Is this woman a transphobe?

[co-op]

Both "gender" and "sex" are constructs. Neither are "natural" categories.

You see I don't agree with that, I think sex is a "real thing" (long debate about what that means sure), gender is constructed but I can see that there is a debate that could be had about that. Is my position transphobic? Is thinking it's allowed to debate it transphobic?

 

[Idaho]

Both "gender" and "sex" are constructs. Neither are "natural" categories.

While there are ambiguities and exceptions in sex definitions, sexual dimorphism certainly does exist and to suggest otherwise is to get so lost in the cultural wood as to not see the biological trees.

 

[mauvais]

Unless they have shared the specifics of their suspension notification, you don't know what got someone banned from Twitter. Even if they had, you don't know that it isn't a totting up ban.

Then, this:

if that is considered transphobic then the problem is with the definition not with my stance.

Try that line with any other form of discrimination.

Given that opening gambit, I haven't attempted to read any further.

 

[co-op]

Do you think that there are any transphobes within "gender-critical feminism"? Would you be able to give an example of someone who you do think is transphobic, so I can understand where you're setting the bar here?

I am sure there are people on the GC camp who view trans people in a way that I personally think is transphobic, case in point, someone called Miranda Yardley who appeared on a debate about this on these boards nearly a decade ago. She is a transwoman who argued then (and this is from memory so maybe not 100% accurate) that basically most trans women are autogynophile and that this was essentially a pathology. I'm never comfortable about pathologising sexuality and this seems to me an example of a transphobic position, ironically from a transwoman in this case but my guess is that it's shared with a fair number of other people claiming GC views..

I think that gender is a social construct and that humanity as a whole would be happier and better off if we could get rid of it. While it exists, though, I think there are people who seem to be better suited to a gender role which isn't the one assigned to them by society.

I wouldn't disagree with a word of this

Is she being asked in by her employer? It reads to me like it's her trade union which wants to talk to her, which is quite a different thing.

She works for a trade union, it's her employer.

 

[Border Reiver]

While there are ambiguities and exceptions in sex definitions, sexual dimorphism certainly does exist and to suggest otherwise is to get so lost in the cultural wood as to not see the biological trees.

It is more complex than that. "Sex" is not just defined by chromosomes. Biological sex has multiple definitions that always need to made clear to avoid misunderstandings. And I am not talking about sexual dimorphism alone. When I studied this some years ago (before it became political) there were multiple indicators of biological sex. Chromosomal sex is important but not decisive. Chromosomes only define chromosomal sex.

 

[Knotted]

I love the "I believe in biological reality". It's just so sly and transparent. Yeah, she probably got booted off twitter because the transes who control twitter think biology isn't a reality or something. That must be it.

Of course the implied point is that biological reality determines gender, which is exactly the idea feminists have always fought. The original terfs weren't idiots like this, they were radical critics of identity politics. This is just it's own identity politics and a particularly cranky one at that - all this blatant nonsense about female erasure. And it's also why these idiots are so willing to ally with social conservatives who are also very big on "biology determines gender" including of course gender roles.

The whole thing is just troll questions. Contrived, "I bet you can't answer this" stuff. She probably thinks that trans rights and women's rights are at fundamentally at odds and that sticking it the transes (sorry tra's) is a way of sticking it to the patriarchy or something.

It's a political formation that's fundamentally and obsessively about trying to limit the rights of a small vulnerable minority.

 

[Border Reiver]

That's highly questionable tbf, unless you're going the whole hog and calling all things constructs, which is all very well but not very useful. It's very hard to explain the workings of sexual reproduction without employing the category 'sex'.

What defines "sex" in your opinion?

 

[Knotted]

Also we have no idea why she was booted off twitter. Stupid trolling thread.

 

[Edie]

What defines "sex" in your opinion?

Oh this is boring. We’ve done this.

 

[Border Reiver]

Oh this is boring. We’ve done this.

So you cannot easily define "sex". As Einstein said, if you cannot explain a concept simply then you do not understand it. Humour me and define sex simply.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It is more complex than that. "Sex" is not just defined by chromosomes. Biological sex has multiple definitions that always need to made clear to avoid misunderstandings. And I am not talking about sexual dimorphism alone. When I studied this some years ago (before it became political) there were multiple indicators of biological sex. Chromosomal sex is important but not decisive. Chromosomes only define chromosomal sex.

How about the definition of 'reproductive sex'. This is where a binary of sexes can be consistently and precisely defined. Within sexually reproducing organisms, there exist precisely two ways in which an individual can get together with another individual to reproduce sexually - ways that are defined as 'female' and 'male'.

I think all sorts of stuff in this debate is up for grabs, but attempts to define a binary system of reproductive sex out of existence always fail on this point.

 

[Edie]

So you cannot easily define "sex". As Einstein said, if you cannot explain a concept simply then you do not understand it. Humour me and define sex simply.

It doesn’t matter. Say something interesting.

 

[Border Reiver]

It doesn’t matter. Say something interesting.

So knowledge is unimportant to you? If we cannot define sex, how can we discuss it?

 

[Border Reiver]

How about the definition of 'reproductive sex'. This is where a binary of sexes can be consistently and precisely defined. Within sexually reproducing organisms, there exist precisely two ways in which an individual can get together with another individual to reproduce sexually - ways that are defined as 'female' and 'male'.

I think all sorts of stuff in this debate is up for grabs, but attempts to define a binary system of reproductive sex out of existence always fail on this point.

So I have no sex as I am incapable of reproduction? You have defined reproductive sex but not "sex". Prepubescent children, post menopausal women, men post vasectomy, and eunuchs have no "sex"?

 

[8ball]

It is more complex than that. "Sex" is not just defined by chromosomes. Biological sex has multiple definitions that always need to made clear to avoid misunderstandings. And I am not talking about sexual dimorphism alone. When I studied this some years ago (before it became political) there were multiple indicators of biological sex. Chromosomal sex is important but not decisive. Chromosomes only define chromosomal sex.

The chromosomal sophistry. Show me a human that didn’t come from a cell involving fusion of a small, swimmy gamete and a much larger non-swimmy one and I’ll begin to take you seriously.

 

[LDC]

So I have no sex as I am incapable of reproduction? You have defined reproductive sex but not "sex". Prepubescent children, post menopausal women, men post vasectomy, and eunuchs have no "sex"?

That's been discussed and explained so many times (even just on here) it's ridiculous and fucking boring. It's like someone saying humans have 2 legs and then you pointing to someone that lost a leg in an accident and shouting "Look, they've got one leg, humans don't have 2 legs!" like it's some kind of argument winning gotcha.

Just waiting for "Look, intersex!" to come up next.

 

[Idaho]

So knowledge is unimportant to you? If we cannot define sex, how can we discuss it?

I assume you are saying that as there are exceptions and anomalies to the usual male female divide/categories, that this disproves that such categories truly exist?

 

[co-op]

Of course the implied point is that biological reality determines gender, which is exactly the idea feminists have always fought.

I know we aren't going to agree on pretty much anything on this topic but it's important for anyone else to know that this point ^^^ is just plain wrong. No GC feminist ever has argued that biological reality "determines gender", that's obviously not a radical feminist position, or a gender-critical one.It's absolutely the case that the GC position rejects biological determination of gender roles.

Arguing in one-liners lacks nuance for sure but the GC position is sometimes put as "sex is the why, gender is the how" (in terms of women's oppression).

 

[Knotted]

The very idea of these numpties critterspalining to a trans person about their "biological reality"... Because trans people are unaware of their own biology? They forgot to look down perhaps?

 

[Border Reiver]

That's been discussed and explained so many times (even just on here) it's ridiculous and fucking boring. It's like someone saying humans have 2 legs and then you pointing to someone that lost a leg in an accident and shouting "Look, they've got one leg, humans don't have 2 legs!" like it's some kind of argument winning gotcha.

I am afraid it is not. Chromosomes do not determine sex, just chromosomal sex. How did we ascertain sex before we knew of chromosomes? This is a matter of science and not politics.

Please define "sex" simply and scientifically.

 

[Knotted]

I know we aren't going to agree on pretty much anything on this topic but it's important for anyone else to know that this point ^^^ is just plain wrong. No GC feminist ever has argued that biological reality "determines gender", that's obviously not a radical feminist position, or a gender-critical one.It's absolutely the case that the GC position rejects biological determination of gender roles.

Arguing in one-liners lacks nuance for sure but the GC position is sometimes put as "sex is the why, gender is the how" (in terms of women's oppression).

These people aren't radical feminists, some of them aren't even feminists. They aren't the second wavers of the 80's. You think this point about "biological reality" was just a point about "well I think antelopes are real". It has content.

 

[co-op]

This is a matter of science and not politics.

Lol. A page ago you were saying that both sex and gender were socially constructed. That's a pretty rapid 180.

 

[smokedout]

"Look, they've got one leg, humans don't have 2 legs!" like it's some kind of argument winning gotcha.

So are you arguing that all humans have two legs?

 

[LDC]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Obviously. I avoid these threads usually, think I'll go back to that.

 

[Border Reiver]

I assume you are saying that as there are exceptions and anomalies to the usual male female divide/categories, that this disproves that such categories truly exist?

No. I am making the point that "sex" does not exist as a natural concept, but depends on human knowledge and belief (a construct) not a well defined scientific fact.

For instance people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome would have, prior to modern human knowledge, been treated as female because of their overt morphology despite having a Y chromosome (the marker of chromosomal sex).

 

[Shechemite]

Compares being trans to thinking she's black because she listens to Bob Marley.

what is ‘being trans’? Is it the experience of dysphoria, or the meaning that some attach to dysphoria?

 

[8ball]

So are you arguing that all humans have two legs?

Actually, if you analyse the average number of legs per person, it becomes clear that legs cannot be considered discrete units, and also when you look at how this data varies by country we observe a “leg spectrum” which is influenced by culture.

We have to conclude that legs are a social construct.

 

[Knotted]

Can anybody imagine say, Julie Bindel, making a song and dance about "biological reality"? As much as I might disagree with her, I would recognise that she's not a "you are your bits" loon.

 

[Border Reiver]

Lol. A page ago you were saying that both sex and gender were socially constructed. That's a pretty rapid 180.

You misinterpret. I am being totally coherent.

 

[Shechemite]

Can anybody imagine say, Julie Bindel, making a song and dance about "biological reality"? As much as I might disagree with her, I would recognise that she's not a "you are your bits" loon.

Do you think there should be single sex wards in hospitals?