That isn’t what “biological determinism” means. You aren’t even in the ballpark.
No, it’s not like that at all.
Sex is a real thing. Men don’t become women. They may wish to call themselves women, act as if they are women, and be addressed as women, and I see no reason to be mean and peevish to someone if that is how they prefer to be treated. But the position that a person born male is never going to be biologically female is a statement of plain fact.
One might, of course, argue that it’s true that men don’t become women: A transwoman did not “become” a woman, because she always was one, despite her male body.
But I doubt that that’s what was meant in the tweet in question.
But you’re begging the question, by assuming that the much less specific terms “man” and “woman” are synonymous with biological sexes of “male” and “female,” respectively. No one is arguing that is possible for a biological male to become a biological female, or vice versa. Observing that it’s not is sort of a trivial observation.
But the construction “men cannot change into women” is not the same as “biological males cannot change into biological females.” Because sex is a real thing, sure, but gender is a real thing, too, and it is entirely possible for gender to change (or more properly phrased, for gender to differ from biological sex). “Man” and “woman” are arbitrary terms; we as a society are discussing whether it is better to define those terms on the basis of sex or gender, since the terms don’t really require either.
Now here’s the thing. If you want to rigidly define “man” and “woman” on the basis of sex, then I guess that’s your right, but you’re: (1) being a bit pointlessly cruel to those whose genders don’t match their sex; and (2) making the terms much less useful. I mean, I know a young man named Trevor (not his real name). When he was born, his name was something else. His biological sex is female. His gender is male. Unless you are his doctor or a clinical researcher, you will never have any reason to know or care about his biological sex. You will interact entirely with his gender. Why then would you choose to call him a woman?
And yet, psychologically…
Since our defining feature is our brain, I’d argue that physical characteristics have little bearing on whether someone is male or female. If their brain tells someone that they’re a woman, it doesn’t matter how big their dick is.
It is rather safe to say that’s what Forester meant and what Rowling was saying she should have the right to say. Read the tweet. It wasn’t being argued “the words man and woman have only one definition” - something anyone with a dictionary can see isn’t the case.
But that’s not what anyone was doing. I mean, I can think, without even grabbing a dictionary, of at LEAST six definitions of “man.” Of course words in English mean different things.
The point that a lot of people - mostly women, which is why they’re being made fun of and threatened online - are making is that sex is a real thing, and a person born biologically male isn’t ever going to be fully biologically female, and that ignoring that fact that have genuinely worrying consequences. Men are being put in women’s prisons. That’s really, really bad; women are getting hurt. Transwomen are winning sporting competitions meant for women entirely because they have the advantage of male physiology; that just isn’t fair. And yes, some people are going right over the edge and denying the reality of biological sex; it’s not a straw man. Do a Twitter search for #rowling and spend some time in the rabbit hole. Hell, while I was typing this GreysonCarlisle typed that our physical characteristics “Have little learing on whether someone is male or female,” despite the fact we don’t HAVE any characteristics that are not physical. We are our bodies. Even our brains are our bodies. When you get that ludicrously far into “male and female are just how you feel” you are effectively rendering those words meaningless.
Is a transwoman just a man? I do not think so. I think they’re transwomen - they’re not the same thing as a woman, but they’re not the same thing as a man. Sensitivity, decency and an eye towards fairness is merited, as of course it always is, but pretending biological sex is not a thing isn’t how we go about being sensitive, decent, or fair.
JK Rowling has done nothing “transphobic.”
Okay, but what does it mean to be a man or a woman psychologically? If someone’s brain is telling them that they’re a woman, what is it telling them exactly? That they have X, Y, and Z characteristics, that are typically associated with women in our society? But is that about what they are, or about the limitations of our stereotypes?
(Not trying to argue a position, here, just confused myself.)
That’s ridiculous. Mind and body have long been known to be separate. Nice strawman, though.
In the future, try not to put words into peoples’ mouths.
It’s unfortunate that your best point is vapid, but I applaud this tentative flirtation with honesty, however brief it may be.
Did anyone read the actual article? Maya Forstater–the woman Rowling stands with-didn’t just make an off hand comment about transwomen not being real women.
She sounds like a real peach. At best this is wildly unprofessional behavior that could be damaging to the anti-poverty think tank’s cause. Firing her seems reasonable.
I hope what I’m about to say doesn’t mark me as a transphobe, but it is OK if it does. No one is perfect!
I have heard numerous times on the SDMB that transgendered indviduals are born into this world already being their preferred gender. They transition so that their gender identity can become physically apparent to others. So if we accept this as axiomatic, what Maya said technically shouldn’t be controversial since women who transition were never men in the first place. Right?
(Personally, I think that is a wrong-ass way of looking at transgenderism, unless we’re gonna say that the only people who should be allowed to change gender are those who have had lifelong gender dysmorphia. If changing one’s gender isn’t inherently icky or dangerous, then one should be able to transition even if they don’t have dysmorphia, right? But I digress…)
Also, we’ve got folks insisting that gender is a social construct that rests heavily if not wholly on self-identity. And I’m OK with this idea even if I don’t 100% understand it. But I’m not OK with saying sex is a social construct that anyone can self-identify as. It really does seem to me that a male can’t just claim to be a female…not without changing the package he’s in in some meaningful non-cosmetic way. I know this is not what Maya said and I’m fine with her being fired. But I will admit to being concerned that one day I will say something that will offend someone just because I don’t know the PC definitions for “male” and “female” and don’t understand how they are differ from the terms “men” and “women.” And the old fogey in me suspects that some of the people who are upset at what Maya said and JK Rowling’s defense don’t even have a coherent understanding of these things either.
I think that if you’re not intentionally denigrating people (like Maya repeatedly did), you probably don’t have much to worry about.
Very well stated and that fear is precisely why, alleged vapidity notwithstanding, the Orwellian allusion is so appropriate. It’s not just the employment of doublespeak it’s also the chilling punishment for wrongthink.
She got fired from a job. She’s not in Room 101.
Misgendering a non-binary person, you’ve got to be fucking kidding me, what the hell happened to this world.
Your “mind” is a manifestation of your brain, an organ of your body.
I cannot possibly imagine how someone could think Gregor Murray was a man.
And I was clearly referring to dicks in my post.
By my watch we’re due for an ‘attack helicopter’ reference any time now.
Your point then was that a person’s brain decided if they were male or female, not their genitalia. But genitalia is one of the common definition features of the two sexes, whereas both sexes have brains.
Whether you are a man or woman can’t merely be something you think you are, because what you think has to have some reference to the material world. It is possible a person born male could think themselves a woman, but the concept of “woman” must have some reference to SOMETHING. A man can’t be “Whomever thinks they’re a man” - that’s circular and uses itself in the definition. It is physical characteristics, or just sexist stereotypes, or something else?
And no, mind and body aren’t separate. That is wrong. Your mind - personality, spirit, whatever - is a manifestation of your brain. Your body is the entirety of what you are.