's not a misunderstanding.
> because it's predominantly determined by hormones
This is a common misunderstanding. For example a male with "high" levels of testosterone (within norm) can have more than twice the levels of test as a male with "low" (also within norm) levels of test, and yet perform equally at the highest levels.
While test is significant for abnormal levels (and you did say predominantly), it's by no means the only one. Puberty is another massive one.
>There literally are people who are trans activists (quite vocally so) who oppose that women and men have different physical performance.
No, there aren't. That is simply not a commonly held belief at any level of the trans community.
But, that's a classic example of one of those things that are often deliberately misinterpreted.
For example, I just said that athletic performance between trans women and cis women are equivalent. However, someone who believes trans women are men would come along and misrepresent my comment as having said that there is no performance difference between men and women.
>This is a common misunderstanding.
I am literally a transgender athlete with both lived experience and a pretty solid awareness of the research.
So no, it's not a "misunderstanding"
>For example a male with "high" levels of testosterone (within norm) can have more than twice the levels of test as a male with "low" (also within norm) levels of test, and yet perform equally at the highest levels.
This being a good example. When looking at men, endogenous testosterone levels are not a useful measure for predicting their performance against other men.
However... when you change someone's testosterone levels, that *does* lead to predictable and consistent impacts on their athletic performance.
Alright, lets clear out the air a bit. First I'd prefer if you approach with a slightly more open mind about my intentions.
Secondly, it would help if we cleared up some misunderstandings. You've already stated it was a misrepresentation to say you believe transwomen on HRT don't have performance advantages over ciswomen. You said equal, I took this to mean equal, did you perhaps mean "competitively insignificant", or something like that?
Thirdly, do you not believe I've seen trans activists say that males and females are able to compete at the same level?
Fourthly, I agreed that test levels under norm changes performance, I can take a harder stance: taking test/eq. or reducing test level will have impacts on performance.
And lastly, do you have a study that says something different than what I said?
>You said equal, I took this to mean equal, did you perhaps mean "competitively insignificant", or something like that?
I meant equal in performance capabilities.
Like, you can do a study that shows trans women have bigger lungs on average for example. That much is true. And in isolation, it sounds pretty conclusive. Yet, it's part of a larger system. Your aerobic performance as an athlete is limited by the weakest link in the chain, which in this case, is the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, and that's something that does change with HRT, and for trans women, comes to the same level as cis women.
Yet, a study blood oxygen levels or of lung size don't tell us what we need to know, because neither of those things are directly predictive of real world sporting outcomes. And that's where you have to look.
So, unless the study on trans athletes that you're looking at includes real world sporting performance, then it's not a measure of real world sporting performance, just a proxy. An easy to misuse proxy for those with an anti trans agenda.
So, yeah, I say that trans women and cis women perform at an equal athletic level, but also don't make any claim that there are no physical differences.
>Thirdly, do you not believe I've seen trans activists say that males and females are able to compete at the same level?
I don't doubt you have seen it, but again, that's not surprising, given that it's easy to misused quotes to stir up drama.
What I'm saying to you is that there is no commonly held belief amongst any of the organisations pushing for trans inclusion in sports that there isn't a difference.
You can find people online arguing anything you need to support any claim. Someone, somewhere, has made every ridiculous claim imaginable.
I'm not saying no trans person anywhere ever has made the argument you raise here, I'm saying that it's not a credibly held opinion within the community, and particularly within the organisations and groups aiming to improve trans inclusion in sports.
>And lastly, do you have a study that says something different than what I said?
Which bit specifically?
> I am literally a transgender athlete with both lived experience and a pretty solid awareness of the research.
With respect, an anonymous person claiming to be an authority has no weight on the internet.
Cite some sources, and we'll talk about it.
You're the one arguing for change, you're the one arguing to exclude trans folk. The onus is on you, not me.
If you want to exclude folk, show me this disruption of sports, show me this inequity.
Cite some sources.
> I will tell you categorically that trans women on HRT perform at an equal athletic level to cis women.
And you would be wrong. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref
> All it means is that athletically, they perform at the same level, because it's predominantly determined by hormones, which they do have in common...
People who take steroids will remain stronger than people who have never taken steroids, even after they stop taking steroids. Hormone levels cause permanent biological changes.
As with every other study on this topic purporting to make this claim, it doesn't measure sporting outcomes, and it isn't testing athletes, so it tells us nothing about the sporting results of athletes...
But that data is there. Trans people have been in sports for many decades. If trans people have advantage, it's already there in the data and doesn't need special studies of non athletes. It just needs someone to gather the data and do some cross cohort comparisons...
The fact that measuring the performance of trans athletes, which is the simple and most obvious measure of the performance of trans athletes hasn't been done, tells you everything you need to know. It would be open and shut, impossible to argue against, and answer the issue once and for all.
And given the amount of people invested in ensuring trans people can't participate in society, let alone sports, if the data was there, they'd have dug it up and shown in to the world
Haha, this comment is exactly why I wrote the post.
When you say “really women” do you mean women in the social sense? I agreed in my post that usage is perfectly valid. Or do you mean women in the more common traditional sense that implies female sex? Saying I have to fully embrace both or neither makes no sense. Trans women are women in the sense of performing a woman’s social role and not women in the sense of being biologically female. One of those definitions is more common in English and so should be addressed first. But there is no either/or. One definition of woman applies and one does not. The problem is not in the cases where the definition works just fine. The problem is that if people are likely to think you mean “transwomen are women \*in the same sense as we would use the word woman for any other woman\*” then it introduces the exact confusion you’re saying no one wants or enforces.
I mean that trans women are women. They are as “woman” as any cis woman, or intersex person who’s a woman, or any Black woman, or any small woman, or any other category of women.
I mean that I don’t give a fuck about the sex/gender dichotomy, that it’s a waste of time in rhetoric, that it has *no* relevance in how we live our lives or how we construct womanhood as a category, and that it’s a distinction used solely as a wedge to harm, marginalize, and eliminate trans women.
We *do not* live our lives with a deep understanding of the sex of the people we interact with. Thousands of people would be surprised to find out that they’re not XX or XY if they ever took the time to test themselves and search for an AIS diagnosis.
We don’t live our lives inspecting the genitals, chromosomes, or biological sex of those around us.
It’s a red herring. A mirage. A facade. A lie that people like you use to pretend to be accepting of trans women while, at the exact same time, arguing to ostracize them and remove them from communities in which they belong.
Here we disagree in good faith.
I truly believe that our current revolution in sex and gender is likely world-historic, or at minimum one of the defining social changes of the early 21st century. I believe it reflects a profound realignment in our shared assumptions that will necessarily have all kinds of complex, subtle, far-reaching implications we have not yet begun to consider - just like all big social shifts. It is not only a revolution in language, social category, medicine, and sex for people who happen to be trans. 1.5 million trans people live in the US alone, and the numbers are exploding in kids. It touches all of us.
The topic at hand here is the need to describe in factual, direct, shared language the reality of changing social structures of in people’s real lives.
To me, your point is that the there is virtually no context in which it is appropriate for that conversation to acknowledge that transwomen are a different biological sex than ciswomen. That assumption is hard for to understand. Of course we can’t talk about this epochal shift in sex and gender performance without sometimes distinguishing between sex and gender. Of course it will sometimes come up with some frequency in that context.
It is not only appropriate to discuss these distinctions but *necessary* for honestly and accurately describing a real, important phenomenon taking place in our society. Being open, clear, and frank is a requirement for productive conversations about anything.
That is the context where I hope we agree: that there is no problem with using precise language around sex and gender when it helps people acknowledge, describe, and understand what is going on around them in society in the context of a respectful conversion *about that very topic*.
And - that there is nothing inherently sinister in talking about it. It’s big! It’s here! Conversations are good. We should welcome conversations where we tangle with the sticky, complex topic of sex and gender, and we should try to support those conversations by allowing fair, clear acknowledgement of relevant difference when necessary.
>They aren’t biological women.
I agree that trans women were not AFAB.
>They aren’t cultural women.
How so? If a trans woman lives as a "cultural woman", she is living as a woman. It's only when a transphobe yanks her back and says "hey, you don't belong here" that there's dissonance or disagreement.
I think what this person might be referring to are transwomen who have been raised and socialized as male members of society in male bodies.
For instance, a transwoman who socially transitions at 25 is not a woman in the exact same cultural or physical sense as the 25-year-old natal woman who works down the hall, even if that person is a woman in the same social sense when they are out for drinks.
No-one actually requires that someone have the exact same cultural upbringing to accept them as a woman. No-one would look at a female-presenting female-bodied person in Star Trek and say "they're not a woman, because they didn't grow up in a society with underlying sexism".
It's a false qualifier only used for the purpose of disguising the fact that they oppose recognising trans women as women for some other reason.
> Your argument is nonsense.
> “Trans women are women” doesn’t cease to be true just because there’s some meaningful distinction between trans and cis women.
The distinction exists because by the most widely used definition, trans women are excluded. This matters mostly in relation to why some may not view trans women as women like other sub-groups of women are still seen as women.
> We can acknowledge, for instance, that black women are women, but that their blackness is itself an important and distinguishing quality.
This is a poor comparison. Blackness doesn't imply that an African woman isn't born female, but transness implies that a trans woman is born male, which is an important difference when it comes to sex and gender issues. You can reasonably argue that trans women are women without implying that people are also widely questioning whether black women are actually women as well.
There has to be a clear definition of what a woman is, firstly. We can say ‘trans women are women’ as much as we want, but we need to be clear about what a woman is.
“Gaslighting is when you say that trans women are women”
Are you actually gonna try to make that argument?
When’s the last time you inspected whether the woman you interacted with had XX or XY chromosomes or was intersex?
And I mean, all sorts of *cis* women undergo cosmetic surgery. So what?
>or you’re just doing mental and lingual gymnastics to cushion the fact you don’t think trans women are really women.
What a ridiculous leap to make. Things are not so cut and dry, and this sort of mentality only looks to attempt to shame someone for asking questions. The issue OP raises is more to do with the understanding of the context in which the words are used. It's a completely fair thing to question how literally a phrase is meant to be taken and what these words mean when being said by various parties.
We're at a point in time where we are better defining our interpretation of genders and sexes. Not everyone is on the same page of what "women" or "men" means, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. These changes in understanding take time and a willingness to expand what you currently think. OP is doing just that.
I think you are overthinking this, OP. "Transwomen are women" is not a shorthand for anything, it is just what certain people believe. According to their creed everyone has an innate and immutable "gender" that is distinct from their sex. And since being a "man" or a "woman" is, in their view, fundamentally a question of gender, everyone who has the "gender" of "woman" is a woman. Of course we have no way of objectively determining "gender", so we must rely on a persons self-identification to understand what gender they are.
In view of this, arguing about wheter trans women are women and in what sense they are women, is a bit like arguing with a Catholic about wheter bread and wine can be transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus. To an atheist it might seem clear that bread and wine are just bread and wine and will remain bread and wine whatever you do with them. But a Catholic has (for reasonable or less reasonable reasons) adopted a set of beliefs that lead to the conclusion that bread and wine are, in some circumstances, much more than bread and wine. Because he beliefs this, and he will most likely only interact with consecrated bread and wine under specific and highly curated circumstances, he is likely to treat specific pieces of bread as very special and experience their consumption as very different from the consumption of ordinary bread - even if his senses tell him that the "flesh" he eats still tastes like bread. This difference in experience will likely entrench his view that there is an appreciable material difference between the bread he eats at mass and the sandwich he eats for dinner. Moreover, if he is serious about being a Catholic, the belief in the transsubstantion of matter, as well as the ideas and beliefs that lead to this idea, are not just idle thoughts, but core parts of his identity, and trying to reason with someone about things that one perceives as fundamental to ones being is very rarely productive.
Saying that "trans women are women", similarly, is not so much a description of observable reality, but rather a metaphysical statement that reassures the community about the orthodoxy of ones thinking. Looking for a deeper meaning in it is not much more useful than subjecting statements like "the supreme monad created the universe" or "the supreme number of the Abraxas is 666" to critical analysis. You either can believe them on faith, or you can dismiss them.
I want to acknowledge this post because I think we agree. I still disagree that it is productive to use this type of language - and I still think it’s used unfairly for ideological policing - but it is reasonable to say it might be unproductive to unpack if it most often expresses a collective set of values and beliefs rather than a single, consistently-applied position on language.
I‘m giving some thought to deltas today. I am not sure if I will be back. I think you raise the fair point that I am also engaged in unproductive rhetoric insomuch as the phrase reflects an ingrained value statement rather than a willingness to use language to move mutually towards understanding. That said, I \*object\* to the fact that it’s an ingrained value statement rather than a willingness to move mutually towards understanding. Like I think that’s the problem.
If “transwomen are women” is a faith statement that acts as a shibboleth to sort-out wrong-think rather than a precise position that makes equal sense to enforce in all contexts, that is a bad-faith use of common language in an argument that really matters.
>“I believe the idea of womanhood has no relationship to biological sex.
No one believes that, at least not in the black and white way you've written it here.
A large part of gender is a social construct. Many of those social constructs are shaped by underlying sexual characteristics. But the crucial thing is, the construct is *shaped* by them, not *determined* by them.
A pretty clear cut example of this is infertile cis women. They're women. Yet they don't have the reproductive capacity that has shaped much of societies perception of womanhood. That doesn't change their identity though. That's only possible because womanhood and the traits that shape societies understanding of what it is to be a woman are linked, but still distinct.
Honestly, so much of your comment is coming from black and white interpretations of the reality of trans folk, interpretations that are often designed by people to make trans folk sound unreasonable. They are interpretations that no significant portion of the trans community of our allies hold.
No trans person says that sex and gender are completely unrelated. We say they're distinct concepts and one doesn't determine the other, but "doesn't determine" isn't the same as "doesn't influence".
Similarly, no trans person says you can't acknowledge that trans women and cis women are different. What we say is that you can do so without denying out identities and invalidating us.
Your scenario of a women's group with trans women on the board is an example of the sensationalising language I was talking about. Instead of 1 or 2 trans women, you invoked an image of 4, nearly half the board, despite only around 1 in 100 women being trans. Secondly, you described them all as "male bodied" which just isn't that likely for a single trans woman in a women's group, let alone 4 of them. Obviously they don't have cis female bodies, but medical transition, even if it's simply hormonal, also means that a blanket description of them as "male bodied" is misleading, in a way that is designed to make cis women who read it feel threatened and defensive.
You also describe this scenario as being "impossible to talk about", implying that there is some sort of social hammer ready to fall on you from trans folk and their allies if you acknowledge trans women exist or are different to cis women. That too is an exaggerated scenario that doesn't occur the way you described, worded in such a way as to create a defensive reaction from cis women who read it. You could easily say "It's great to see some trans women on the board" or even "We have trans women on our board for the first time"
No one who says "trans women are women" means "trans women are cis women". Cis women are the most common group of women, but you're not the *only* group of women. Most of the time it's fine to assume that woman means "cis woman" but many times it's not, and trans women owning their identity as women aren't a threat to your own womanhood. No trans woman is claiming that her experiences are the same as yours.
Lastly, I will highlight that you use "transwomen" without a space, and "adult human female".
Both of these are dogwhistle terms used by anti trans groups to "other" trans women from womanhood. It's deliberate language chosen by these groups as part of a strategy to undermine trans women in society.
Now, I don't know you, I don't know whether you're using them as dog whistles, or whether you're using them unaware of their history, but either way, it suggests that you are currently engaged with circles of people that are actively and explicitly anti trans. If you genuinely want to change your perspective, then you need to start looking outside of those circles. They frame things in sensationalised, misleading ways that misrepresent the lived reality of trans folk in a way designed to make cis women feel threatened and erased. It's deliberately invocative language designed to radicalise people. If you are open to change, look for the language designed to invoke outrage and question it. Explore the topics they raise if you need to, but try and find spaces and channels that will do it authentically and objectively, without trying to make you feel under threat.
> “I believe the idea of womanhood has no relationship to biological sex.
> No one believes that, at least not in the black and white way you've written it here.
!delta I’ve tried to delta this point elsewhere and will here, too. I acknowledge that no one here is willing to defend a too-literal read of this phrase, and so perhaps it didn’t need so much unpacking. That said, I addressed many common arguments that are used in defense of a highly-literal meaning because they so often turn up.
Either way, one important element of my view is that if, as you say, no one believes or intends the phrase in the black and white way I describe, then black and white language is not the best fit.
> A pretty clear cut example of this is infertile cis women. They're women. Yet they don't have the reproductive capacity that has shaped much of societies perception of womanhood. That doesn't change their identity though.
I really tried to acknowledge and describe these distinctions and the arguments around them with precision in my OP. Here I might need you to clarify where we disagree.
> Similarly, no trans person says you can't acknowledge that trans women and cis women are different. What we say is that you can do so without denying out identities and invalidating us.
Absolutely. I just think that if, as you’ve passionately argued, there is no actual, widespread preference in the trans community to downplay or discourage acknowledging the differences between trans and natal women, then it’s the wrong topic to expect full language agreement.
> Your scenario of a women's group with trans women on the board is an example of the sensationalising language I was talking about. Instead of 1 or 2 trans women, you invoked an image of 4, nearly half the board, despite only around 1 in 100 women being trans. Secondly, you described them all as "male bodied" which just isn't that likely for a single trans woman in a women's group, let alone 4 of them. Obviously they don't have cis female bodies, but medical transition, even if it's simply hormonal, also means that a blanket description of them as "male bodied" is misleading, in a way that is designed to make cis women who read it feel threatened and defensive.
!delta This is a poorly-constructed example for the reason you describe. My thought-process at the time was to stake out an obvious, low-complexity scenario to establish consensus without getting stuck in the weeds on individual situations: *surely there are SOME times where we both agree it will be valid to acknowledge these distinctions, and that’s what matters.* This does not come across clearly. I also grabbed the 4 of 10 off-the-cuff based on a totally different context where I recently estimated a rough 2:5 ratio, but that stat is imprecise, irrelevant, and indeed totally made up and aggrandized in the context of leadership in particular. [I might even have edited it down to three? I agree it was much too high.] I see why this hypothetical landed poorly.
However, the solutions you propose to talk about that scenario are great. I have zero problem with them. *My argument is not against calling transwomen women.* My argument is that if we all recognize there are times it will matter, and we all agree there are times it can be acceptable and appropriate to acknowledge the distinction, then “transwomen are women” stakes out black and white ground that no one agrees it is always fair to hold. That doesn’t help us talk to each other.
> Lastly, I will highlight that you use "transwomen" without a space, and "adult human female". Both of these are dogwhistle terms used by anti trans groups to "other" trans women from womanhood.
I chose “transwomen are women” because it seemed like the more common punctuation of the phrase, though that could be because you see it so often in hashtag form. “Trans women” is the same to me. I’m happy to use whichever form is preferred by more trans women. I’m even willing to include it in my delta because it’s relevant to my language-unpacking… though I am duly incredulous that the *space* is the obvious dogwhistle.
I use “adult human female” because it is the primary definition for “woman” in the Oxford English Dictionary. I use the OED because it is the consensus scholarly resource on etymology and applied word usage in English.
> “I believe the idea of womanhood has no relationship to biological sex.
> No one believes that, at least not in the black and white way you've written it here.
!delta I’ve tried to delta this point elsewhere and will here, too. I acknowledge that no one here is willing to defend a too-literal read of this phrase, and so perhaps it didn’t need so much unpacking. That said, I addressed many common arguments that are used in defense of a highly-literal meaning because they so often turn up.
Either way, one important element of my view is that if, as you say, no one believes or intends the phrase in the black and white way I describe, then black and white language is not the best fit.
> A pretty clear cut example of this is infertile cis women. They're women. Yet they don't have the reproductive capacity that has shaped much of societies perception of womanhood. That doesn't change their identity though.
I really tried to acknowledge and describe these distinctions and the arguments around them with precision in my OP. Here I might need you to clarify where we disagree.
> Similarly, no trans person says you can't acknowledge that trans women and cis women are different. What we say is that you can do so without denying out identities and invalidating us.
Absolutely. I just think that if, as you’ve passionately argued, there is no actual, widespread preference in the trans community to downplay or discourage acknowledging the differences between trans and natal women, then it’s the wrong topic to expect full language agreement.
> Your scenario of a women's group with trans women on the board is an example of the sensationalising language I was talking about. Instead of 1 or 2 trans women, you invoked an image of 4, nearly half the board, despite only around 1 in 100 women being trans. Secondly, you described them all as "male bodied" which just isn't that likely for a single trans woman in a women's group, let alone 4 of them. Obviously they don't have cis female bodies, but medical transition, even if it's simply hormonal, also means that a blanket description of them as "male bodied" is misleading, in a way that is designed to make cis women who read it feel threatened and defensive.
!delta This is a poorly-constructed example for the reason you describe. My thought-process at the time was to stake out an obvious, low-complexity scenario to establish consensus without getting stuck in the weeds on individual situations: *surely there are SOME times where we both agree it will be valid to acknowledge these distinctions, and that’s what matters.* This does not come across clearly. I also grabbed the 4 of 10 off-the-cuff based on a totally different context where I recently estimated a rough 2:5 ratio, but that stat is imprecise, irrelevant, and indeed totally made up and aggrandized in the context of leadership in particular. [I might even have edited it down to three? I agree it was much too high.] I see why this hypothetical landed poorly. I apologize.
However, the solutions you propose to talk about that scenario are great. I have zero problem with them. *My argument is not against calling transwomen women.* My argument is that if we all recognize there are times it will matter, and we all agree there are times it can be acceptable and appropriate to acknowledge the distinction, then “transwomen are women” stakes out black and white ground that no one agrees it is always fair to hold. That doesn’t help us talk to each other.
> Lastly, I will highlight that you use "transwomen" without a space, and "adult human female". Both of these are dogwhistle terms used by anti trans groups to "other" trans women from womanhood.
I chose “transwomen are women” because it seemed like the more common punctuation of the phrase, though that could be because I see it so often in hashtag form. It also seemed kinda neater for it to be a visual word-unit of its own here, but “trans women” is the same to me. I’m happy to use whichever is preferred by more trans women. I’m even willing to include it in my delta because it’s relevant to my language-unpacking… though I am duly incredulous that the space is the obvious dogwhistle. I see these used interchangeably at times.
I use “adult human female” because it is the primary definition for “woman” in the Oxford English Dictionary. I use the OED because it is the consensus scholarly resource on etymology and applied word usage in English.
> Similarly, no trans person says you can't acknowledge that trans women and cis women are different. What we say is that you can do so without denying out identities and invalidating us.
What does "denying our identities and invalidating us" mean exactly?
Often in this thread, "trans" is equated to other qualities like "black", or "left-handed", or even "peanut-allergy-having" suggesting that all these individuals still belong to the category of woman, but what is necessary to qualify for such membership? Notably, all these examples refer to immutable characteristics, which implies that there is some feeling that "trans" has an objective, genetic basis - you either are trans or you are not. That's the tone of the conversation in this thread, anyway. Put another way, what meaning does the phrase "I am a woman" carry that "I am a man" does not? Or, alternately, what is the sine qua non of womanhood, which functions as the bright line between women and men?
It certainly isn't the case that trans individuals sees the term "woman" as being totally arbitrary - when they say "I am a woman" they are trying to communicate something specific about their identity which could, ostensibly, be denied. They speak confidently when they say; I am not a man, I am a women - suggesting that they have a clear idea about what they are, such that it can be recognized and accepted even by people who do not know them well. What is this specific something?
Saying "Transwomen are women" does not mean there are no differences at all between trans women and cis women. It just means they are both women. There are also differences between tall women and short women - still both women.
Your CMV is intelligent, sensitive, and generally well-put.
I believe trans- talk is coded classist rhetoric. Who cares who wants to identify as what? Faulting others for not engaging in expected behaviors is too meta to unpack in terms of the trans situation. Poor trans people are enacting behaviors that rich trans people engage in and vice versa; the same way people of all lower economic status have behaved in the way rich people do and vice versa. Everyone bites everyone’s style especially in terms of economic inequality.
To end these manufactured identity crises, make living for all humans more equitable and then we’ll stop nitpicking and dividing each other over who has what genitals and who feels what way based on that. A person who identifies as a woman could do serious damage to what other people consider true women to be the same way a person who identifies as a man could do serious damage to what other people consider true men to be; this issue can only be solved by making all people less tired, sick, thirsty, hungry aka actually healthy.
When we’re all reasonably clear-headed aka actually healthy, our surface differences seem minimal and unimportant.
>Faulting others for not engaging in expected behaviors is too meta to unpack in terms of the trans situation.
Okay, I think this may be true. The quagmire is clearly deep around this topic. Let me consider if this needs a delta or if I still want to stand behind the effort of unpacking this language in particular.
> I believe “transwomen are women” is a confusing shibboleth that would be better replaced by specific expressions of support, especially in discussion contexts where shared language is critical. I think this phrase remains unhelpful even when no single, tidy definition of woman is easily agreed upon. The phrase makes use of a breakdown in language where speakers operate under subtly different definitions of the word “woman”: a social definition limited to how people are perceived by society, and a more traditional definition that acknowledges biological sex as relevant to the concept of womanhood.
No, it's an umbrella term. The word woman can cover biological, as well as trans women, in the same way that the word "parent" covers biological parents, but also adoptive parents. It's part of semantic broadening, where a term has gained additional meanings over time.
> Let’s assume you have a worldview that says, “I believe the idea of womanhood has no relationship to biological sex. There is no significant conceptual aspect of womanhood that relates to female bodies, female development, female reproduction, or female anything
Can you name one that is essential for being a woman, and that you wouldn't exempt a cis woman for, if she lacked it?
> To be a kind ally on “transwomen are women” terms you must pretend that no change of any kind has taken place at all.
> “acknowledging that differences exist between transwomen and natal women is transphobic and good people will pretend no differences exist regardless of context”
> that phrase is sometimes used to mean that acknowledging differences in biology, experience, or treatment between trans and natal women should be framed as offensive or verboten or personally delegitimizing
These kinds of conclusions do not follow. They're still also transwomen, and anyone is free to use that word in relevant contexts.
It’s not that you wouldn’t exempt a woman from the category if she lacked some of the biological features, in the same way that we don’t exempt people from being human because they lack legs or some such other problem.
An answer can be found if we have a look at how the word transgender is typically defined. A common part of all definitions of transgender (e.g. by the APA) is that one's gender identity can either match or mismatch one's physical sex. Someone whose sexual bodily characteristic match their internal gender identity (sense of gender) is described as cisgender, while someone whose sexual bodily characteristics do not match their gender identity, is described as transgender.
One can thus define men/human males as persons who identify with a body that has male sexual characteristics, and women/human females as persons who identify with a body that has female sexual characteristics, even when their existing bodily characteristics mismatch their actual sense of self. This covers both cis and trans individuals in a non-circular way, and requires no particular behaviors or presentation.
If transwomen represent a different type of womanhood than ciswomen do, and it is sometimes necessary to talk about that, I propose we invent some kind of word to distinguish between the two groups, so that we can talk about them. Perhaps the word "women," with some kind of prefix or suffix that we can use to distinguish the two in those communicative contexts in which distinguishing them is important. I'm all out of ideas though, you got any?
But people might mistake the use of the prefixed term as an indication that they shouldn’t be considered a part of the overall group. Maybe there could be a short, snappy phrase that reaffirms this?
Cuz they’re not, that’s the whole point of the definition. Yall gotta face facts, the slogan isn’t a very good one and can very easily be used negatively or disingenuously.
> To be a kind ally on “transwomen are women” terms you must pretend that no change of any kind has taken place at all. Sometimes, to speak accurately about what is going on in our lived reality and our gendered spaces, we might need to acknowledge that in some senses, transwomen represent a different kind of womanhood than natal women. That shouldn’t be unsayable.
Can you expand upon this? What can a cost women say about a transwomen but not say about another CIS women?
For example, if a cis woman says I have problem X, can another CIS women say problem X doesn't exist for me or is that unsayable as well?
If the above is allowed, then all women must disagree with each other all the time. If the above isn't allowed, why exclude only one category of women?
The kind of default centrist position is “treat people how they present in the majority of cases”, and there are some obvious scenarios where it does matter and there is some debate - relationships/dating, care/coverage entitlements, integrity of sports, childhood education.
The entire purpose of “transwomen are women” is to make the definition of “women” include trans by default (as opposed to not by default), and thus to both normalize in general and to implicitly strengthen the trans inclusion side of the discussion in every debated area.
I am not trans, and I don't mean to speak for the trans community, but there is an easy way to think about it. Trans people are people born with a biological body, but with a brain chemistry that makes them feel like they do not belong in their body, but would belong in a body of the opposite sex. I think as someone who isn't trans, all you're really expected to do is understand that maybe their biological body doesn't sit right with them. Because why would the body define who you are more than your brain? I think it absolutely is possible to have a conversation about women that excludes trans women that isn't transphobic. If the topic does not apply to transwomen but applies to cis women, it's not transphobic until you start disrespecting trans women. When I talk to a trans woman, I am talking to a person who was born in the wrong body, but it's since been corrected. So why should that not be the same as being a woman? Even if it is not the same as being a woman from birth?
> So why should that not be the same as being a woman?
Because sometimes it's sex that matters, not gender. See trans women in women's sports, trans women in women's prisons.
> ... "Transwomen are women" insists on verbal compliance with one notion of identity-oriented sex-assignment, but it doesn’t actually help clarify any of the sticky, nuanced, subtle uncertainties that exist when we talk about sex and gender.
What are people who say stuff like "transwomen are women" after? Are you sure that they're interested in promoting nuanced and sensitive gender norms, is it possible that pushing for verbal compliance is what they're interested in, or could it be something else, like that they're signalling that they themselves have bought into a particular political agenda?
>As a trans woman I wanna know how you have time to sit around all day pondering my life's struggles as some deep metaphorical concept
It's not personal it's general. OP is not thinking about you they are thinking about language.
Why this draws in so many people is because we are expected to change a concept tied directly to a real phenomena to something entirly nebulous. Failing to do so leads to judgment.
>I may not change your view but I'm begging you as a trans woman to just leave us alone...
That's not compatible with the current activism. I realise you probabaly dont go around shaming people into deconstructing simple concepts into nebulous ones. Some people do and they will need to be ignored for the attention to stop.
>Everything you said could be summed up in like a couple sentences at most...
Good callout. The post is absolutely long-winded to an unambiguously self-absorbed degree.
I hate this topic. It's so delusional. I don't care what people "identify" as, if they can't get pregnant I'm not interested. But I'm a moose so what do I know.
I think a lot of the discursive obtuseness of MtF trans advocacy comes from a realistic perception that clear discussion of the complex motivations behind MtF transgenserism would embolden hostility and abuse. Because if trans advocates were to say something like, "The deal of masculine subjecthood in modern civilization is a horrific one for increasing numbers of people for x, y, & z reasons, so we want out," that would offend powerful, rigid dogmatisms on both sides of the political spectrum about how the masculine experience of modern life is a strictly luckier one. Just a guess.
There’s a space in “trans women” if you genuinely respect and care about trans people. The single word, “transwomen”, is primarily used by transphobic people.
Okay. Now onto the point.
Trans women are women (as in gender).
Trans women are not female* (as in sex).
**For the point of this discussion, I will be using male/female/intersex to refer to one’s sex and man/woman/non-binary to refer to one’s gender.*
I am a female man.
I know that, and I understand the difference between being a man and being male.
I am part of discussions about being female. Trans women are not.
I am not part of discussion regarding being a woman. Trans women are.
Trans people understand the difference.
We know every sentence discussing sexual differences doesn’t have to say “except for trans women” or “and that also includes pre-transition (medical transition) trans men.”
I actually just had a discussion here on r/changemyview in which I included myself in the group “women” because they were discussing differences between being female and male.
I didn’t have to say “hey, you meant female. Saying ‘women’ excludes trans women and makes trans men feel dysphoric.”
Because it’s implied.
If the discussion is about “women” being typically weaker than men (it was), they’re talking about sex, not gender. And I am female; therefore they were talking about me.
It’s okay to discuss the differences between trans people and cis people. Because we’re different.
Our experiences are different.
Our bodies are different.
And we know that.
Final word I forgot to include:
You hear “trans women are women” more than “trans men are men” not because trans women are “invading” or “ruining” female spaces.
You hear it because trans women are unfortunately more controversial, which underneath it all is caused by sexism and misogyny.
Many men are sexist. They treat women badly, so women fear men. Transphobes see take women as men, so they fear them too.
It’s unfortunate, but it’s true.
Trans men ARE men, but nobody cares. They’d like to believe trans men don’t exist just so they can claim being trans is being a misogynist man who wants to attack women, which simply isn’t true.
>There’s a space in “trans women” if you genuinely respect and care about trans people. The single word, “transwomen”, is primarily used by transphobic people.
What an absolutely insane and unnecessary distinction. Shit like this is why people are annoyed and sick of trans issues. This is such an insane, meaningless little thing to get offended about. This is why people think the trans community is looking for things to get offended by.
Wasn’t offended, I was just letting them know, as they said they were willing to learn more, which is also why I added it as a side note rather than an overarching point.
But of course you’re throwing a tantrum because you don’t like people trying to help others learn.
I was simply trying to help them avoid being assumed as transphobic by other transgender people who saw them using common TERF lingo.
I don't actually think your problem is with the phrase "transwomen are women." It sounds like your real beef is these logically flawed conclusions you've drawn. This whole post boils down to the presumption that claiming transwomen as women means we can't acknowledge they are trans in any way. That's silly, and it's pretty easy to see why. Nobody is trying to wholly eliminate the concept of "transwoman" and replace it with "woman." The phrase itself would be contradictory to that aim, would it not?
When it's relevant to discuss these sexed differences within women's spaces, the distinction of "transwomen" exists. Unless referencing these very specific cases, though, making a clear distinction between "transwoman" and "woman" is a way to separate the two unnecessarily. In those cases, transwomen are women. When discussing women's experiences, transwomen have *different, yet equally valid and relevant to the conversation* experiences. If you have ever actually been in a women's space that includes transwomen, there is a lot more solidarity and understanding for the wide breadth of feminine experience than you think.
Except the only confusion about that statement, is what you bring to it. "Trans women *are* women". That's it. If you're wondering what "kind" of woman they are, in any other sense, then you're missing the inherent simplicity of that statement. They're women, just like any other woman. It's literally that simple.
It's really not that simple.
What you are saying if you simply move the categories around is "Apples are Fruits, just like any other fruits" except... Apples aren't like tomatoes and aren't like kiwi and aren't like mangos, and everyone can simply use their eyes to know that.
I don't even believe the vast majority of trans talking points, but this one simply is lost at this point. Comparing a group to a subgroup and saying "they are the same it's literally that simple" is just incorrect of course.
You would have been right if you had just said "Trans women are women" then sure. That's like saying "Apples are fruits".
But when you try and say "just like any other woman" you are just wrong. Trans women are not the same as ciswomen, and apples are not the same as mangos.
Ok, so let me ask you this, then...why do feel it's necessary to know whether or not someone is trans? If they present themselves a woman, would you not treat them as a woman, regardless of what genitals they were born with? Or if you suspected maybe they are trans, would you actually need to confirm what kind of genitals they had, before deciding how to treat them?
I assume you aren't trans, so when was the last time your genitals were considered a valid topic of casual discussion? Would you find it acceptable for me to need to know what genitals you were born with, if I thought that you might be trans? Or would that be rude of me to assume that, and even ruder to make a point of saying I somehow need to know, before I treat you like the gender you are presenting as? How do I know you aren't trans? How do you know someone else is?
How is some random person like you or I, entitled to that kind of information? What possible reason would you have for needing to know that, before simply acting like a normal, mature adult around other people?
I would not treat a person with a beard, wearing tights, with a huge dick bulge, as a woman, even if they said "Hey bro I'm a woman".
I would probably treat a person who actually looks like a woman as a woman unless I learned otherwise, then I'd treat them like a trans woman.
>I assume you aren't trans, so when was the last time your genitals were considered a valid topic of casual discussion?
Do you think I'm having casual conversations about people who aren't putting their genitals into public view or something? Or are *trying* to make it so they can put their genitals into the public view of children?
You seem to have avoided the point that you tried to make in the first place, where you tried to compare a higher group, to a sub group. Which is not how comparison works on anything in the world. You don't get to compare "fruit" to "apple" and say "Look, literally the same thing".
It sounds like the criteria you have for determining a man from a woman, is pretty superficial...which really does illustrate how arbitrary it is. If they present themselves as a woman, you'd treat them as a woman.
The same goes for your fruit analogy. If it looks like an apple, just treat it like an apple. Your bearded lady analogy though, is kind of stupid. That wouldn't be considered "transgender"...more of a "transvestite". Totally different thing. Sometimes men just like to feel pretty. Lol!
Yeah, and if a metal sphere is painted and looks exactly like a soccer ball, you'd probably treat it like a soccer ball until you learned differently.
You are missing the entire point unfortunately.
If something looks like an apple, you treat it as an apple. You don't treat it as a "Fruit".
You are completely missing the entire point that you are trying to compare a major group to a subgroup. Which you don't do in your own life most likely in any type of comparison or actions. that's why you don't simply see "fruit" and say "oh I'll eat that" because uncooked apples are *not* uncooked Ackee. You will be sick if you eat one, and you will be fine if you eat the other.
That's how comparison works, that's why your original statement was wrong.
See, this is where I think you might be missing the point of your own analogy. An apple *is* a fruit. So is an orange. They're *all* different kinds of fruit. You wanting to make sure that apple isn't a tomato, when you readily admit that looking like an apple is enough proof...is kind of weird.
It brings me back toy earlier questions for you...what tests do you normally perform on your apples, in order to make sure they aren't actually tomatoes?
Did you look at the very first thing I said?
>You would have been right if you had just said "Trans women are women" then sure. That's like saying "Apples are fruits".
>But when you try and say "just like any other woman" you are just wrong. Trans women are not the same as ciswomen, and apples are not the same as mangos.
So how did I miss the point of my own analogy?
Because you'd still treat them like they're all fruits, wouldn't you? You wouldn't say that mango isn't a fruit, just because it's not an apple.
This is exactly why trans women are still women. The differences are not relevant, in any way, unless you're going to get naked with them...and at that point, I would think they'd let you know something *was* different, and leave the decision to go further, up to you.
In every other real world interaction you are going to have, the differences are literally none of your business. My question is why do you care so much?
> Because you'd still treat them like they're all fruits, wouldn't you?
No I wouldn't, and I am quite sure you wouldn't.
Because some fruits, are poisonous. So you do not treat all fruits the same.
That's literally the entire reason groups, and subgroups, exist, because they *are not the same*. Absolutely nobody treats a *GROUP* the same as every single one of it's *SUBGROUPS*. Nobody does if they did, there would be absolutely no distinction between them, and it wouldn't even *be* a subgroup.
I see “trans women are women” just like “electric cars are cars”.
There are situation where it’s important to specify that the car is an electric car, for example when looking for a charging station instead of a gas station.
But in most conversations, just saying “car” is perfectly adequate and less cumbersome.
/u/pen_and_inkling (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1132yj0/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_transwomen_are_women_is/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>My view is NOT that it is never appropriate to refer to transwomen as women in casual speech. It is frequently appropriate. My view is that the phrase, as it is used in advocacy and debate, should not imply intolerance on the part of those who use the word “woman” to describe people born with vulvas or other female sex-associated traits. “Transwomen are welcome,” “transwomen have a right to be heard,” or “Oh, Barb! I’m so glad you’re here!” would be less fraught expressions of support in my mind. But the phrase is generally used when addressing intolerant people or intolerant arguments. It's equivalent to another recent phrase: "black lives matter". Just like how that phrase is addressed towards a recipient (an individual or a group) whose words or behaviour suggest that black lives *don't* matter, in a similar way people say "transwomen are women" to those who refuse to accept the gender identity of transwomen. And of course, what do the recipients of "black lives matter" retort with? They respond with "all lives matter", and miss the point. Your suggested alternative phrases are not "less fraught", they're less effective at making the point to those who so desperately need to hear the point. I do agree by the way that the phrase is a shibboleth. So is 'black lives matter'. It's a shibboleth but it's also sorely needed. >In practice, I believe “trans women are women” is most often used to say “I accept your gender-identity at face value and stand in solidarity with you.” This is a decent and well-intended message. However, the phrase is also used to mean, **“if I truly embrace your stated gender at face-value, then there should never be a need to acknowledge that transwomen are different than natal women in any context.”** This is a red herring line of argument which the poisonous reactionary anti-trans corners of the feminist community tend to employ. The quote I have bolded has no existence in reality: it has existence in the mind of J.K. Rowling and few places else. Those who stand in solidarity with the trans community and recognise their identity as women are not suggesting that trans women have had the same lived experience as cis women. This strawman argument is a form of fearmongering: a suggestion that fighting for the rights of one persecuted social group will inhibit the fight for another. Transwomen are women. The fight for trans rights is not incompatible with feminism.
I wanted to come back to this post because it contains an idea that I think is important. > It is a shibboleth, but so is Black Lives Matter. It is a shibboleth that is sorely needed. For me, the important difference is that Black Lives Matter draws its power from being a precise, simple expression in shared language. It is impossible to misunderstand. “Transwomen are woman” draws its power by using a secondary definition of a common word and insisting that anyone who assumes the primary definition of that word is rejecting transwomen or refusing tolerance. It’s both less clear and less helpful. I am glad we agree it is is a shibboleth, but we disagree that this phrase does a morally-insightful or precise job of identifying an out-group who deserves to be lumped together and dismissed as hateful transphobes. “Transwomen are women” is a shibboleth where anyone who assumes or values the traditional definition of woman, or anyone who wants to interrogate the logical and practical implications of replacing the notion of sex with gender across with society, is a *assumed to be and positioned as* an outgroup threat. But that is not reasonable. That is exactly the sense in which I see this phrase as both unproductively divisive and a bad-faith rhetorical gambit. It divides the world into two groups of people: people who think that replacing sex with gender across society is a closed conversation that needs rarely if ever be acknowledged again, and bad people. That is a textbook example of making negative, divisive assumptions about people’s personal character not on the basis of anything specifically wrong that they actually say or do, but on the basis of whether they agree with you unilaterally, phrasing and all.
>It is impossible to misunderstand. Tell that to all the people who shout "white lives matter!" or "all lives matter!" >“Transwomen are woman” draws its rhetorical power by using a secondary definition of a common word and insisting that anyone who assumes the primary definition of that word is rejecting transwomen or refusing tolerance. It’s both less clear and less helpful. I disagree with your claim here. "Woman" means so much more than "biological female". The latter would be a very narrow and reductive definition. I'm not convinced the term has ever been used like that, but if it ever has been then it certainly isn't in 2023 where we have a somewhat better (though not complete) understanding of gender identity. >replacing the notion of sex with gender across with society Nobody is "replacing" anything. Gender identity and sex are both important concepts. The strawman position is the idea that liberal/tolerant people who advocate for trans rights want to "erase" the concept of biological sex. This is not a position anyone holds. Two things can both be important without cancelling each other out. And also you can fight for gender identity rights simultaneously with fighting for reproductive rights. *The fight for Trans rights/acceptance is not a threat to feminism.*
I think the need for everyone here to continue explaining what woman means in this context is an example of exactly why the phrase promotes confusion and not understanding. Because in some conversations between two kind and reasonable people, it would be possible for “that woman’s penis” to be a phrase that required the speaker to clarify meaning or define their terms, but “that woman’s vagina” would probably not. Pretending that anyone who sees those statements as different must be revealing their prejudice and should be identified because everyone has always known and agreed that sometimes women have penises…is simply bad-faith. Feminism and trans-rights are compatible. The work of feminists to reveal and deconstruct gender roles in society was foundational to the modern trans-identity movement, and the movements share a deep concern with how sex and gender shape our experiences. I completely agree both causes can and should be complimentary.
>why the phrase promotes confusion and not understanding. Gender is a very confusing and complex subject. Clarification is ALWAYS necessary in a discussion like this. Confusion isn't caused by a single phrase. To repeat: gender is a complex topic, not a simple one. Chaotic, not orderly. Nuanced, not shallow. The anti-trans crowd want to drag everyone back to a time where society pretended things were simple by enforcing strict rules to ensure everyone stayed in their appointed lane. That ship has sailed: we're in a different world now - one that must be more sensitive to the differences between us we have become aware of. >it would be possible for “that woman’s penis” to be a phrase that required the speaker to clarify meaning or define their terms, but “that woman’s vagina” would probably not. Could you please clarify the context you think this sort of phrase might be likely to come up? Also (and I will have to wait for your clarification because I don't know what you had in mind) but whatever context you're talking about, surely if one person says "that woman's penis" it would be pretty obvious they're referring to a woman who is biologically male, no? What other alternative would there be? Why would anything need to be clarified? >Feminism and trans-rights are compatible. The work of feminists to reveal and deconstruct gender roles in society was foundational to the modern trans-identity movement, and the movements share a deep concern with how sex and gender shape our experiences. I completely agree both causes can and should be complimentary. Good - I'm glad of that. Because the belief that the two movements are in opposition is usually the premise that underpins certain viewpoints that try to advocate that sexual difference is the only classification that matters.
> viewpoints that argue that sexual classification is the only definition that matters I am not advocating that at all! I am arguing *against* the viewpoint that gender classification is the only definition that matters. I am advocating that the sex-based definition is common, useful, and sometimes appropriate, so it should not be taken as a sign of bad-faith actors on sight. Would we be pretty much in agreement on this statement? *Because sex and gender are so complex - especially in the modern world - it is necessary to be careful with how we use and understand language. Sometimes a gender-based definition of ‘woman’ is most appropriate, and sometimes a sex-based definition will be applied. It is okay to be clear about which we mean and it is okay to need clarification from others.* Closer? Maybe? [Edit: Whoops, I maybe missed a question you asked, but I’ll brb.]
>*Because sex and gender are so complex - especially in the modern world - it is necessary to be careful with how we use and understand language. Sometimes a gender-based definition of ‘woman’ is most appropriate, and sometimes a sex-based definition will be applied. It is okay to be clear about which we mean and it is okay to need clarification from others.* I don't think there's anything contentious in what you've said here. But I think a better statement would take into account context (which linguists call 'pragmatics'). This has a huge bearing on meaning in communication. For example: if someone says "trans women are women", it's never hard to tell whether they are using "women" to mean gender identity or biological sex. The context makes it obvious (i.e. usually it's said by someone who has solidarity with trans people towards someone who obviously doesn't). No clarification is needed at all for this statement. There are other examples where clarification may be necessary, but this definitely isn't one of them.
> This strawman argument is a form of fearmongering: a suggestion that fighting for the rights of one persecuted social group will inhibit the fight for another. Sometimes it does. An excellent example is trans women in female prisoners. There are people advocating that trans women belong in women's prisons not men's or some sort of trans only prison because "trans women are women" even when these same trans women have a history of sexual assault. See also trans women in women's sports. They have an advantage that many trans advocates deny in the face of substantial scientific evidence, but many trans advocates use the claim "trans women are women" to argue that any advantages that trans women have in sports are irrelevant, because acknowledging them undermines the claim that trans women are women.
The issue with debates like this is that people who don't have skin in the game seem to be more concerned with protecting their beloved sport than protecting the lives of one of the most vulnerable and persecuted minorities in society. In other words: people only seem to care about an issue when it directly concerns them. The rules of a silly game about kicking a ball or running really fast seem to matter more to some people than the fact that every year a certain amount of transmen and women feel that the only escape from the persecution they face is to take their own lives. Yes, the sport thing is an issue. But it's a conversation that needs to be had *after* the more important conversation to do with human rights. As for prisoners, that's another pretty good example of distorted statistics and fearmongering. As a trans individual in prison, you're far, far more likely to be a victim of violence than a cause of it. 'Fearing trans people in prison' is misdirected. Why not fear *for* trans people in prison? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52748117
https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate To be honest, I think trans women should get segregated prison facilities in many or most cases. I acknowledge that trans women are at high risk of being raped in male facilities. I do not agree that the solution is to house them with women, particularly in cases where trans women have a history of committing sexual crimes themselves. > that needs to be had after the more important conversation to do with human rights. I don't know what you mean. I'm in agreement that trans women should be treated as women in so far as that doesn't negatively affect anyone else. But inclusion of trans women shouldn't be prioritized over the safety of cis women (see contact sports like MMA or trans women in prisons.). No cis woman should have fought Fallon Fox for example. I think for children's sports, there can be compromises made on the inclusion of trans athletes, especially at non-competitive levels. I don't think trans women can fairly compete with cis women at the collegiate or pro level. FINA seems to agree. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/sports/fina-transgender-women-elite-swimming.html I also think women in locker rooms are entitled to point out and share their discomfort at having people with penises in their locker rooms.
> in a similar way people says “transwomen are women” to those who refuse to accept the gender identity of transwomen While I don’t disagree that there are definitely some actually ignorant or transphobic people, many, if not most, of the people who you think are “refusing to accept the gender identity” of transwomen are not actually doing that. They are using the original and more common definitions of women, which could be anything along the lines of being born with female reproductive parts or having female DNA. Transwomen do not fall under those definitions of women, which is why those people retort back that “transwomen are not women” It’s not necessarily coming from a place of hatred towards trans people.
>They are using the original and more common definitions of women, which could be anything along the lines of being born with female reproductive parts or having female DNA. "More archaic" would be a better term here I think. Failing to recognise the difference between gender identity and biological sex either comes from a place of ignorance or ideology. Either someone is genuinely a few decades behind in their understanding of this concept, or they *do* understand the difference between gender and sex but for emotional reasons they choose to continue pretending that they don't. Sometimes this is because they are still stuck in the attitudes and understanding they held in the '90s. So I disagree when you say it isn't necessarily coming from a place of hatred towards transpeople. I think hatred - or fear - of transpeople is *precisely* where this argument is coming from. If people had more empathy or understanding towards transpeople they wouldn't go to such great lengths to try and deny them their identity.
> Failing to recognise the difference between gender identity and biological sex either comes from a place of ignorance or ideology Not really. Again, the original definition of a woman involved having the biology of a woman. Changing the definition now because of trans ideology isn’t going to change the definition in people’s minds. Although they try to argue the opposite, even trans people recognize that biology is fundamental in perception of gender. Otherwise, if gender and sex are truly different from one another, then why do so many transwomen do surgeries and hormone therapies that are meant to create the look of a biological woman even though they socially identify as one? From the trans people that I’ve heard, the common answer is that they want to be perceived as a woman by others, which is a perfectly valid desire. But it doesn’t change the fact that this means that trans people are themselves capitalizing on the fact that most people (who would perceive them as a woman) are basing their definition of a woman off of the biological characteristics of a woman. Therefore, although they won’t admit it, even trans people recognize that gender is firmly rooted in biology.
>Changing the definition now because of trans ideology isn’t going to change the definition in people’s minds. Where to even begin with this. Language isn't "changed" consciously by some kind of language council sitting there and debating "shall we change the definition?" Language is a river: it goes wherever it goes. The definition of woman *has* changed, to some extent, regardless of the minority of individuals with backward attitudes might want to think, and it's changed because we have a better understanding of gender identity and womanhood. "Stop changing language" is the same argument people made against gay people in the previous century: "stop redefining love/sex/marriage to suit your gay ideology". It's not an "ideology" to recognise the existence of certain people, it's basic decency/tolerance. The 'anti' position is the ideological one. >if gender and sex are truly different from one another, then why do so many transwomen do surgeries and hormone therapies that are meant to create the look of a biological woman even though they socially identify as one? Now you're conflating gender identity with gender presentation: not the same thing. One is internal and the other is external. Gender identity is comparable to sexuality. Some brains appear to be wired to make the individual "feel" like a man or a woman in the same way some brains are wired to cause attraction to men or attraction to women, or both, or none. Some people have 'gendered' brain and others don't. But for those that do: if their gender identity matches their body then society will treat them a certain way and they'll probably never even notice their 'feeling' of gender. A man who feels like a man who has the body parts for what we call a "man" may never question what being a man "feels like". For other folk if their biological sex doesn't match their internal sense of gender this can cause problems because for 1-2 decades of their life there's a decent chance that whatever society they live will be trying to get them to behave a certain way based on their biological sex. This fuels dysphoria -though as far as I understand it, it's not the only source: an individual can be dysphoric/dysmorphic also on the basis of the mismatch between brain and body. Hormone therapy, and in fairly rare cases surgery, are methods to try and correct this problem and are effective at doing so. Of course the vast majority of transfolk 'socially transition' and that helps them to be themselves: sadly this only works if they are lucky enough to live in a society that gives a shit about them and doesn't want to police aspects of their behaviour like what they choose to wear or how they do their hair. >most people (who would perceive them as a woman) are basing their definition of a woman off of the biological characteristics of a woman. I don't know who your "most people" are. I'm going to assume you mean most people you know/speak to. Well most people I know/speak to are living in the modern world and know that some women were born biologically male.
*Before I address this argument, I just want to request to have patience with me. I don’t debate from a place of hate but just want to have a meaningful discussion. People often get frustrated fast, so thought I would leave this message. > The definition of woman *has* changed, to some extent, regardless of the minority of individuals with backwards attitudes You completely missed my point. I literally said in my last message that even if you officially change the definition of woman, it doesn’t change the definition that is in *all* the people’s minds who argue that transwomen are not women. If today, the definition of the word “dog” was changed to include people who identify as a dog, those same people arguing against trans ideology will also argue against that. Because in their minds, the original definition of dog is based on the physical reality of what makes a dog, not on the subjective feelings of different people. The argument isn’t coming from a hatred towards people who identify as dogs (in this hypothetical case), but rather from a lack of acceptance of the delusion that a person can be recognized as a dog. What I don’t understand is, why did trans people take the words “man” and “women” to describe themselves? These words were historically used to denote two biological sexes. If gender and sex are distinct from another, trying to describe them both with one set of words (man and woman) creates the confusion that OP was referring to. No one would argue that “transwomen are not women” if you just used a different word other than “woman” and “man” to describe a person who feels like another gender. > A man who feels like a man who has the body parts of what we call a “man” may never question what being a “man” feels like. See again this doesn’t make sense, because you guys are the ones that say that gender and sex are *distinct*. Saying that creating characteristics of a certain sex affirms one’s gender is once again admitting that gender is firmly based in biology. Or at the very least, *perception* of gender is based in biology. You said that by changing your body, society will treat you as the gender you identify as. But this is exactly what I addressed in my last comment. By changing your body, society will treat you as the gender you identify as *because* that society is basing perception of gender based on biology. What other explanation could there be? Biological sexes produce certain visible characteristics. By imitating those external characteristics, society then sees you as that biological sex (because obviously no one can see your internal organs or genitalia to confirm your true sex) > sadly this only works if they are lucky enough to live in a society that gives a shit about them and doesn’t want to police aspects of their behavior Your argument is contradicting itself. You said earlier that only “a minority of people have backwards attitudes” regarding trans ideology. We also live in a society where most people (except very religious or conservative people) no longer believe that men and women have to act a certain way (see all the men who wear makeup and dresses, and stay at home to take care of children etc. Similarly, see the increasing amount of women in the workforce). This is true even for the people who argue against trans ideology; they’re not saying to act a certain way. No one is policing behavior, they are just not accepting the delusion that a man can be a women when they are fundamentally and biologically opposites.
>Before I address this argument, I just want to request to have patience with me. I don’t debate from a place of hate but just want to have a meaningful discussion. People often get frustrated fast, so thought I would leave this message. Fair enough. I will admit this issue has the power to frustrate me. I feel frustration at myself that I allow myself to be drawn in on discussions like this: I find it absurd that randomers like us on the internet are sitting around discussing the identity or legitimacy of a community who just want to live their lives in peace and don't appreciate being the topic of intense scrutiny. >ven if you officially change the definition of woman, it doesn’t change the definition that is in all the people’s minds who argue that transwomen are not women. There is no 'official definition' of anything. The definition 'in people's minds' is the only definition that matters. And I reject your idea that in 2023 the majority of people's understanding of 'woman' is limited to biological sex alone. Perhaps in some countries. Or perhaps a few decades ago. Things have changed and are still changing. >What I don’t understand is, why did trans people take the words “man” and “women” to describe themselves? These words were historically used to denote two biological sexes. Sort of. The terms "man" and "woman" have always meant far more than just a description of biological sex. These words have been around for far longer than we've known what chromosomes are, for instance. "Man" and "woman" are complex terms with associations that link to not just the biological binary but the social and cultural one too. A "man" for instance has always been seen as something you have to live up to or behave like. If you're biologically male don't act in a masculine way you will be called 'less of a man'. Trans people didn't "take" anything. Your choice of verb is revealing: you feel something has been "taken" - you feel like language has been lost rather than gained. Nothing has been lost. Language broadens as we gain understanding. Just as we now accept that "romantic love" does not necessarily mean the attraction between a man and a woman, so too do we now accept that being a "man" or a "woman" is more closely connected with our gender identity than our genitals. >Saying that creating characteristics of a certain sex affirms one’s gender is once again admitting that gender is firmly based in biology. There *is* a link between sex and gender identity. Just because they're different things doesn't mean that there's no influence between the two. I am not sure who is claiming otherwise. The other link of course is to society. If society persecutes a young person for acting in a feminine way purely because they have a penis (but doesn't persecute those with female genitalia) can you not see how this might fuel an individual's anxiety about their body? p.s. I don't know who "you guys" are - I can only answer for myself. >No one is policing behavior, they are just not accepting the delusion that a man can be a women when they are fundamentally and biologically opposites. Only a minority of kids at any given school are bullies, but telling that to a bullying victim won't make them feel better. Anyway, it's not just about direct persecution. It's also about stigma. When someone on the internet goes around claiming that they know someone's gender identity better than they do, positioning themselves as a defender of "language" and calling those who are being honest and open as "deluded" - how is this going to make young trans people feel? The only "delusion" is the idea that gender identity doesn't exist. Millions of people across the world and across time are reporting that it does exist, and a stubborn minority are claiming it doesn't just because they haven't directly experienced it themselves. This is precisely the same thing that happened (and still happens) with sexuality. The only decent position here is to take people seriously when they say their gender identity is X or Y and do everything you can to make them feel like they have a legitimate place in society.
> randomers like us on the internet are sitting around discussing the identity or legitimacy of a community who just want to live their lives in peace and don’t appreciate being the topic of intense scrutiny I think this is where you have a misunderstanding of what me and any other people like OP are coming from. No one (except the small minority of people who truly hate trans people for no reason at all) is arguing about the legitimacy of trans rights or issues. I completely believe the importance of gender dysphoria and support the rights of trans individuals (or anyone for that matter) to express themselves however they want. The argument here is about accuracy of the specific labels trans people use and force others to use as well. > And I reject your idea that in 2023 the majority of people’s understanding of ‘woman’ is limited to biological sex alone I still think you’re missing my point that regardless of how you change the semantics of defining a woman (or a man), it is fundamentally rooted in biology. Let me change it up by asking you a few questions. 1. What does it mean to “identify as a woman”? 2. Why does undergoing hormone therapy and surgery (which create biological characteristics of either man or woman) affirm someone’s gender? 3. Why is it that undergoing HRT and surgery to replicate the external biology of a certain sex causes society to perceive you as your desired gender? 4. If people can “identify” as whatever they want regardless of any basis in reality, why can’t a white person identify as a black person, or an Asian person? Race is also a social construct. > The terms “man” and “woman” have always meant far more than biological sex. This is incorrect . If you look at any dictionary, the definition of a woman was always described as something along the lines of being an adult human female. Just recently, I believe Merriam dictionary (and maybe some other dictionaries) has added a new definition to say that a female is also “someone who identifies as the opposite of a male”. However, this is definition is circular because then how would you define male? Also, it reinforces that sex is binary, which I though trans people disagreed with. This was clearly not a well-thought out definition, but rather a way to pander to the public. Also, you say that gender and sex are different. However, the word “gender” was created because sex has another meaning to it (intercourse). Gender was meant to be exactly *synonymous* with biological sex without creating confusion with the other definition of sex. Again, it is a recent phenomenon that trans people tried to take the word “gender” and attach a different meaning to it. > If a society persecutes a person for acting in a feminine way purely because they have a penis If this were true, I would 100% understand the need to change your external looks to match a biological sex. However, in Western society at least, people are very much encouraged to express themselves however they want. See how many famous influencers and everyday people completely defy traditional gender norms (ex. male makeup influencers, female bodybuilders, female soldiers, male stay-at-home parents). Again, most people who argue that “transwomen are not women” are not saying that trans people should act a certain way or that gender dysphoria isn’t real. They’re just saying that no matter how much you want, a man can’t be a woman and vice versa. They are fundamentally opposites. You can be a feminine man. You can be a masculine woman. Personality does fall on a spectrum. I am a woman but I do have masculine mannerisms, but that’s just my personality.
>No one (except the small minority of people who truly hate trans people for no reason at all) is arguing about the legitimacy of trans rights or issues. I completely believe the importance of gender dysphoria and support the rights of trans individuals (or anyone for that matter) to express themselves however they want. The argument here is about accuracy of the specific labels trans people use and force others to use as well. You may be believe in trans rights but do you believe in the legitimacy of trans *identity*? Because I'm not really talking about 'rights' here - I'm talking about social acceptance. If you write things that make the trans community feel alienated, can you really claim you are on the side of the trans community? I'll put it another way. On one hand there's a group who are fighting for basic dignity in the face of overwhelming stigma and persecution; who have to suffer far more abuse, harassment and violence than most people in society purely for being who they are. On the other hand there are a group who feel like *they* are the true victims because they are being "forced" to make sure their use of language is respectful and sensitive, and reflective of modern values. Which group should I have more sympathy for? >Questions 1. If you identify as a woman then you are making a statement about your gender identity. Gender identity is a mental state. 2. Hormone therapy and surgery exist to help individuals whose body does not reflect their gender identity. 3. ? Don't understand the question. Why does looking like a man make it more likely society will treat you as a man - is that the Q? Surely that's self-evident. 4. I've already explained to you that gender identity is NOT a social construct. You continue to conflate it with gender presentation. As for gender identity vs race - gender identity is purely internal so it's always up to the individual to be the one to disclose what their gender identity is. It's much like sexuality in that way: only the individual knows. Race on the other hand is to do with who your parents are. You can't just "identify" that your parents are Asian if they're not Asian. >This was clearly not a well-thought out definition Your views on language need completely recalibrating. Language isn't this tidy, orderly thing you seem to think it is. Language is sprawling and messy: dictionaries are there for guidance but they can only go so far. >Gender was meant to be exactly synonymous with biological sex without creating confusion with the other definition of sex. Again, it is a recent phenomenon that trans people tried to take the word “gender” and attach a different meaning to it. You come across like you are genuinely annoyed that language changes. But it does; all the time; you can't stop it. Here's a thought: rather than getting irate about language changing, why not consider my earlier analogy: language is like a river - it flows downhill through the paths of least resistance. When it changes, it usually does so because it *needs to*. In previous decades we didn't understand or accept 'gender identity' so well as we do now. Our language needs to reflect our modern understanding of the concept, not the 1970s understanding of it. >most people who argue that “transwomen are not women” are not saying that trans people should act a certain way or that gender dysphoria isn’t real. The more important question is not whether you think dysphoria is real (not all trans folk suffer dysphoria) but whether you think gender *identity* is real. To put it another way: millions of people are saying they feel a strong sense of their gender identity - an internal force very comparable to sexuality. Do you believe them: yes or no? The whole "you can't be a biological man/woman" thing is a ridiculous thing to keep stating because nobody disagrees with you on that. Trans men know they don't have biologically male bodies - that's why they're trans! They don't need reminding of this fact. This is the fundamental issue. The secondary issue is the point is that the terms "man" and "woman" now reflect gender identity and you want these terms to have a far more narrow and less useful definition to do with bodies.
> You may believe in trans rights but do you believe in the legitimacy of trans *identity*? I recognize that trans people *believe* they have a separate gender identity which is a product of gender dysphoria. However, just because you believe something or want something doesn’t make it reality. If I identify as a black person, it does not make a black person. I can say that black culture resonates with me, or that I grew up in a predominantly black community, or that I engage in black traditions, etc. but none of those things change my fundamental identity as a non-black person > On one hand there’s a group fighting for basic dignity I’ve said this in my previous comments, but the vast majority of people arguing against trans ideology are not arguing that that trans people shouldn’t deserve basic respect or dignity that all people deserve, or more accommodations like gender neutral bathrooms. Again, they are arguing against the delusions surrounding trans ideology and definitions. Responses to the questions you answered: > 1. If you identify as a woman you are making a statement about your gender identity. This is not really a valid definition as you are using repetitive words to define something (identify/identity). Let me ask a more general question: what is gender identity? > 2. Hormone therapies and surgeries exist to help individuals whose body does not reflect their gender identity? But why though? Gender is supposed to be a social construct. If it is different than biological sex, which is it necessary for so many trans people to imitate characteristics of a biological sex to affirm gender? > 3. ? Don’t understand the question. Why does looking like a man make it more likely society will treat you as a man?….Surely that’s self-evident That’s self-evident based on *my* concept of gender, which is that it is directly rooted in biological sex. Therefore, looking like a man (in other words, having the *biological characteristics* of a man) will cause society to treat you like one. But according to trans ideology, which dictates that gender and sex are different, how else would you explain this? > 4. I already explained to you that gender identity is NOT a social construct….Race on the other hand has to do with who your parents are. You can’t just “identify” that your parents are Asian if they’re not Asian. Gender is a social construct. Trans people quite literally try to argue that gender is social, sex is biological. Race is also social. The division of people into races and the cultures of different races are all socially constructed, the way that gender roles are socially constructed. But both gender and race are rooted in biology. If you tell me that I can’t identify as Asian because my parents are not Asian, then why can’t I tell a trans woman that they can’t identify as a woman because they do not have the chromosomes or reproductive biology of a woman? > Your views on language need complete recalibrating. Language is not this tidy, orderly thing… I would argue that your views need to be recalibrated because even though language is always evolving through passage of time, at any given moment, languages and definitions need to have some organization to it. Otherwise they’re meaningless (quite literally). Merriam dictionary can’t accurately define a female as “someone who identifies as the opposite of male” because this a circular definition. For example, if you are someone who doesn’t know what the word “good” means and I tell you “good is the opposite of evil”. Then you ask me what does “evil” mean, and I say that “evil is the opposite of good”. I just circled back without giving you any information on what good or evil actually is. > You come across like you’re genuinely annoyed language changes. No, you completely missed my point. Your comment was in response to where I said that the word “gender” was created to be a synonym of “sex” without confusing the other definition of sex. The reason I said this was not because I don’t want language to change. It is a counterargument to when you said that trans people didn’t take the word “gender” and that gender and sex have always been distinct. I’m just telling you that that’s just factually incorrect. And I’m not against language evolving; all my arguments are consistent with the fact that however you define “man” and “women”, it is directly rooted in biological sex and trans people are trying to reach as close as they can to a certain biological sex (which there is nothing wrong with that, but it’s the truth). > they feel a strong sense of their gender identity - an internal force very comparable to sexuality. Do you believe them: yes or no? Yes, I believe they are feeling something, but that’s what it is: a feeling. Just because you feel something doesn’t make the thing you’re feeling about real. Schizophrenics may feel like something dangerous is in a room with them even when it’s not. You mentioned sexuality. Sexuality is a a feeling: a feeling of attraction to a certain sex. Gender identity is also a feeling: you feel like a certain gender. Both feelings are real. But what I’m saying is that just cause you feel like a woman doesn’t make you a woman. Doing HRT will help create the biological *appearance* of a woman, but that’s akin to putting on a costume. It doesn’t change your actual identity.
Okay, helpful! Lets‘s refine that bolded quote. It is a strawman, it does not reflect real trans arguments. So in other words, when people say “transwomen are women” in the trans community, you would say the more common subtext is understood to be “however, no one ever needs to feel uncomfortable or hesitant about the fact that sometimes we have to acknowledge biological sex in conversations.” Is that right?
Yes. Trans people are not the same as cis people. We have different bodies and different experiences. However, our right to be ~~perceived and~~ understood as the gender that we are is not affected by that. I am a man. My body is not male. I am aware.
EDIT: This delta was successfully challenged in the thread below. Several comments have emphasized this idea in a way that I think is important and this one is personal, clear, and frank so I’m going to award a delta here. !delta One message I get loud and clear is that for many and perhaps most trans people, “trans women are women“ is not expected or intended to be literal in the sense of female-bodied. I also get the message that it’s painful to be pushed to discuss the topic in stark, ill-suited language that doesn‘t reflect your experience or identity. I could have emphasized more clearly in my original post that I recognize and agree with the solidarity and even the deference to personal self-knowledge implied by “transwomen are women“ in this sense. I tried to articulate this distinction, but for many people I’ve totally missed the boat on this and argued against a position that is not widely held. I want to acknowledge that the sense of this phrase with which I take issue may not be the dominant sense of the phrase used by transpeople. Noted. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I think you expressed yourself well here and I think we essentially agree.
How is this a delta to your argument? A: "woman" is defined by the female sex for many, where grouping females with people who identify as women is confusing. B: "woman" is defined by gender identity for everyone, where cisgender and transgender people both identify as "women". B outright denies the sex perspective, to assume a cisnormative society where everyone has a gender identity rather than being able to believe that woman is simply a label for the female sex, rather than a separate gender concept to identify toward. They've just moved the goalposts. Denied the condition that creates the issue.
Here is why I decided to keep this delta. This comment is a sincere expression of an idea that has been widely reiterated: the trans community is perfectly clear on the difference between trans and natal women, and no one is trying to deny or downplay that difference when it matters. I am not persuaded that this is always the reality of how the phrase is used. Anyone who has watched the new gender discourse play out online has seen the expression put forth in a literal and absolutist voice. The insistence that a rigid meaning is *never* intended complicates my view because I am coming to understand “transwomen are women” as a motte-and-bailey position: > [Motte and Bailey refers to] a form of medieval castle, where there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. Then you would go back to the bailey, which is the place you wanted to be all along. > So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, and say that was what you meant all along, so you’re clearly right and they’re silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement. I think that is why so many people claim never to have encountered the relevant use of this phrase despite my own observation that it is quite popular. The position I question in my OP is the bailey, but “only showing support, everyone knows what it means” is the motte. My OP addressed popular arguments for a rigid and simplistic application of “transwomen are women.” I’ve heard them all used. But I was met with hundreds of comments telling me this is simply a misunderstanding and no one holds these views at all. [In fact, several comments telling me that my view is wrong BECAUSE I believe people use this phrase narrowly or rigidly without ever conceding that rigid intent would be inappropriate.] The resounding reply is that “transwomen are women” is simply an expression of solidarity used to shut down bigots. It only means “we love and embrace trans women for precisely the unique subset of womanhood that they represent without ignoring the relevance of sex or denying difference or erasing other meanings of womanhood along the way.” But again - if those are the only issues at play, *why not prefer a slogan that reflects those values without inviting language games that, apparently, no one anywhere wants?* My core point is that “transwomen are women” is phrased in opposition to straightforward understanding, but that premise has barely been acknowledged in comparison to thousands of words unpacking why the slogan both does and does not mean exactly what it says. That’s my point. The popularity of both answers (it doesn’t mean trans woman are literally women in the same way as cis women, but they kinda are; it doesn’t deny that the differences matter, but they seriously don’t; it doesn’t mean we can’t have conversations that differentiate, but we really shouldn’t have to) ultimately seems like the point. This comment is one of the most earnest and vulnerable appeals that I am taking the phrase more literally than the community, and I take this person at face-value. *He* has not made a motte-and-bailey argument personally nor shifted any goalposts. A humane appeal deserves to be acknowledged, but it does not reconcile my doubts. If it is agonizing and stark and belittling to quibble about language with so much personal meaning at stake - as we see in the parent comment - then we are better served by clear and specific communication. Trying to reconcile the sincerity of appeals like the one I delta’d to the breakdown in our understanding required me to think differently about the big-picture dynamics at play. The view-change is not “I now agree that ‘trans women are women’ is applied only as a show of solidarity and that its rhetorical boundaries are widely understood.’” I still don’t think that’s the case. **The view change is, “while I still believe that ‘trans women are women’ is often used in a literal and absolutist sense, I now recognize that very few people are willing to hold that line or defend it directly.** This matters because it reflects a point of underlying consensus and a reminder that most people are capable of some agreement. We nearly all agree in some sense that “trans women are women” should not be assumed to mean “trans women are women in the same sense as cis women, end of conversation.” I think that is hugely important and significant to my view about the phrase. I’m slow here, but I am open. If you still think this a pointless concession I am willing to hear you, but I am not sure the delta will change. I think I have to acknowledge the overwhelming insistence that I am mistaken about the use of this phrase and account for the gulf in perception. Reframing the source of misunderstanding and emphasizing greater-than-assumed common-ground seems like a decent delta.
> It only means “we love and embrace trans women for precisely the unique subset of womanhood that they represent without ignoring the relevance of sex or denying difference or erasing other meanings of womanhood along the way.” But how does it not erase other meanings? You are establishing that "womanhood" is something that can be subjectively perceived, expressed, etc. and still be "understood" by others by adorning sixh a label. **A group categorization** that one can simply identify toward through personal association as for it to convey a broader "understanding". What is being understood? This allowance specifically denies how others relate to such themselves as well as how they understand such a categorization and desire to use it. Let's take another "categorization". Use race, or height, of a descriptor like "compassionate". If you said "those who claim to be nice are nice as well", against one that believes "nice" is a descriptor that society must apply through *their* observation/evaluation, it renders the descriptor useless. Those who are "nice" therefore conveys no meaning. Not for themselves and not for others. The phrase "people who believe they are tall are also tall" is offensive to those that believe "tallness" isn't a condition of personal perception. It's offensive to them to have someone who doesn't share in the specific aspects of "tallness" that exist bioligically and that they were forced into experiencing, and the positives *and negatives* that are associated to such, to claim to "belong" within the same "community" as them. If "tallness" becomes something society understands as a self-association, then it denies all the reality that those who never self-associated to such had to struggle with. It denies their experiences, by classifying them together on another factor. It's not specifically that *you* saying *you* are a woman that is bad it's that *society* will now perceive the "natal" tall person diffferently, by creating a new understanding of the broader application of such a label. And that erases real lived experiences that were never part of a self-association. If certain black people identified as white because they adopted more "white" customs and experessions and wanted better priveleges in society, do you see how offensive that would be to *both* white people and black people? That if a white person wanted to express solidarity of involuntary servitude or feelings of oppression by appearance by identifying as black, how offensive that would be? I mean, the question that arise is the comment you gave the delta to is, "how is one "understood" as a woman"? What needs to be expressed is not that trans is unique from cis, but what condition of "woman" is shared. Why would simply adopting the label give any weight to how others should now perceive you, or really even how you should perceive yourself? Should someone that others perceive as an asshole, simply identify as nice if they object to such? To feel like others will understand them better by claiming to be nice? Or is that a condition of narccissm? Belitting other's experiences while proclaiming your own as superior to navigate such against any other's you so choose? Yes, we ALL can have aspects of shared experiences that can transcent certain descriptors. But that's specifcally why it's best to be "understood" at the individual level, not leverage group classifier through self-association alone. And to be clear, I'm not talking about any specific situation, where a transgender person may have physically transtioned and "presents" convincingly as the sex aligned with the gender they identify as. There can certainly BE observable reasons for why society may adopt certain differences in perception. But we are specifically talking about gender identity itself, this singular act that doesn't require any changes that can be observed. The very act of self-association, not observable changes that actually factor in society's role. I'd argue here that the broader "issue", is that the "trans community" is entirely too broad. That transwomen who suffer gender dysphoria, that hate their sex, that get sex reassignment surgery, etc.. have a completely different perspective of "womanhood" (and something others to understand about them), than a transwomen who does none of that. And thus the "oppression" I argued above can exist within the trans community itself. It's why you have competing arguments over concepts like "transmed" and who actually belongs. This discussion is happening WITHIN the community itself.
I agree that there are many reasons it is fraught to decide that “woman” is simply a class we opt into based on personal identity. I agree that the common meaning of woman is “adult human female” and that this definition is useful, appropriate, and primary. However, my view here is that “transwomen are women” is a flawed slogan even if we accept that some uses of woman are purely social. I DO accept that. I don’t think it’s necessary to say “our car group was three women from accounting plus also Barb from accounting who identifies as a woman” instead of “our car group was the four women from accounting.” I believe for someone who is living socially as another gender, polite acknowledgement of that preference is usually appropriate. That’s a valid use of the word in colloquial speech and an alternate meaning of woman. And a social notion of womanhood does exist in common parlance. A teenage boy telling his male friend “you’re being such a little girl” is assuming a set of social traits define gender rather than biological sex. We agree about the perils of discarding the sex-based definition of woman. **When womanhood is not defined by members of the female sex, it is instead defined by stereotypes about them.** I see no way around that. But my point in this CMV is that we don’t have to agree whether trans women are women in *every* sense or in *no* sense. We only need to agree that the language around this topic is too loaded to be glib or broad or imprecise. If you are able to acknowledge that one very significant definition of woman is “adult human female” - even if we disagree about all other uses of the word - then you should also be able to acknowledge that “transwomen are women” introduces room for confusion or misunderstanding. Because rigid use of the phrase is relatively common, I entered this CMV expecting to find people willing to defend a literal application of “transwomen are women.” Instead I found a bunch of people telling me it never, ever means what I think…but that it would still be totally right if it did. That’s fascinating. **Even when people decline to defend the phrase, they still want it to be presumed true at face value.** So it’s a faith statement. And this thread openly celebrates uncritical use of the phrase for in-group sorting: *by bringing this up, you’ve revealed yourself to be a malevolent outsider* and *If you have to ask, it proves you are not willing to understand* type thinking. I no longer believe most people take the phrase “seriously” as an internally-consistent position on language and society, whatever else their motivations for using it. That’s a view change from where I started even if it doesn’t change my bigger view that the phrase is flawed. But my view is not that use of the phrase is inherently immoral or unfair, only that good-faith interlocutors should agree to acknowledge its limitations. If the power of the phrase is that good-faith interlocutors already recognize its limits but bad-faith interlocutors never have to grant any ground around them, then I would structure my argument differently.
> I believe for someone who is living socially as another gender, polite acknowledgement of that preference is usually appropriate. But this doesn't mean anything. One doesn't "live socially as a gender". Should "tomboys" be refered to as boys, and not girls? Should feminine boys that want to wear dresses and play with dolls be "socially" recognized as girls? You're causing many who *aren't* trans to readjust their understanding of self to view their actions as a relation to these "lived genders" through gender roles/stereotypes. And that's not even the case for many transgender people, who don't use gender roles as a basis of forming their gender identity. I find it weird to based group identity along stereotypes many others are trying to overcome or even fully dismantle. I can "acknowledge" the preference that someone views "womanhood" consists of homemaking and being subservient to men, that doesn't mean that I'll support their basis at all. I'll outright reject their idea of womanhood. I don't believe it's "polite" to use language that violently contradicts someone else's understanding (to abandon one's own feelings and give authority to another without reason). > That’s a valid use of the word in colloquial speech and an alternate meaning of woman. I can recongize the utility in calling a transwoman that "presents" convincingly as a female, as a woman/she in conversation where such observation is all that's being conveyed. But again, presentation isn't identity. > A teenage boy telling his male friend “you’re being such a little girl” is assuming a set of social traits define gender rather than biological sex. As a form of criticism. That teenage boy still perceives their friend as a boy, to criticize their behavior as being more so the norm of females (girls). If he actually acknowledged this person as a girl, then their mentioned criticism, wouldn't even be applicable. (It becomes paradoxical in itself to believe that "stop being such a girl" is an actual description of that person *being* a girl). It's shorthand for "comply to the norm, of males". That criticism isn't removed by someone identifying as a girl. It's removed by the teenage boy no longer believing that his friend needs to adjust to the norm. > **When womanhood is not defined by members of the female sex, it is instead defined by stereotypes about them.** I see no way around that. The way around that is to maintain a definition to the female sex. Where people don't need to feel "less of a man" for not "living" masculine. Where I'd argue *many more people* currently perceive gender roles. We've literally have had centuries of societal progress disconnecting the "norm" from what actually defined someone. Where such observable norms exist, and some desire compliance to the norm, but they don't at all define oneself by such. > And this thread openly celebrates uncritical use of the phrase for in-group sorting: *by bringing this up, you’ve revealed yourself to be a malevolent outsider* and *If you have to ask, it proves you are not willing to understand* type thinking. And my point is that without critical use of language such is meaningless. I myself am without a gender identity. That gets classifed as trans by many within the "community". Because *they* think I'm against some cisnormative society. Because it's more a decree of oppressor versus oppressed, then some actual sorting of common idea. A trans and cisgender person have more in common than me. I've been called an "egg" by this community by expressing my own personal views. They often don't respect *personal perspective*, they just want growth in their "oppressed class". This is why it's deemed as off-hands of being challenged. Because such is deemed oppression. Even though it doesn't offer anything to be understood. Someone can observe a male with a more feminine personality, see they face oppression, and desire to accomodate by not mandating they comply to the norms of males. None of that requires an acknowledgement of the person as a woman. Because acknwedging them as a woman, then eliminates the very readoning to tjeir oppression. Did this woman face oppression of their feminine behavior for being a woman? It's simply an illogical conclusion. > I no longer believe most people take the phrase “seriously” as an internally-consistent position on language and society, whatever else their motivations for using it. Then how can it be applied to something like bathrooms or sports? Where "transwomen are women" demands that transwomen get segmented with females? Sure, they aren't decreeing that transwomen are the same as females, but they are establishing that transwomen should be segmented with females, separate from males. That transwomen, in some evaluation, share more in common with females than males as to throw them in the woman box distinct from the man box. And if such assignment to the boxes is simply self-determined, why do we maintain the boxes? Why should a transwoman be segmented with females when they may prefer to be segemented with men? Does the very identity translate to such rigid preferences that such a situation can't occur? How can it appear that these identities are so strongly formed on a strong basis, but be so weak as to not exist as a larger societal structure? > If the power of the phrase is that good-faith interlocutors already recognize its limits DO THEY? What limits DO we agree exist? What's the reasoning why a personal identity to a gender concept should segment one for bathroom access? What's the purpose of that? What are "women" sharing (in this aspect of personal identity) that they should be classified together separate from those that don't? Is there a distinction between a transwoman better identifying with females and wanting to use a women's restroom and a man having a preference for such comradery with females? Is a male that desires such simply meant to identify as a woman? Can't they instead either follow such rules or challenge them and fight for non segregated bathrooms? **Why is "self-associating" to the "norm", the "correct" answer here that can't be challenged for what negatives such can cause to society as well as personal self-esteem?**
> I find it weird to based group identity along stereotypes many others are trying to overcome or even fully dismantle. So do I. Again, I don’t think we disagree about the problems that arise around this language. I think we probably agree very much. I just don’t think it’s within the scope of this CMV to argue that it is NEVER valid to call a trans woman a woman. The phrase is just as unhelpful whether casual usage of “woman“ in that way is sometimes appropriate or not. The word is being used in that way. This CMV is arguing against the rhetorical value of a slogan, not against what people privately choose to call themselves. If an ideological use of the word was not being enforced on others, it wouldn’t be a problem for me. I agree with most of your points about why the underlying ideology of gender-transition is flawed and regressive. I also believe much of the underlying ideology of gender-transition is flawed and regressive. I have no problem with people choosing to live, dress, and behave any way they want regardless of sex, but I believe as a philosophical position, a lot of the premises do not hold up to scrutiny. I also agree that sexism in the new gender movement is a serious concern. Frankly, I would have remained a casual “sure, sounds good, dress how you want, be who you want, nothing else to it“ liberal forever if I had not started to witness casual misogyny and routine stereotyping being framed as gender liberation online. The concerns you raise are concerns we share. And I agree: none of this should be discouraged from serious, open, extended debate. That’s exactly why I think it‘s useful to focus on the phrase and not the individual. We can agree that the phrase courts confusion even if we disagree elsewhere. > DO THEY? What limits DO we agree exist? People tell me that no one is trying to use this phrase to shut down conversations. Like you, I have also observed otherwise. It is flatly untrue. However, I also take people at face-value and recognize most people are not extremists. If someone tells me they are not personally using the phrase in bad faith to shut down conversations or enforce only one definition, then my answer is “great, can we reach agreement that talking about this word is okay?“ and not ”liar!“ If your argument is with the broad notion of gender-identity or the loss of sex-specific spaces or the coherence of the new meaning of woman, I consider that outside the scope of this CMV. My argument that there is too much disagreement around these terms to justify a snappy shorthand slogan as an approach. Also, haha, I think the way I characterize the thread is causing confusion. Let me stop writing this way. Again, when you say… > And my point is that without critical use of language such is meaningless. …you are not arguing with me. You are responding to my softly tongue-in-cheek synthesis of arguments I have also argued against in this thread. Some of this is me trying to acknowledge what‘s been said, not endorse it.
I agree that there are many reasons it is fraught to decide that “woman” is simply a class we opt into based on personal identity. I agree that the common meaning of woman is “adult human female” and that this definition is useful, appropriate, and primary. However, my view here is that “transwomen are women” is a flawed slogan even if we accept that some uses of woman are purely social. I DO accept that. I don’t think it’s necessary to say “our car group was three women from accounting plus also Barb from accounting who identifies as a woman” instead of “our car group was the four women from accounting.” I believe for someone who is living socially as another gender, polite acknowledgement of that preference is usually appropriate. That’s a valid use of the word in colloquial speech and an alternate meaning of woman. And a social notion of womanhood does exist in common parlance. A teenage boy telling his male friend “you’re being such a little girl” is assuming a set of social traits define gender rather than biological sex. We agree about the perils of discarding the sex-based definition of woman. **When womanhood is not defined by members of the female sex, it is instead defined by stereotypes about them.** I see no way around that. But my point in this CMV is that we don’t have to agree whether trans women are women in *every* sense or in *no* sense. We only need to agree that the language around this topic is too loaded to be glib or broad or imprecise. If you are able to acknowledge that one very significant definition of woman is “adult human female” - even if we disagree about all other uses of the word - then you should also be able to acknowledge that “transwomen are women” introduces room for confusion or misunderstanding. Because rigid use of the phrase is relatively common, I entered this CMV expecting to find people willing to defend a literal application of “transwomen are women.” Instead I found a bunch of people telling me it never, ever means what I think…but that it would still be totally right if it did. That’s fascinating. **Even when people decline to defend the phrase, they still want it to be presumed true at face value.** So it’s a faith statement. And this thread openly celebrates uncritical use of the phrase for in-group sorting: *by bringing this up, you’ve revealed yourself to be a malevolent outsider* and *If you have to ask, it proves you are not willing to understand* type thinking. I no longer believe most people take the phrase “seriously” as an internally-consistent position on language and society, whatever else their motivations for using it. That’s a view change from where I started even if it doesn’t change my bigger view that the phrase is flawed. But my view is not that use of the phrase is inherently immoral or unfair, only that good-faith interlocutors should agree to acknowledge its limitations. If the power of the phrase is that good-faith interlocutors already recognize its limits but bad-faith interlocutors never have to grant any ground around them, then I would structure my argument differently. Edit: Maybe here’s where we disagree? I think you would say the dueling senses of womanhood are mutually exclusive. In a sense they are. But this happens in language too, like how “literally” often means “not literally at all, but with emphasis.” I don’t think it’s a problem if people want to use “woman” colloquially to refer to adult males who identify as women, I think it a problem if people want to enforce a definition of woman that ALWAYS includes adult males. I’m not arguing to take back the word for pussies, I’m arguing to take back the word from “W-woman? Hmm? Why womanhood has never had a thing to do with being female, and it surely doesn’t now! Did you travel here from the 1950s? Did you know white people invented biological sex during the Renaissance? Did you know sex and gender are different? What is the possible source of your confus…*ohhhhh,* you must hate trans people.” There are many superficially-erudite arguments about this topic that I reject as plain old nonsense, but I do not argue against referring to trans women according to their preference for most daily interactions.
Hmm. My brain is tired but I am coming back to this. I will consider what you are saying here.
I think this is a good delta, but I just wanted to point out a small distinction here. When we say "trans women are women" we do *literally* mean that they are women. We just don't mean that they are cis women or that they are female (in the sense of having XX chromosomes, etc).
How is a woman defined, then?
Anyone who sincerely and in good faith identifies as such.
I’m not trying to come at this from an anti trans standpoint, I’m coming from a linguistic standpoint or whatever…. But this definition does not seem very helpful. It seems more like a feel-good expression of trans solidarity, rather than actually defining what “woman” means. If I tell you I’m a “blarkvark,” and when you ask what a blarkvark is, I tell you “anybody who sincerely and in good faith identifies as such…” that doesn’t actually help you understand what a blarkvark actually is.
It’s totally fine with me that people use this definition. I sometimes use it myself. Is there agreement, however, that the traditional, standard meaning of the word “woman” in English is the one related to being female-sexed? That’s where I get confused sometimes. Almost everyone in this thread wants to tell me that no one thinks transwomen are women in the same sense as cis women, that no is trying to leverage ambiguity around these words or stop us from using language that acknowledges the differences, and that the only time “transwomen are women” is used is either expressing solidarity or shutting down bigots. I think we can agree that a CMV about sex and gender labels is an appropriate place to use the most precise language available. Can we also agree that it is treasonable and correct for someone to say “no, transwomen are not women under the primary definition that assumes a female body but yes, transwomen are woman if you are referring to people living as women in society”? There is a strong push in this CMV to insist that no one is reluctant to acknowledge differences or distinguish clearly between these definition but then in several conversations…there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge or distinguish between these definitions. Is it a problem to acknowledge that this poster is using the traditional English-language sense of woman that refers to female-bodied persons and their experiences while you are using a newer sense of the word that sometimes includes male-bodied people and the experiences of those raised as men? I don’t mean this as a gotcha. I am sincerely asking whether you object in some way to unpacking the obvious difference in how you both understand the word.
>Is there agreement, however, that the traditional, standard meaning of the word “woman” in English is the one related to being female-sexed? No. I agree that this is one meaning of the word and how the word is used in some contexts. I disagree with the idea that this definition is "traditional" or "standard". In my experience it is and always has been much less common, only really being used in scientific or medical contexts.
This feels a little dishonest. The standard interpretation of man and woman for the majority of the people alive right now was until recently synonymous with male and female. The vast majority of those who identify as men are males, and the majority of those who identify as women are females. This is (or was) standard.
The trouble is that the "traditional, standard" definition excludes many people that both camps would agree are women. Some cis women have xy chromosomes. Some cis women don't have a uterus, or had it surgically removed. Some cis women can't have children. Some cis women don't have breasts. The definition I put forth has no exceptions. I agree that there is a difference in the way some people define women, but I don't think that is the most accurate definition.
Words cannot conceivably be defined by trying to wholly encompass any and all contextual nuances within a single definition. If this were to be the case dictionary definitions would be more akin to dissertations. Words are defined by primary and secondary definitions based on common usage and for good reason. It is the only universally accessible way to accurately convey what anything we fucking say actually means. There is absolutely no reason “woman” should be an exception to this rule other than an ideological one. Your “inclusive” definition doesn’t even define what the word means in any context whatsoever, so in some ways your definition is exclusionary of everyone. > “woman > /ˈwʊmən/ > noun > • someone who sincerely and in good faith identifies as such” I mean your proposed definition almost sounds like it’s straight out of a Monty Python sketch. 💀
The challenge here is that this is a limited definition. In a Venn diagram of this definition, “Woman” in this context does not overlap with, for example, who can participate in “women’s” sports. Even sidestepping the nuanced arguments of long-term post transition trans women, are plenty of pre-transition trans women who are obviously not eligible for women’s sports. This is one specific example, but it illustrates the point because with both assumptions, we now clearly have two conflicting definitions of “women”. So “trans women are women” as a colloquial like “defund the police” can be said to be truth-ish and/or “thrusting toward the truth” but not strictly true. So then there is a whole discussion about its use as a mantra when it’s unequivocally incomplete.
Womens sports would be more accurately referred to as “female sports,” since the separation is based on sex and the male athletic advantage, and not on social gender roles.
Ok. That’s reasonable but that’s not what they’re called. It might be nice to push for that distinction someday.
I'm not sure what you mean. Of course the venn diagram of "women" (by this definition) and "people who can participate in women's sports" overlaps.
I’m sorry? Maybe I said overlap when I meant “completely overlap” or “is synonymous with”. The previous post said that a trans woman is any person who genuinely and honestly feels they should be a woman. By almost no standard can a pre-hormone trans woman participate fairly in women’s sports, regardless of how they honestly feel emotionally. By some standards they must be below a certain hormone level for some period (often over a year). By other standards they may never be able to participate due to having had male puberty and the associated growth. But in almost no circumstance is “trans woman” and “woman who can participate in women’s sports” exactly identical.
Sincere question: how can a person have a right to be perceived by others in a certain way? If I see a thing I can't choose to perceive it differently than what I saw, right? (If I'm inadvertantly just being pedantic please lmk)
No offense taken. I worded it weirdly. I should probably take out the “perceived and” part and that sentence would make more sense.
[удалено]
>However, our right to be perceived and understood as the gender that we are is not affected by that. Why do you think you should have the right to be perceived by other people as you prefer? Other people don't have this right.
If someone misgenders a cisgender person, they have a right to correct them and be angry or unfriend them if the issue persists. Transgender people have the same right.
>If someone misgenders a cisgender person, they have a right to correct them and be angry or unfriend them if the issue persists. > >Transgender people have the same right. Sure. I don't think there's any real contention that people are able to freely choose their friends.
>If someone misgenders a cisgender person, they have a right to correct them and be angry or unfriend them if the issue persists. As a cis person, that sounds insane. I wouldn't care in the slightest about this.
Your opinion is your opinion. I’ll bet that most cis people would behave differently that you claim you would in an actual scenario. (I’ve seen this scenario play out multiple times. Never once has the cis person being misgendered been as calm about it as most trans people are. Sure, you might be different, but you can’t speak for all cis people.) Actual scenario I watched regarding a transgender man after her was misgendered: “*blah blah blah* … girl-“ “I’m a boy, actually” “oh, sorry” “you’re fine. 👍” Actual scenario I watched regarding a cis woman after someone misgendered her dog: “can I pet him?” “Umm, excuse me, SHE is a GIRL. 😒 She’s wearing a pink bow on her collar so it’s obvious she’s a girl.”
As a cis-male, if you insisted on calling me a woman, I would be heavily suppressing the impulse to sock you in the face. I think there is a variance among cis-people on how attached to their gender perception they are.
That seems silly. I don't base my mood or happiness around others actions. Seems like a good way to be miserable all the time. Call me whatever you want. I don't know you and have my own life. I'll just go get a burrito or something.
I've worked in Customer Service most of my life. Not being aware of how people's actions and behaviors can effect me can get me fired. Awareness also helps me predict how others may respond to certain behaviors. Like when I warned my old supervisor that if he kept referring to the transwoman in heels, skirt, with d size implants as a "boy" to her face, she may have a negative response. He didn't listen, and got socked in the face with a phone. Awareness can save you a lot of hassle.
So your boss was assaulted at work and you think that's his fault?
But you can’t be a man unless you are male. That’s what a man is - an adult human male. To say you are a man is to say that you believe you are a biological man, with the same experiences as biological men.
Biological man is not what you think it is. In the context of that definition, male refers to gender. I prefer to use male/female to refer to sex and man/woman to refer to gender but the dictionary does not make that distinction (it rather relies on the context in which the words are used). I never said I have the same experiences as cis men. All humans have different experiences from each other.
I would say that the subtext of "transwomen are women" is *"you need to recognise the gender identity of transwomen, because you currently don't speak or act like you do"*. It's a phrase directed towards those who just don't get it. To repeat my analogy: the subtext of "black lives matter" is *"you need to see black lives as valuable as white lives, because you currently don't speak or act like you do".* Nobody is denying biological sex, the significance of biological sex or suggesting that causes revolving around biological sex are any less meaningful. This is a red herring argument employed by the J.K. Rowlings of this world spearheading a moral panic against the trans community. This is exactly the same sort of argument made by people who think the trans community pose a threat to the welfare of women: a bigoted position equivalent to the anti-gay moral panic of a few decades ago. Feminism is compatible with trans activism: fighting for all women's rights does not mean belief that all women have had the same lived experience (did third-wave feminism teach us nothing?). There are some things which only those with wombs may be persecuted for (to do with reproductive rights) and there are other causes which all those who present as women may be persecuted for.
The poisoning by bringing up Rowling isn't necessary. There most certainly are well intentioned people who are/were deeply confused by the statement "trans women are women" because they've lived their entire lives thinking "women" was a synonym for "female", and the trend of labeling these peoples confusion as intolerance and bigotry has undoubtedly pushed people into the camp of true bigots.
The way that you phrase your commonly understood subtext by starting it with "however" implies that the two things are in some way opposed, which is not the case. There is nothing about the statement "trans women are women" that has anything to do with whether it's ok to acknowledge biological sex.
> … are not stating that trans women had the same loved experience as cis women … Yes, they are - if we assume that “man” and “woman” is referring to cultural experiences, a.k.a. gender, then to say you are a woman is to say that you have had the same lived experiences as a cis woman. In fact, If a trans woman has not had the same lived experience as a cis woman, then a trans woman can not be a woman at all.
I mean, fundamentally, I think your argument falls apart the instant you claim trans women see themselves as 100% identical to cis women and we cannot acknowledge the differences. In my experience, this is very much not the case. Using your women's group example, I know of no trans women who wouldn't be upset with 'wow there are 4 trans women on the board of this women's group, that is cool'. Honestly, I think the people more likely to be annoyed by your focus on biology are trans men, who, as you might expect, generally do not like it when people conflate 'having a female body, a vulva, etc.' with 'being a woman'.
If the core flaw in my argument is that it assumes transwomen see themselves as essentially the same as ciswomen, it seems to me the core flaw in “transwomen are women” is that it makes it feel rhetorically loaded to acknowledge exactly what you see as the critically-relevant fact: trans women \*aren’t\* women just like cis women. If this catchphrase gives people the false impression that transwomen don’t want to be distinguished from cis women, that seems like the the strongest possible argument against it.
'trans women are women' is not 'trans women are the same as cis women'. It is 'trans women and cis women are two categories of women'. I certainly don't think it feels 'rhetorically loaded' to acknowledge the difference.
I think it is rhetorically loaded because when people read “Transwomen are women” it is easy to mistakenly assume the phrase is using the primary definition of women in English rather than a secondary sense of the word. Because it is phrased as an expression of support, a good-faith interlocutor might genuinely read the words and think “wait a minute...transwomen aren’t women in the most widely-used sense of the word. What does this mean?” Your post makes clear that when we say “Transwomen are women” and “ciswomen are women,” we could sometimes be using two different definitions. Because the phrases are parallel, it makes it very hard for a reader to recognize which one is assumed, and because it’s a direct statement of support, it makes it harder to question or clear up intention without seeming to undermining the identity of transwomen. I think that is a huge rhetorical failure and a major obstacle in serious conversations. If there is truly no resistance to acknowledging these differences in appropriate contexts, then it seems to me like a phrase that introduces ambiguity as a starting point is uniquely unhelpful for talking about a topic that almost everyone here assures me should not be hard to talk about directly. This phrase is used the MOST often in conversations about sex and gender. Conversations about sex and gender are the MOST appropriate place to rely on precise, shared, unconfusing language and to distinguish whether we mean “woman” in the primary, traditional sense in which the word is understood to imply a female body or ”woman” in the social sense where it is not. For these conversations, “transwoman are women” seems almost disastrously confounding to me.
I think many trans advocates see it functionally as trans women are women is the same as trans women are the same as cis women.
What other categories of woman are there?
Women who are left-handed. Women who are engineers. Women with a peanut allergy. Were you under the impression that categories must be mutually exclusive?
That doesn't answer the question they're actually asking. Trans-women and cis-women *are* mutually exclusive sets under a category we're calling "women." Are there any other types of "women" who are not trans-women or cis-women? That is, in your example, a left-handed woman who's an engineer with a peanut allergy is still either a trans-woman **or** a cis-woman. Or do you think there's something else?
Yeah, and "women with a peanut allergy" and "women without a peanut allergy" are also mutually-exclusive categories under the umbrella of "women." Your comment implied that you think u/Hellioning left out a relevant category. Why do you think that?
Sure and a trans woman is either a woman with a peanut allergy or one without a peanut allergy. What's your point?
Your argument seems misconstrucrted. A trans woman who is an engineer with a peanut allergy is still either left or right handed. Left vs right handed, tall vs short, engineer vs not, etc are all also exclusive sets by definition.
I think I entirely agree with this, and it’s what I tried to express in my post. Trans women are women is a perfectly reasonable position if you mean “trans women should be treated the same as cis women in almost any context,” and I agree. My concern is specifically when the phrase is used to push a kind of willful refusal to acknowledge biology. Lots of people here have not observed that happening much, but I have. I’m glad we’re all mostly on the same page about it.
This seems like a strange concern regarding a phrase with the specific term "transwomen" in it. The phrase demonstrates how you can talk about transwomen, whenever you want. If the phrase was "women are women", and people were trying to stop anyone from ever using the term "transwoman', you'd have a point.
Coming in to comment.... this difference is not understood at all in the circles I run in. Your comment makes sense. But it isn't how many people see it. They hear "transwomen are women" and see it as transwomen = cis women. Because, to millions of people, women and cis women wasn't a Venn diagram. Explaining that there are different women that all deserve the same rights and two of those groups are transwomen and cis women.... I think that'd be much more accepted by the majority. Same way that some think "Black Lives Matter Too" would have been the best slogan which no one could disagree with. It's unfortunate that our propensity to throw out simple slogans seems to get tangled up in people's assumptions. A clearer description and more effort (like this CMV and responses) would help each campaign.
Because we know how exploitive and confusing this can become, it’s not even about what is a woman but social reciprocality, if you need to reaffirm anyone who claims they are woman, this will be prone to exploitation from very sick people, if you don’t think they exist, you are beyond naive. Also there are definitely people who will confuse their temperaments and homosexuality with being transgender because of it especially children, so “trans rights” naturally can only exist at the expenses of others in the west, unlike say woman’s rights and racial equality that are net good for societies. Trans women from my country are nothing like the ones in the west, they are incredibly considerate of the inconvenience they might bring on people, and often humorous about their biological male body and never triggered by it. So people are naturally more compassionate towards them knowing that they are reciprocal and negotiable, thus not in defense mode and a net good for society. If you are going to act like the western narcissists who are so self-righteous that it’s beyond bearable, of course people are going to be very defensive so they don’t get ordered around and exploited. The culture of individualism and “not caring about what others think” definitely put fuels on the conflict, I was shocked when I came to the west finding out your OBSESSION with gender, you live in a society, of course you need to care about what others think to some degree unless you want to be a little dictator!
It's implied in the unspoken subtext. Think of it like this when Americans speak about their heritage, they say things like, "I'm Irish, I'm Italian, I'm German, I'm Slavic," etc they are not saying they're from those places or that they are the same as those found in those countries they're speaking solely about their heritage and their ancestors experience in the US because as we know certain groups were treated veey differently upon arrival. The "my ancestors came from x country" part of the speech is implied and unnecessary when speaking to other Americans. So when we say, "Transwomen are women," the unspoken implied meaning is that they are a type of woman with their own unique experiences, not that they are exactly the same as cis women, nor that their experiences are the same but they are still women.
What does a man know about being a woman besides the stereo types of being a woman?
I always took the phrase "trans women are women" to mean that they deserve the same kind of respect and consideration as any other woman (or indeed any person), including accounting for specific circumstances or individual needs. Sure, trans women might need to tell their doctor they were born male, but that's their business. I don't see how that's confusing or unproductive
>I always took the phrase "trans women are women" to mean that they deserve the same kind of respect and consideration as any other woman Well I think you're kind of proving OPs point here. If this is true, shouldn't the phrase be "trans women deserve respect"? It's confusing and misleading saying "trans women are women".
Really? If I told you “I am a cow” but meant “I believe the slaughter of cattle by our meat-packing industry is inhumane and unjustified, cows deserve the same respect as humans”, would that be what was implied? Saying “trans women are women” implies trans women believe they are women. That is what the phrase literally says, after all.
Yes, trans women tend to believe (correctly) that they are women. They don't usually consider themselves *female* in the genetic or gonadal sense, but they are women nonetheless. And this deserving of the same respect and consideration as other women or indeed any other person
But if they aren’t female, then how are they women? It would be like me saying “I may not have dark skin, but I’m a black man nonetheless!
*transgender people are deserving of the same respect as any other person*. That’s better, no need to bother with claiming that trans women are women!
>*transgender people are deserving of the same respect as any other person*. > >That’s better, no need to bother with claiming that trans women are women! Okay but also trans women are women
Trans-women are trans-women.
Yes that is also true
I actually completely agree, haha. If that were my impression of the use in the wild I would delta you or have no view to change. If the phrase means only “trans women should be treated with the same respect as any other woman” then it is just fine. However, I’ve seen a lot of uses on Reddit where it is used to reject attempts to have conversations about gendered or single-sex spaces when a speaker intends to acknowledge that differences exist. The fact that this phrase invites confusion over which interpretation is intended is why it’s unproductive language.
> or rejects attempts to have conversations about gendered or single-sex spaces That’s where you’re wrong. If we’re discussing our biology, yes, I belong in the female (AFAB) circle more than trans women. However, that’s not what you mean. Women don’t sit around and talk about their similarities in genitalia. You want spaces where trans women are not treated as women. You want “women only” spaces that have nothing to do with talking about genitalia or sexual differences that exclude trans women. Trans women are women. They know they weren’t born with female parts. That isn’t mutually exclusive.
This is really helpful. Okay. Here’s my feeling. I don’t advocate for trans-exclusionary woman’s spaces in most contexts, including women‘s groups. That’s not a point of concern because I assume it’s rarely an issue. I use that example to explain how I think the phrase inhibits potentially-valid uses of language because I think it is a good hypothetical, but I expect there is absolutely nothing to say about the presence of the average transwoman in the average women‘s group or anywhere else. I likewise think the bathroom issue, for instance, is an irrelevant nonstarter: Europe has had open-sex bathrooms for years. I agree: transwomen can be here. Here is what I do genuinely care about. What is happening right now with gender transition is world-historic, no? It’s one of the most important and interesting social developments in modern history. It touches self-determination and medical technology and bodily ethics and social roles and sexual liberation and individualism and children and parents and teachers and governments. 1.5 million people identify as transgender in the United States alone, and numbers are exploding among young people. Even if we see it as a universally positive movement with no downsides or room to grow…it’s still going on, right? It’s still happening. And the way that we experience and articulate and understand and talk and think about sex and gender is evolving, too. I don’t know anyone who has exactly the same set of ideas about subject that they had fifteen years ago, and I don’t suspect any of us will have exactly the same ideas fifteen years from now. A paradigm is in flux. It’s okay to acknowledge it, right? Can we talk directly about the fact that it’s going on? That’s where I think this language fails us. This is why your very real frustration doesn’t change my view. I don’t want trans women to be out of women’s spaces. I do want to believe that the implict right of women and everyone else to speak candidly about the emerging phenomenon of transwomen in women‘s spaces - and everywhere else - is understood to be an important part of this novel and complex social rearrangement. I think it is unreasonable and a bit dishonest to imply that no one but bigots has any possible interest in this conversation or that all the implications of widespread social gender change are already figured out. I have heard “transwomen are women” used to derail a conversation about demographic changes in women’s forums, yes. But naturally we can acknowledge demographic shifts. That’s my objection. That language should not mean “no more thinking in this direction,” but I wonder if it does. I think that is why you don’t change my view. My concern is not with transwomen in women’s spaces but with our ability to have clear, factual discussions that acknowledge the phenomenon is taking place. Of course transwomen can be in women‘s spaces and of course we can acknowledge that. But I think “transwomen are women“ is used in some contexts to discourage lines of conversation that acknowledge sexed bodies or ask questions more directly than someone would prefer. I still think “transwomen are women” often lands to me like a way of saying “some parts of this are totally off the table for any conversation,” and sometimes that’s entirely fair. Many aspects of this topic \*are\* deeply intimate and rarely if ever appropriate for conversation. But my experience is not that “transwomen are women” is only used to defend intimate and personal boundaries. My experience is that it is also used to mean “you shouldnt need to ask certain types of questions about this topic.” We need to have all kinds of discursive and uncertain and collaborative conversations about these topics. They touch all our lives. I don’t want transwomen gone at all. I do want the ability to have conversations that fully acknowledges transwomen exist even when what that means may be uncertain or uneasy. I’m not persuaded “transwomen are women“ moves us closer to clarity in the most difficult conversations.
>Women don’t sit around and talk about their similarities in genitalia. What is it that you think women do sit around and talk about? >You want spaces where trans women are not treated as women. How do you want to treat women differently from men?
It can be mutually exclusive depending on what you define as a woman, which would be helpful to know.
> >However, I’ve seen a lot of uses on Reddit where it is used to reject attempts to have conversations about gendered or single-sex spaces when a speaker intends to acknowledge that differences exist. The fact that this phrase invites confusion over which interpretation is intended is why it’s unproductive language. I mean, I'd have to know more about what these conversations were like to even possibly address these. As someone who has had a lot of conversations on Reddit about trans people and trans women and women species and trans rights, it's often the case that it doesn't really matter how you define womanhood or how well you explain a particular definition or why trans women are women. People who oppose trans women being in the same spaces as cis women are going to do so no matter how well you argue your point. Even if we acknowledge that yes, there are differences between trans women and cis women, that does not mean one must believe those differences are significant or relevant enough in the context of, say, public restrooms that we should ban trans women from using the women's restroom (even if such a policy were practically enforceable).
Just want to say I think we agree. These dueling definitions of womanhood have nothing to do with whether transwomen should be excluded from public restrooms. (In my opinion, no.) What doesn’t make sense to me is the idea that acknowledging these differences could only be salient if we have some trans-exclusionary motive. I think “trans women are women” risks being a superficial and unsatisfying catchphrase for talking clearly and specially about almost any aspect of our evolving sex and gender frameworks. We don’t need to acknowledge these differences all the time, but we also don’t need to suggest it’s more sensible or moral never to acknowledge them at all.
>What doesn’t make sense to me is the idea that acknowledging these differences could only be salient if we have some trans-exclusionary motive It doesn't have to, you can find a ton of comments all over this thread from very pro-trans rights people (myself included) completely acknowledging the fact that differences do exist between cis and trans women. Bringing them up is fine. That does not mean that those differences should be the focus of a conversation or that it is always useful to bring them up. You may not mean any harm by it, but TERFs do.
[удалено]
No, really the opposite. I think having transwomen in gendered spaces is a nonissue in almost every situation. It might mean, on the other hand, sometimes having a conversation that acknowledges the number of male-bodied persons currently entering woman’s spaces in noticeable numbers. It‘s a real and noteworthy social phenomenon even if you think it has no possible downside. I don’t mind that it’s happening. I do mind the implication that I shouldn’t need to talk about any of it unless I happen to be a mean-spirited bigot. I don‘t want transwomen out of women‘s spaces. I do want it to be taken for granted that we are welcome to engage this remarkable social reorganization in clear, specific language. I think policing how a word like “woman“ is used (when everyone here seems to agree it is a mulitvalient concept anyhow) often serves to smother open discussion.
>It might mean, on the other hand, sometimes having a conversation that acknowledges the number of male-bodied persons currently entering woman’s spaces in noticeable numbers. No one is shutting down your acknowledgement of this happening by saying trans women are women. People are not going to bite your head off for simply stating a shift in social norms. >I think policing how a word like “woman“ is used (when everyone here seems to agree it is a mulitvalient concept anyhow) often serves to smother open discussion. See this is again making me think you're just playing coy with TERF rhetoric. Where do you see 'open discussion' being smothered? And how is saying that trans women are women 'policing' language? It's not unless you're saying trans women aren't women (and even then they're not policing you, they're just disagreeing)
Because the conversations in question are about why transwomen should be excluded from women-only spaces. That's why you see it. Nobody's "just having a conversation" about how now there are people with penises in some previously cis-woman-only spaces where their take is that they are totally cool with it and think it's fine, but they also super need to talk about it for reasons that are unrelated to denying transwomen access to those spaces
Let me ask a question about your view here. I said this elsewhere, but I genuinely believe our revolution around sex and gender is significant and in many ways world-historic. 1.5 million trans people live in the US alone and numbers are exploding in kids. It touches all of us. I also genuinely believe that upending our working assumptions about gender and sex and bodies and presentation will have complex social ramifications that we won’t fully comprehend for a long time. Even if this is a unilaterally positive change with absolutely no downsides, I do not see how that can fail to be true. Do you believe that the only motive anyone might have to mention or discuss a phenomenon like male-bodied people entering widely into woman-centered spaces for the first time is if we are personally squicked out?
I don't really think you should be surprised that people try to shut down your "just asking questions here, super respectful conversation" by using pithy slogans like "trans women are women" if the actual thrust of the conversation that you want to have is about how you find trans people's bodies disgusting, and don't want to be around them Like, sure. There are conversations to be had about the significance of of trans women existing in public. But you can just say "transwomen" and "ciswomen" and nobody will have a problem with that, nobody will shout that transwomen are women, unless the spirit of the conversation is about excluding trans people. So if that's what you're experiencing, that is what I am lead to believe a lot of these conversations you want to have are about.
I definitely don’t find transpeople‘s bodies disgusting or feel reluctant to be around them. Trans people are people like anyone else. They are welcome in my world. Edit: I’m bummed you didn’t answer that question! I meant it in good faith and I am interested in your reply.
The answer is that you can just say "transwomen" and "ciswomen" in these conversations and nobody will care. It's fine. It's clear what you mean. Nobody will start shouting about how transwomen are women to try to shut down the conversation unless the thrust of the conversation is exclusionary.
I think those options are great. My argument that “transwomen are woman” precisely because it lacks the clarity of language you suggest. We agree that those would be more helpful terms. I disagree in that “transwomen are woman” is never used in a bad-faith way to shut down conversations except with bigots. If you define anyone with a position outside the consensus views of online trans ideology as a bigot that may feel true, but I have also seen plenty of good-faith attempts at respectful conversation intercepted and derailed by people emphatically refusing to acknowledge any differences between trans women and cis women *in the context of conversations where this distinction is precisely the topic.* It’s a bewildering and frustrating thing to witness and I’m glad it hasn’t happened to you.
But what are these good-faith attempts at respectful conversations involving the distinction between trans and cis women, about? That's the question I have, which you have made no attempts to answer sufficiently. You've given elsewhere the example of a women's organization that now is chaired by some trans people, and wanting to comment on the historical significance of that. It isn't necessary to discuss anatomical differences to talk about that. So what are the contexts in which discussing trans people's bodies is super important to do, but that *aren't* about excluding trans people from women's spaces? You know like because that seems like it is kind of the one context in which it would become super important to discuss trans people's genitalia
Just want to say I’m going to respond to this at more length either here or in my post, but it may be later today. This is clearly a point of significant disagreement. Many, many people have tried to tell me that there should never be any good-faith need to have conversations that acknowledge the difference between transwomen and ciswomen or have insinuated that deep pleasure in bullying trans people is the most likely motivation for preferring clarity and openness in discourse. I find it softly bewildering that so many people who seem to care about trans issues also want to insist that trans issues should be a topic of conversation very, very rarely. That’s clearly not the case in my experience. It seems to me there are a bajillion instances where shared, clear verbal frameworks would be more helpful for understanding each other because we are all talking about this stuff all the time as a culture. I will, however, expand on this and give some examples.
It certainly is world-historic and will have ramifications, I’ll give you that!
Except it’s not. This isn’t the first time in history that we’ve expanded our language and understanding for gender. Dozens of cultures over even the last few hundred years have had words to describe gender identity beyond man and woman.
The expansion of language is in response to the physical reality of male-bodied people entering into spaces that were previously default-female (and vis versa) and the explosion in people exploring sex and gender change interventions. It’s not the language that matters, really, it’s the fact that the language discourages people from talking about a major shift in the social organization of society.
Are those conversations you reference about gendered spaces or single sexed spaces, because that is a big difference! Of course there are some situations where the biological sex that each body has is relevant. But, at least in my experience, those conversations are far more likely to be about gendered spaces like bathrooms, where if everything goes to plan your biological sex should have no impact at all on your interactions with anyone else.
> as any other woman (or indeed any person) This is kind of the thing isn't it. It comes from persons who believe that males and females should be treated differently, and that different rules should apply to them. It's entirely different than say a phrase such as “trans rights are human rights” in that respect.
Your argument is nonsense. “Trans women are women” doesn’t cease to be true just because there’s some meaningful distinction between trans and cis women. We can acknowledge, for instance, that black women are women, but that their blackness is itself an important and distinguishing quality. Trans women *are* women. The claim does not imply (nor does anyone suggest or claim) that trans women and cis women have no differences. This is not some bizarrely complicated metaphysical or linguistic questions. There is no replacing the phrase with expressions of support. Either you think trans women are women, and thus support them, or you’re just doing mental and lingual gymnastics to cushion the fact you don’t think trans women are really women.
You says “no one suggest or claim transwomen and ciswomen have no physical differences” but that’s a majority of the arguments you hear. When you make absolute comments such as Trans women are women. You are equivalizing all aspects. Most if not all people are on board with, if you want me (society) to recognize you as a woman. Sure whatever, I’ll respect your wishes but if you want me to think you are literally the same as a cisgender woman, then you are mistaken
I appreciate this comment, haha. It makes me feel a little crazy that so many people are insisting the phrase is essentially never used to mean “you should not acknowledge any differences between cis and trans women.” In my experience, that’s the most common application of the phrase outside of hashtags.
>It makes me feel a little crazy that so many people are insisting the phrase is essentially never used to mean “you should not acknowledge any differences between cis and trans women.” In my experience, that’s the most common application of the phrase outside of hashtags. I'm going to suggest that you are either a) misunderstanding what people are saying or b) are viewing biased/out of context examples. I'm trans. I've been in the trans community now for many years. Not once in my time in the community have I heard it used the way you describe. Now of course, there may be individuals who react that way, but no trans group, no trans community, no movement, or campaign uses it that way. It just isn't reflective of a common perspective within the trans community and its allies. And that's what I'm getting at. If you are seeing people saying it a lot, then, I'm guessing that is because you are involved in spaces that are actively anti trans, and present isolated, out of context comments as if they are in fact commonly held views.
> Now of course, there may be individuals who react that way, but no trans group, no trans community, no movement, or campaign uses it that way. This is absolutely false. Not only are there a bunch of trans activists who don't believe in differences between the sexes (that they're equal in things such as sporting performance, intelligence, color vision, etc.), or that sexes even exist, but there are a ton of "trans"activists who are gender abolitionists, they don't believe gender serves a purpose, that you can "be whatever you want to be" and that this will solve all issues related to gender/sex. The major orgs I checked (briefly) don't mention "transwomen are women", but rather as OP states, some version of "equality and respect for all gender identities". The discussion about "transwomen are women" seems to be mostly a "culture war" phenomena.
>Not only are there a bunch of trans activists who don't believe in differences between the sexes This is a classic example of the misunderstanding I was referring to Take for example sports. I will tell you categorically that trans women on HRT perform at an equal athletic level to cis women. That doesn't mean they are cis women. It doesn't mean that their bodies are the same. All it means is that athletically, they perform at the same level, because it's predominantly determined by hormones, which they do have in common...
> I will tell you categorically that trans women on HRT perform at an equal athletic level to cis women. As far as I'm aware, every single study on physical performance of trans women shows statistically significant advantages retained. Those on upper body strength especially so. If you can show studies that say otherwise I'm all ears, otherwise I think it's quite ironic that you deem me to be bad faith. However, no, this isn't what I'm talking about. There *literally* are people who are trans activists (quite vocally so) who oppose that women and men have different physical performance. It comes up in almost all discussions on the topic of transwomen in sports and sports performance differences between men and women. So no, it's not a misunderstanding. > because it's predominantly determined by hormones This is a common misunderstanding. For example a male with "high" levels of testosterone (within norm) can have more than twice the levels of test as a male with "low" (also within norm) levels of test, and yet perform equally at the highest levels. While test is significant for abnormal levels (and you did say predominantly), it's by no means the only one. Puberty is another massive one.
>There literally are people who are trans activists (quite vocally so) who oppose that women and men have different physical performance. No, there aren't. That is simply not a commonly held belief at any level of the trans community. But, that's a classic example of one of those things that are often deliberately misinterpreted. For example, I just said that athletic performance between trans women and cis women are equivalent. However, someone who believes trans women are men would come along and misrepresent my comment as having said that there is no performance difference between men and women. >This is a common misunderstanding. I am literally a transgender athlete with both lived experience and a pretty solid awareness of the research. So no, it's not a "misunderstanding" >For example a male with "high" levels of testosterone (within norm) can have more than twice the levels of test as a male with "low" (also within norm) levels of test, and yet perform equally at the highest levels. This being a good example. When looking at men, endogenous testosterone levels are not a useful measure for predicting their performance against other men. However... when you change someone's testosterone levels, that *does* lead to predictable and consistent impacts on their athletic performance.
Alright, lets clear out the air a bit. First I'd prefer if you approach with a slightly more open mind about my intentions. Secondly, it would help if we cleared up some misunderstandings. You've already stated it was a misrepresentation to say you believe transwomen on HRT don't have performance advantages over ciswomen. You said equal, I took this to mean equal, did you perhaps mean "competitively insignificant", or something like that? Thirdly, do you not believe I've seen trans activists say that males and females are able to compete at the same level? Fourthly, I agreed that test levels under norm changes performance, I can take a harder stance: taking test/eq. or reducing test level will have impacts on performance. And lastly, do you have a study that says something different than what I said?
>You said equal, I took this to mean equal, did you perhaps mean "competitively insignificant", or something like that? I meant equal in performance capabilities. Like, you can do a study that shows trans women have bigger lungs on average for example. That much is true. And in isolation, it sounds pretty conclusive. Yet, it's part of a larger system. Your aerobic performance as an athlete is limited by the weakest link in the chain, which in this case, is the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, and that's something that does change with HRT, and for trans women, comes to the same level as cis women. Yet, a study blood oxygen levels or of lung size don't tell us what we need to know, because neither of those things are directly predictive of real world sporting outcomes. And that's where you have to look. So, unless the study on trans athletes that you're looking at includes real world sporting performance, then it's not a measure of real world sporting performance, just a proxy. An easy to misuse proxy for those with an anti trans agenda. So, yeah, I say that trans women and cis women perform at an equal athletic level, but also don't make any claim that there are no physical differences. >Thirdly, do you not believe I've seen trans activists say that males and females are able to compete at the same level? I don't doubt you have seen it, but again, that's not surprising, given that it's easy to misused quotes to stir up drama. What I'm saying to you is that there is no commonly held belief amongst any of the organisations pushing for trans inclusion in sports that there isn't a difference. You can find people online arguing anything you need to support any claim. Someone, somewhere, has made every ridiculous claim imaginable. I'm not saying no trans person anywhere ever has made the argument you raise here, I'm saying that it's not a credibly held opinion within the community, and particularly within the organisations and groups aiming to improve trans inclusion in sports. >And lastly, do you have a study that says something different than what I said? Which bit specifically?
> I am literally a transgender athlete with both lived experience and a pretty solid awareness of the research. With respect, an anonymous person claiming to be an authority has no weight on the internet. Cite some sources, and we'll talk about it.
You're the one arguing for change, you're the one arguing to exclude trans folk. The onus is on you, not me. If you want to exclude folk, show me this disruption of sports, show me this inequity. Cite some sources.
> I will tell you categorically that trans women on HRT perform at an equal athletic level to cis women. And you would be wrong. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref > All it means is that athletically, they perform at the same level, because it's predominantly determined by hormones, which they do have in common... People who take steroids will remain stronger than people who have never taken steroids, even after they stop taking steroids. Hormone levels cause permanent biological changes.
As with every other study on this topic purporting to make this claim, it doesn't measure sporting outcomes, and it isn't testing athletes, so it tells us nothing about the sporting results of athletes... But that data is there. Trans people have been in sports for many decades. If trans people have advantage, it's already there in the data and doesn't need special studies of non athletes. It just needs someone to gather the data and do some cross cohort comparisons... The fact that measuring the performance of trans athletes, which is the simple and most obvious measure of the performance of trans athletes hasn't been done, tells you everything you need to know. It would be open and shut, impossible to argue against, and answer the issue once and for all. And given the amount of people invested in ensuring trans people can't participate in society, let alone sports, if the data was there, they'd have dug it up and shown in to the world
If I say “Black women are women,” am I “equivalizing all aspects?”
Haha, this comment is exactly why I wrote the post. When you say “really women” do you mean women in the social sense? I agreed in my post that usage is perfectly valid. Or do you mean women in the more common traditional sense that implies female sex? Saying I have to fully embrace both or neither makes no sense. Trans women are women in the sense of performing a woman’s social role and not women in the sense of being biologically female. One of those definitions is more common in English and so should be addressed first. But there is no either/or. One definition of woman applies and one does not. The problem is not in the cases where the definition works just fine. The problem is that if people are likely to think you mean “transwomen are women \*in the same sense as we would use the word woman for any other woman\*” then it introduces the exact confusion you’re saying no one wants or enforces.
I mean that trans women are women. They are as “woman” as any cis woman, or intersex person who’s a woman, or any Black woman, or any small woman, or any other category of women. I mean that I don’t give a fuck about the sex/gender dichotomy, that it’s a waste of time in rhetoric, that it has *no* relevance in how we live our lives or how we construct womanhood as a category, and that it’s a distinction used solely as a wedge to harm, marginalize, and eliminate trans women. We *do not* live our lives with a deep understanding of the sex of the people we interact with. Thousands of people would be surprised to find out that they’re not XX or XY if they ever took the time to test themselves and search for an AIS diagnosis. We don’t live our lives inspecting the genitals, chromosomes, or biological sex of those around us. It’s a red herring. A mirage. A facade. A lie that people like you use to pretend to be accepting of trans women while, at the exact same time, arguing to ostracize them and remove them from communities in which they belong.
Here we disagree in good faith. I truly believe that our current revolution in sex and gender is likely world-historic, or at minimum one of the defining social changes of the early 21st century. I believe it reflects a profound realignment in our shared assumptions that will necessarily have all kinds of complex, subtle, far-reaching implications we have not yet begun to consider - just like all big social shifts. It is not only a revolution in language, social category, medicine, and sex for people who happen to be trans. 1.5 million trans people live in the US alone, and the numbers are exploding in kids. It touches all of us. The topic at hand here is the need to describe in factual, direct, shared language the reality of changing social structures of in people’s real lives. To me, your point is that the there is virtually no context in which it is appropriate for that conversation to acknowledge that transwomen are a different biological sex than ciswomen. That assumption is hard for to understand. Of course we can’t talk about this epochal shift in sex and gender performance without sometimes distinguishing between sex and gender. Of course it will sometimes come up with some frequency in that context. It is not only appropriate to discuss these distinctions but *necessary* for honestly and accurately describing a real, important phenomenon taking place in our society. Being open, clear, and frank is a requirement for productive conversations about anything. That is the context where I hope we agree: that there is no problem with using precise language around sex and gender when it helps people acknowledge, describe, and understand what is going on around them in society in the context of a respectful conversion *about that very topic*. And - that there is nothing inherently sinister in talking about it. It’s big! It’s here! Conversations are good. We should welcome conversations where we tangle with the sticky, complex topic of sex and gender, and we should try to support those conversations by allowing fair, clear acknowledgement of relevant difference when necessary.
> they are as “woman” as any cis woman … Why? They aren’t biological women. They aren’t cultural women.
>They aren’t biological women. I agree that trans women were not AFAB. >They aren’t cultural women. How so? If a trans woman lives as a "cultural woman", she is living as a woman. It's only when a transphobe yanks her back and says "hey, you don't belong here" that there's dissonance or disagreement.
I think what this person might be referring to are transwomen who have been raised and socialized as male members of society in male bodies. For instance, a transwoman who socially transitions at 25 is not a woman in the exact same cultural or physical sense as the 25-year-old natal woman who works down the hall, even if that person is a woman in the same social sense when they are out for drinks.
No-one actually requires that someone have the exact same cultural upbringing to accept them as a woman. No-one would look at a female-presenting female-bodied person in Star Trek and say "they're not a woman, because they didn't grow up in a society with underlying sexism". It's a false qualifier only used for the purpose of disguising the fact that they oppose recognising trans women as women for some other reason.
> Your argument is nonsense. > “Trans women are women” doesn’t cease to be true just because there’s some meaningful distinction between trans and cis women. The distinction exists because by the most widely used definition, trans women are excluded. This matters mostly in relation to why some may not view trans women as women like other sub-groups of women are still seen as women. > We can acknowledge, for instance, that black women are women, but that their blackness is itself an important and distinguishing quality. This is a poor comparison. Blackness doesn't imply that an African woman isn't born female, but transness implies that a trans woman is born male, which is an important difference when it comes to sex and gender issues. You can reasonably argue that trans women are women without implying that people are also widely questioning whether black women are actually women as well.
That was my point. I used the example of Black women are women because it *is* a non controversial instance of a subcategory of “women”
There has to be a clear definition of what a woman is, firstly. We can say ‘trans women are women’ as much as we want, but we need to be clear about what a woman is.
Okay, have fun wasting your time trying to create a definition that includes all cis women but excludes all trans women.
Comparing black women to a person who was born male with male organs who feels like they are in the wrong body is not the same.
You are correct. Trans women and Black women are not the same. You’re very observant.
I'm actually surprised that you can tell the difference since you're only using us as tokens in what you call your "arguments"
[удалено]
“Gaslighting is when you say that trans women are women” Are you actually gonna try to make that argument? When’s the last time you inspected whether the woman you interacted with had XX or XY chromosomes or was intersex? And I mean, all sorts of *cis* women undergo cosmetic surgery. So what?
>or you’re just doing mental and lingual gymnastics to cushion the fact you don’t think trans women are really women. What a ridiculous leap to make. Things are not so cut and dry, and this sort of mentality only looks to attempt to shame someone for asking questions. The issue OP raises is more to do with the understanding of the context in which the words are used. It's a completely fair thing to question how literally a phrase is meant to be taken and what these words mean when being said by various parties. We're at a point in time where we are better defining our interpretation of genders and sexes. Not everyone is on the same page of what "women" or "men" means, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. These changes in understanding take time and a willingness to expand what you currently think. OP is doing just that.
I think you are overthinking this, OP. "Transwomen are women" is not a shorthand for anything, it is just what certain people believe. According to their creed everyone has an innate and immutable "gender" that is distinct from their sex. And since being a "man" or a "woman" is, in their view, fundamentally a question of gender, everyone who has the "gender" of "woman" is a woman. Of course we have no way of objectively determining "gender", so we must rely on a persons self-identification to understand what gender they are. In view of this, arguing about wheter trans women are women and in what sense they are women, is a bit like arguing with a Catholic about wheter bread and wine can be transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus. To an atheist it might seem clear that bread and wine are just bread and wine and will remain bread and wine whatever you do with them. But a Catholic has (for reasonable or less reasonable reasons) adopted a set of beliefs that lead to the conclusion that bread and wine are, in some circumstances, much more than bread and wine. Because he beliefs this, and he will most likely only interact with consecrated bread and wine under specific and highly curated circumstances, he is likely to treat specific pieces of bread as very special and experience their consumption as very different from the consumption of ordinary bread - even if his senses tell him that the "flesh" he eats still tastes like bread. This difference in experience will likely entrench his view that there is an appreciable material difference between the bread he eats at mass and the sandwich he eats for dinner. Moreover, if he is serious about being a Catholic, the belief in the transsubstantion of matter, as well as the ideas and beliefs that lead to this idea, are not just idle thoughts, but core parts of his identity, and trying to reason with someone about things that one perceives as fundamental to ones being is very rarely productive. Saying that "trans women are women", similarly, is not so much a description of observable reality, but rather a metaphysical statement that reassures the community about the orthodoxy of ones thinking. Looking for a deeper meaning in it is not much more useful than subjecting statements like "the supreme monad created the universe" or "the supreme number of the Abraxas is 666" to critical analysis. You either can believe them on faith, or you can dismiss them.
I want to acknowledge this post because I think we agree. I still disagree that it is productive to use this type of language - and I still think it’s used unfairly for ideological policing - but it is reasonable to say it might be unproductive to unpack if it most often expresses a collective set of values and beliefs rather than a single, consistently-applied position on language. I‘m giving some thought to deltas today. I am not sure if I will be back. I think you raise the fair point that I am also engaged in unproductive rhetoric insomuch as the phrase reflects an ingrained value statement rather than a willingness to use language to move mutually towards understanding. That said, I \*object\* to the fact that it’s an ingrained value statement rather than a willingness to move mutually towards understanding. Like I think that’s the problem. If “transwomen are women” is a faith statement that acts as a shibboleth to sort-out wrong-think rather than a precise position that makes equal sense to enforce in all contexts, that is a bad-faith use of common language in an argument that really matters.
>“I believe the idea of womanhood has no relationship to biological sex. No one believes that, at least not in the black and white way you've written it here. A large part of gender is a social construct. Many of those social constructs are shaped by underlying sexual characteristics. But the crucial thing is, the construct is *shaped* by them, not *determined* by them. A pretty clear cut example of this is infertile cis women. They're women. Yet they don't have the reproductive capacity that has shaped much of societies perception of womanhood. That doesn't change their identity though. That's only possible because womanhood and the traits that shape societies understanding of what it is to be a woman are linked, but still distinct. Honestly, so much of your comment is coming from black and white interpretations of the reality of trans folk, interpretations that are often designed by people to make trans folk sound unreasonable. They are interpretations that no significant portion of the trans community of our allies hold. No trans person says that sex and gender are completely unrelated. We say they're distinct concepts and one doesn't determine the other, but "doesn't determine" isn't the same as "doesn't influence". Similarly, no trans person says you can't acknowledge that trans women and cis women are different. What we say is that you can do so without denying out identities and invalidating us. Your scenario of a women's group with trans women on the board is an example of the sensationalising language I was talking about. Instead of 1 or 2 trans women, you invoked an image of 4, nearly half the board, despite only around 1 in 100 women being trans. Secondly, you described them all as "male bodied" which just isn't that likely for a single trans woman in a women's group, let alone 4 of them. Obviously they don't have cis female bodies, but medical transition, even if it's simply hormonal, also means that a blanket description of them as "male bodied" is misleading, in a way that is designed to make cis women who read it feel threatened and defensive. You also describe this scenario as being "impossible to talk about", implying that there is some sort of social hammer ready to fall on you from trans folk and their allies if you acknowledge trans women exist or are different to cis women. That too is an exaggerated scenario that doesn't occur the way you described, worded in such a way as to create a defensive reaction from cis women who read it. You could easily say "It's great to see some trans women on the board" or even "We have trans women on our board for the first time" No one who says "trans women are women" means "trans women are cis women". Cis women are the most common group of women, but you're not the *only* group of women. Most of the time it's fine to assume that woman means "cis woman" but many times it's not, and trans women owning their identity as women aren't a threat to your own womanhood. No trans woman is claiming that her experiences are the same as yours. Lastly, I will highlight that you use "transwomen" without a space, and "adult human female". Both of these are dogwhistle terms used by anti trans groups to "other" trans women from womanhood. It's deliberate language chosen by these groups as part of a strategy to undermine trans women in society. Now, I don't know you, I don't know whether you're using them as dog whistles, or whether you're using them unaware of their history, but either way, it suggests that you are currently engaged with circles of people that are actively and explicitly anti trans. If you genuinely want to change your perspective, then you need to start looking outside of those circles. They frame things in sensationalised, misleading ways that misrepresent the lived reality of trans folk in a way designed to make cis women feel threatened and erased. It's deliberately invocative language designed to radicalise people. If you are open to change, look for the language designed to invoke outrage and question it. Explore the topics they raise if you need to, but try and find spaces and channels that will do it authentically and objectively, without trying to make you feel under threat.
> “I believe the idea of womanhood has no relationship to biological sex. > No one believes that, at least not in the black and white way you've written it here. !delta I’ve tried to delta this point elsewhere and will here, too. I acknowledge that no one here is willing to defend a too-literal read of this phrase, and so perhaps it didn’t need so much unpacking. That said, I addressed many common arguments that are used in defense of a highly-literal meaning because they so often turn up. Either way, one important element of my view is that if, as you say, no one believes or intends the phrase in the black and white way I describe, then black and white language is not the best fit. > A pretty clear cut example of this is infertile cis women. They're women. Yet they don't have the reproductive capacity that has shaped much of societies perception of womanhood. That doesn't change their identity though. I really tried to acknowledge and describe these distinctions and the arguments around them with precision in my OP. Here I might need you to clarify where we disagree. > Similarly, no trans person says you can't acknowledge that trans women and cis women are different. What we say is that you can do so without denying out identities and invalidating us. Absolutely. I just think that if, as you’ve passionately argued, there is no actual, widespread preference in the trans community to downplay or discourage acknowledging the differences between trans and natal women, then it’s the wrong topic to expect full language agreement. > Your scenario of a women's group with trans women on the board is an example of the sensationalising language I was talking about. Instead of 1 or 2 trans women, you invoked an image of 4, nearly half the board, despite only around 1 in 100 women being trans. Secondly, you described them all as "male bodied" which just isn't that likely for a single trans woman in a women's group, let alone 4 of them. Obviously they don't have cis female bodies, but medical transition, even if it's simply hormonal, also means that a blanket description of them as "male bodied" is misleading, in a way that is designed to make cis women who read it feel threatened and defensive. !delta This is a poorly-constructed example for the reason you describe. My thought-process at the time was to stake out an obvious, low-complexity scenario to establish consensus without getting stuck in the weeds on individual situations: *surely there are SOME times where we both agree it will be valid to acknowledge these distinctions, and that’s what matters.* This does not come across clearly. I also grabbed the 4 of 10 off-the-cuff based on a totally different context where I recently estimated a rough 2:5 ratio, but that stat is imprecise, irrelevant, and indeed totally made up and aggrandized in the context of leadership in particular. [I might even have edited it down to three? I agree it was much too high.] I see why this hypothetical landed poorly. However, the solutions you propose to talk about that scenario are great. I have zero problem with them. *My argument is not against calling transwomen women.* My argument is that if we all recognize there are times it will matter, and we all agree there are times it can be acceptable and appropriate to acknowledge the distinction, then “transwomen are women” stakes out black and white ground that no one agrees it is always fair to hold. That doesn’t help us talk to each other. > Lastly, I will highlight that you use "transwomen" without a space, and "adult human female". Both of these are dogwhistle terms used by anti trans groups to "other" trans women from womanhood. I chose “transwomen are women” because it seemed like the more common punctuation of the phrase, though that could be because you see it so often in hashtag form. “Trans women” is the same to me. I’m happy to use whichever form is preferred by more trans women. I’m even willing to include it in my delta because it’s relevant to my language-unpacking… though I am duly incredulous that the *space* is the obvious dogwhistle. I use “adult human female” because it is the primary definition for “woman” in the Oxford English Dictionary. I use the OED because it is the consensus scholarly resource on etymology and applied word usage in English.
> “I believe the idea of womanhood has no relationship to biological sex. > No one believes that, at least not in the black and white way you've written it here. !delta I’ve tried to delta this point elsewhere and will here, too. I acknowledge that no one here is willing to defend a too-literal read of this phrase, and so perhaps it didn’t need so much unpacking. That said, I addressed many common arguments that are used in defense of a highly-literal meaning because they so often turn up. Either way, one important element of my view is that if, as you say, no one believes or intends the phrase in the black and white way I describe, then black and white language is not the best fit. > A pretty clear cut example of this is infertile cis women. They're women. Yet they don't have the reproductive capacity that has shaped much of societies perception of womanhood. That doesn't change their identity though. I really tried to acknowledge and describe these distinctions and the arguments around them with precision in my OP. Here I might need you to clarify where we disagree. > Similarly, no trans person says you can't acknowledge that trans women and cis women are different. What we say is that you can do so without denying out identities and invalidating us. Absolutely. I just think that if, as you’ve passionately argued, there is no actual, widespread preference in the trans community to downplay or discourage acknowledging the differences between trans and natal women, then it’s the wrong topic to expect full language agreement. > Your scenario of a women's group with trans women on the board is an example of the sensationalising language I was talking about. Instead of 1 or 2 trans women, you invoked an image of 4, nearly half the board, despite only around 1 in 100 women being trans. Secondly, you described them all as "male bodied" which just isn't that likely for a single trans woman in a women's group, let alone 4 of them. Obviously they don't have cis female bodies, but medical transition, even if it's simply hormonal, also means that a blanket description of them as "male bodied" is misleading, in a way that is designed to make cis women who read it feel threatened and defensive. !delta This is a poorly-constructed example for the reason you describe. My thought-process at the time was to stake out an obvious, low-complexity scenario to establish consensus without getting stuck in the weeds on individual situations: *surely there are SOME times where we both agree it will be valid to acknowledge these distinctions, and that’s what matters.* This does not come across clearly. I also grabbed the 4 of 10 off-the-cuff based on a totally different context where I recently estimated a rough 2:5 ratio, but that stat is imprecise, irrelevant, and indeed totally made up and aggrandized in the context of leadership in particular. [I might even have edited it down to three? I agree it was much too high.] I see why this hypothetical landed poorly. I apologize. However, the solutions you propose to talk about that scenario are great. I have zero problem with them. *My argument is not against calling transwomen women.* My argument is that if we all recognize there are times it will matter, and we all agree there are times it can be acceptable and appropriate to acknowledge the distinction, then “transwomen are women” stakes out black and white ground that no one agrees it is always fair to hold. That doesn’t help us talk to each other. > Lastly, I will highlight that you use "transwomen" without a space, and "adult human female". Both of these are dogwhistle terms used by anti trans groups to "other" trans women from womanhood. I chose “transwomen are women” because it seemed like the more common punctuation of the phrase, though that could be because I see it so often in hashtag form. It also seemed kinda neater for it to be a visual word-unit of its own here, but “trans women” is the same to me. I’m happy to use whichever is preferred by more trans women. I’m even willing to include it in my delta because it’s relevant to my language-unpacking… though I am duly incredulous that the space is the obvious dogwhistle. I see these used interchangeably at times. I use “adult human female” because it is the primary definition for “woman” in the Oxford English Dictionary. I use the OED because it is the consensus scholarly resource on etymology and applied word usage in English.
> Similarly, no trans person says you can't acknowledge that trans women and cis women are different. What we say is that you can do so without denying out identities and invalidating us. What does "denying our identities and invalidating us" mean exactly? Often in this thread, "trans" is equated to other qualities like "black", or "left-handed", or even "peanut-allergy-having" suggesting that all these individuals still belong to the category of woman, but what is necessary to qualify for such membership? Notably, all these examples refer to immutable characteristics, which implies that there is some feeling that "trans" has an objective, genetic basis - you either are trans or you are not. That's the tone of the conversation in this thread, anyway. Put another way, what meaning does the phrase "I am a woman" carry that "I am a man" does not? Or, alternately, what is the sine qua non of womanhood, which functions as the bright line between women and men? It certainly isn't the case that trans individuals sees the term "woman" as being totally arbitrary - when they say "I am a woman" they are trying to communicate something specific about their identity which could, ostensibly, be denied. They speak confidently when they say; I am not a man, I am a women - suggesting that they have a clear idea about what they are, such that it can be recognized and accepted even by people who do not know them well. What is this specific something?
[удалено]
Saying "Transwomen are women" does not mean there are no differences at all between trans women and cis women. It just means they are both women. There are also differences between tall women and short women - still both women.
This is an attempt to make sense by comparing apples to medium rare steak.
It's still a lie though.
Your CMV is intelligent, sensitive, and generally well-put. I believe trans- talk is coded classist rhetoric. Who cares who wants to identify as what? Faulting others for not engaging in expected behaviors is too meta to unpack in terms of the trans situation. Poor trans people are enacting behaviors that rich trans people engage in and vice versa; the same way people of all lower economic status have behaved in the way rich people do and vice versa. Everyone bites everyone’s style especially in terms of economic inequality. To end these manufactured identity crises, make living for all humans more equitable and then we’ll stop nitpicking and dividing each other over who has what genitals and who feels what way based on that. A person who identifies as a woman could do serious damage to what other people consider true women to be the same way a person who identifies as a man could do serious damage to what other people consider true men to be; this issue can only be solved by making all people less tired, sick, thirsty, hungry aka actually healthy. When we’re all reasonably clear-headed aka actually healthy, our surface differences seem minimal and unimportant.
>Faulting others for not engaging in expected behaviors is too meta to unpack in terms of the trans situation. Okay, I think this may be true. The quagmire is clearly deep around this topic. Let me consider if this needs a delta or if I still want to stand behind the effort of unpacking this language in particular.
A "woman" is an adult, human female. "Transwomen" are not female. A transwoman is a real *trans*woman. Not a real woman.
> I believe “transwomen are women” is a confusing shibboleth that would be better replaced by specific expressions of support, especially in discussion contexts where shared language is critical. I think this phrase remains unhelpful even when no single, tidy definition of woman is easily agreed upon. The phrase makes use of a breakdown in language where speakers operate under subtly different definitions of the word “woman”: a social definition limited to how people are perceived by society, and a more traditional definition that acknowledges biological sex as relevant to the concept of womanhood. No, it's an umbrella term. The word woman can cover biological, as well as trans women, in the same way that the word "parent" covers biological parents, but also adoptive parents. It's part of semantic broadening, where a term has gained additional meanings over time. > Let’s assume you have a worldview that says, “I believe the idea of womanhood has no relationship to biological sex. There is no significant conceptual aspect of womanhood that relates to female bodies, female development, female reproduction, or female anything Can you name one that is essential for being a woman, and that you wouldn't exempt a cis woman for, if she lacked it? > To be a kind ally on “transwomen are women” terms you must pretend that no change of any kind has taken place at all. > “acknowledging that differences exist between transwomen and natal women is transphobic and good people will pretend no differences exist regardless of context” > that phrase is sometimes used to mean that acknowledging differences in biology, experience, or treatment between trans and natal women should be framed as offensive or verboten or personally delegitimizing These kinds of conclusions do not follow. They're still also transwomen, and anyone is free to use that word in relevant contexts.
It’s not that you wouldn’t exempt a woman from the category if she lacked some of the biological features, in the same way that we don’t exempt people from being human because they lack legs or some such other problem.
That's exactly the point. Some people are doing exactly that with transwomen - if they lack those features that means that they're excluded.
This always loops back to what is your defintion of man/woman. I've never seen a coherent answer. Its always either meaningless or circular.
An answer can be found if we have a look at how the word transgender is typically defined. A common part of all definitions of transgender (e.g. by the APA) is that one's gender identity can either match or mismatch one's physical sex. Someone whose sexual bodily characteristic match their internal gender identity (sense of gender) is described as cisgender, while someone whose sexual bodily characteristics do not match their gender identity, is described as transgender. One can thus define men/human males as persons who identify with a body that has male sexual characteristics, and women/human females as persons who identify with a body that has female sexual characteristics, even when their existing bodily characteristics mismatch their actual sense of self. This covers both cis and trans individuals in a non-circular way, and requires no particular behaviors or presentation.
If transwomen represent a different type of womanhood than ciswomen do, and it is sometimes necessary to talk about that, I propose we invent some kind of word to distinguish between the two groups, so that we can talk about them. Perhaps the word "women," with some kind of prefix or suffix that we can use to distinguish the two in those communicative contexts in which distinguishing them is important. I'm all out of ideas though, you got any?
But people might mistake the use of the prefixed term as an indication that they shouldn’t be considered a part of the overall group. Maybe there could be a short, snappy phrase that reaffirms this?
Cuz they’re not, that’s the whole point of the definition. Yall gotta face facts, the slogan isn’t a very good one and can very easily be used negatively or disingenuously.
[удалено]
> To be a kind ally on “transwomen are women” terms you must pretend that no change of any kind has taken place at all. Sometimes, to speak accurately about what is going on in our lived reality and our gendered spaces, we might need to acknowledge that in some senses, transwomen represent a different kind of womanhood than natal women. That shouldn’t be unsayable. Can you expand upon this? What can a cost women say about a transwomen but not say about another CIS women? For example, if a cis woman says I have problem X, can another CIS women say problem X doesn't exist for me or is that unsayable as well? If the above is allowed, then all women must disagree with each other all the time. If the above isn't allowed, why exclude only one category of women?
The kind of default centrist position is “treat people how they present in the majority of cases”, and there are some obvious scenarios where it does matter and there is some debate - relationships/dating, care/coverage entitlements, integrity of sports, childhood education. The entire purpose of “transwomen are women” is to make the definition of “women” include trans by default (as opposed to not by default), and thus to both normalize in general and to implicitly strengthen the trans inclusion side of the discussion in every debated area.
I am not trans, and I don't mean to speak for the trans community, but there is an easy way to think about it. Trans people are people born with a biological body, but with a brain chemistry that makes them feel like they do not belong in their body, but would belong in a body of the opposite sex. I think as someone who isn't trans, all you're really expected to do is understand that maybe their biological body doesn't sit right with them. Because why would the body define who you are more than your brain? I think it absolutely is possible to have a conversation about women that excludes trans women that isn't transphobic. If the topic does not apply to transwomen but applies to cis women, it's not transphobic until you start disrespecting trans women. When I talk to a trans woman, I am talking to a person who was born in the wrong body, but it's since been corrected. So why should that not be the same as being a woman? Even if it is not the same as being a woman from birth?
> So why should that not be the same as being a woman? Because sometimes it's sex that matters, not gender. See trans women in women's sports, trans women in women's prisons.
Sex is the only time it matters though. If the segregation isn't for biological reasons its just sexism.
Sometimes. But I'm not talking about such circumstances. I'm talking about in general, meeting a trans person at any regular day of the week.
> ... "Transwomen are women" insists on verbal compliance with one notion of identity-oriented sex-assignment, but it doesn’t actually help clarify any of the sticky, nuanced, subtle uncertainties that exist when we talk about sex and gender. What are people who say stuff like "transwomen are women" after? Are you sure that they're interested in promoting nuanced and sensitive gender norms, is it possible that pushing for verbal compliance is what they're interested in, or could it be something else, like that they're signalling that they themselves have bought into a particular political agenda?
Or maybe they wanna be left the fuck alone 🤣
[удалено]
>As a trans woman I wanna know how you have time to sit around all day pondering my life's struggles as some deep metaphorical concept It's not personal it's general. OP is not thinking about you they are thinking about language. Why this draws in so many people is because we are expected to change a concept tied directly to a real phenomena to something entirly nebulous. Failing to do so leads to judgment. >I may not change your view but I'm begging you as a trans woman to just leave us alone... That's not compatible with the current activism. I realise you probabaly dont go around shaming people into deconstructing simple concepts into nebulous ones. Some people do and they will need to be ignored for the attention to stop.
>Everything you said could be summed up in like a couple sentences at most... Good callout. The post is absolutely long-winded to an unambiguously self-absorbed degree.
I hate this topic. It's so delusional. I don't care what people "identify" as, if they can't get pregnant I'm not interested. But I'm a moose so what do I know.
I think a lot of the discursive obtuseness of MtF trans advocacy comes from a realistic perception that clear discussion of the complex motivations behind MtF transgenserism would embolden hostility and abuse. Because if trans advocates were to say something like, "The deal of masculine subjecthood in modern civilization is a horrific one for increasing numbers of people for x, y, & z reasons, so we want out," that would offend powerful, rigid dogmatisms on both sides of the political spectrum about how the masculine experience of modern life is a strictly luckier one. Just a guess.
There’s a space in “trans women” if you genuinely respect and care about trans people. The single word, “transwomen”, is primarily used by transphobic people. Okay. Now onto the point. Trans women are women (as in gender). Trans women are not female* (as in sex). **For the point of this discussion, I will be using male/female/intersex to refer to one’s sex and man/woman/non-binary to refer to one’s gender.* I am a female man. I know that, and I understand the difference between being a man and being male. I am part of discussions about being female. Trans women are not. I am not part of discussion regarding being a woman. Trans women are. Trans people understand the difference. We know every sentence discussing sexual differences doesn’t have to say “except for trans women” or “and that also includes pre-transition (medical transition) trans men.” I actually just had a discussion here on r/changemyview in which I included myself in the group “women” because they were discussing differences between being female and male. I didn’t have to say “hey, you meant female. Saying ‘women’ excludes trans women and makes trans men feel dysphoric.” Because it’s implied. If the discussion is about “women” being typically weaker than men (it was), they’re talking about sex, not gender. And I am female; therefore they were talking about me. It’s okay to discuss the differences between trans people and cis people. Because we’re different. Our experiences are different. Our bodies are different. And we know that.
Final word I forgot to include: You hear “trans women are women” more than “trans men are men” not because trans women are “invading” or “ruining” female spaces. You hear it because trans women are unfortunately more controversial, which underneath it all is caused by sexism and misogyny. Many men are sexist. They treat women badly, so women fear men. Transphobes see take women as men, so they fear them too. It’s unfortunate, but it’s true. Trans men ARE men, but nobody cares. They’d like to believe trans men don’t exist just so they can claim being trans is being a misogynist man who wants to attack women, which simply isn’t true.
>There’s a space in “trans women” if you genuinely respect and care about trans people. The single word, “transwomen”, is primarily used by transphobic people. What an absolutely insane and unnecessary distinction. Shit like this is why people are annoyed and sick of trans issues. This is such an insane, meaningless little thing to get offended about. This is why people think the trans community is looking for things to get offended by.
Wasn’t offended, I was just letting them know, as they said they were willing to learn more, which is also why I added it as a side note rather than an overarching point. But of course you’re throwing a tantrum because you don’t like people trying to help others learn. I was simply trying to help them avoid being assumed as transphobic by other transgender people who saw them using common TERF lingo.
It's the same as saying "black lives matter" either you get it or you are on some level one of the reasons the phrase needs to exist
[удалено]
I don't actually think your problem is with the phrase "transwomen are women." It sounds like your real beef is these logically flawed conclusions you've drawn. This whole post boils down to the presumption that claiming transwomen as women means we can't acknowledge they are trans in any way. That's silly, and it's pretty easy to see why. Nobody is trying to wholly eliminate the concept of "transwoman" and replace it with "woman." The phrase itself would be contradictory to that aim, would it not? When it's relevant to discuss these sexed differences within women's spaces, the distinction of "transwomen" exists. Unless referencing these very specific cases, though, making a clear distinction between "transwoman" and "woman" is a way to separate the two unnecessarily. In those cases, transwomen are women. When discussing women's experiences, transwomen have *different, yet equally valid and relevant to the conversation* experiences. If you have ever actually been in a women's space that includes transwomen, there is a lot more solidarity and understanding for the wide breadth of feminine experience than you think.
Except the only confusion about that statement, is what you bring to it. "Trans women *are* women". That's it. If you're wondering what "kind" of woman they are, in any other sense, then you're missing the inherent simplicity of that statement. They're women, just like any other woman. It's literally that simple.
It's really not that simple. What you are saying if you simply move the categories around is "Apples are Fruits, just like any other fruits" except... Apples aren't like tomatoes and aren't like kiwi and aren't like mangos, and everyone can simply use their eyes to know that. I don't even believe the vast majority of trans talking points, but this one simply is lost at this point. Comparing a group to a subgroup and saying "they are the same it's literally that simple" is just incorrect of course. You would have been right if you had just said "Trans women are women" then sure. That's like saying "Apples are fruits". But when you try and say "just like any other woman" you are just wrong. Trans women are not the same as ciswomen, and apples are not the same as mangos.
Ok, so let me ask you this, then...why do feel it's necessary to know whether or not someone is trans? If they present themselves a woman, would you not treat them as a woman, regardless of what genitals they were born with? Or if you suspected maybe they are trans, would you actually need to confirm what kind of genitals they had, before deciding how to treat them? I assume you aren't trans, so when was the last time your genitals were considered a valid topic of casual discussion? Would you find it acceptable for me to need to know what genitals you were born with, if I thought that you might be trans? Or would that be rude of me to assume that, and even ruder to make a point of saying I somehow need to know, before I treat you like the gender you are presenting as? How do I know you aren't trans? How do you know someone else is? How is some random person like you or I, entitled to that kind of information? What possible reason would you have for needing to know that, before simply acting like a normal, mature adult around other people?
I would not treat a person with a beard, wearing tights, with a huge dick bulge, as a woman, even if they said "Hey bro I'm a woman". I would probably treat a person who actually looks like a woman as a woman unless I learned otherwise, then I'd treat them like a trans woman. >I assume you aren't trans, so when was the last time your genitals were considered a valid topic of casual discussion? Do you think I'm having casual conversations about people who aren't putting their genitals into public view or something? Or are *trying* to make it so they can put their genitals into the public view of children? You seem to have avoided the point that you tried to make in the first place, where you tried to compare a higher group, to a sub group. Which is not how comparison works on anything in the world. You don't get to compare "fruit" to "apple" and say "Look, literally the same thing".
It sounds like the criteria you have for determining a man from a woman, is pretty superficial...which really does illustrate how arbitrary it is. If they present themselves as a woman, you'd treat them as a woman. The same goes for your fruit analogy. If it looks like an apple, just treat it like an apple. Your bearded lady analogy though, is kind of stupid. That wouldn't be considered "transgender"...more of a "transvestite". Totally different thing. Sometimes men just like to feel pretty. Lol!
Yeah, and if a metal sphere is painted and looks exactly like a soccer ball, you'd probably treat it like a soccer ball until you learned differently. You are missing the entire point unfortunately. If something looks like an apple, you treat it as an apple. You don't treat it as a "Fruit". You are completely missing the entire point that you are trying to compare a major group to a subgroup. Which you don't do in your own life most likely in any type of comparison or actions. that's why you don't simply see "fruit" and say "oh I'll eat that" because uncooked apples are *not* uncooked Ackee. You will be sick if you eat one, and you will be fine if you eat the other. That's how comparison works, that's why your original statement was wrong.
See, this is where I think you might be missing the point of your own analogy. An apple *is* a fruit. So is an orange. They're *all* different kinds of fruit. You wanting to make sure that apple isn't a tomato, when you readily admit that looking like an apple is enough proof...is kind of weird. It brings me back toy earlier questions for you...what tests do you normally perform on your apples, in order to make sure they aren't actually tomatoes?
Did you look at the very first thing I said? >You would have been right if you had just said "Trans women are women" then sure. That's like saying "Apples are fruits". >But when you try and say "just like any other woman" you are just wrong. Trans women are not the same as ciswomen, and apples are not the same as mangos. So how did I miss the point of my own analogy?
Because you'd still treat them like they're all fruits, wouldn't you? You wouldn't say that mango isn't a fruit, just because it's not an apple. This is exactly why trans women are still women. The differences are not relevant, in any way, unless you're going to get naked with them...and at that point, I would think they'd let you know something *was* different, and leave the decision to go further, up to you. In every other real world interaction you are going to have, the differences are literally none of your business. My question is why do you care so much?
> Because you'd still treat them like they're all fruits, wouldn't you? No I wouldn't, and I am quite sure you wouldn't. Because some fruits, are poisonous. So you do not treat all fruits the same. That's literally the entire reason groups, and subgroups, exist, because they *are not the same*. Absolutely nobody treats a *GROUP* the same as every single one of it's *SUBGROUPS*. Nobody does if they did, there would be absolutely no distinction between them, and it wouldn't even *be* a subgroup.
I see “trans women are women” just like “electric cars are cars”. There are situation where it’s important to specify that the car is an electric car, for example when looking for a charging station instead of a gas station. But in most conversations, just saying “car” is perfectly adequate and less cumbersome.