Everyone knows that’s a red herring; women have been having hysterectomies since screening began, while this ‘people with cervixes’ language only appeared in a last few years.
According to a survey 44% of women in the UK don’t know what a cervix is - I wonder if Americans are any better educated? It strikes me somehow as a product of privilege in itself; a bunch of college educated people carefully constructing language to avoid offending and to include a tiny segment of the population while forgetting that a very large portion of their target audience won’t have a clue what they’re going on about, and are also the ones most likely to need reminders and urging to get screened.
Not to mention a bunch of well-off, well educated people campaigning to put self-declared trans-women in women’s prisons, without bothering to ask for the opinions of the women in them or caring about how it will affect their safety, privacy and well-being.
As for the sports teams, if people ask why should we bother having a ‘restricted’ category in sports, are we allowed to say that women make up 50% of the population and deserve the chance to take part in sports and have a chance of winning? Or will we be required to hedge the message with terms like ‘cis’ and ‘afab’ that will inevitably dilute it’s impact?
When I was a teenager I read a novel by Isaac Asimov, and a small side point was when the boss of one of the main characters asked if a space colony was only inhabited by ‘Euros’. The main character was shocked! totally shocked that his boss would be so crass as to bring up race. This was a world in which racism was alive and well, but it was extremely taboo to mention the subject. Not exactly a utopia, huh? I’m worried we’re moving in that direction, but with sex.
I think the most sensible approach has to be something akin to…
a) have an “open” category. i.e. anyone can play. This is pretty much what the “male” sports are now. If you are good enough, you play, doesn’t matter what your biological sex is or state of transition. there can even be divisions of open competition below this in which everyone can find their relevant competitive level (which of course is where we are now)
b)have a restricted category for biological females only.
I think this solves all problems other than for people transitioning that don’t want to recognise the fact that they were born biologically female or want to use hormones in the transitional treatment. Well…OK, it seems then that there are then multiple divisions in the “open” category where they can find a suitable competitive platform. The same goes for intersex, if they don’t conform to the necessary requirements for competing against biological females then the open categories are already there and waiting.
The thing which may trip people up is an unwillingness to admit that there is such a thing as a biological female or…if there is a legal precedent set that “female” is not an objective category and self-determination is enough. Which is where I believe this thread started off.
I think a lot of the people promoting this believe that feminism has more-or-less done it’s work and women as a class barely suffer any discrimination any more. Explains why it’s especially popular with university students who are mostly well off and haven’t yet experienced discrimination after having kids. They’re not going to end up in jail or a domestic violence shelter, so when they see an article that portrays trans people in a sympathetic light they think ‘what’s the harm?’ of including them.
A lot of people probably have no idea how much of an advantage men have at sports, either, since we don’t usually see men playing against women. Again, they feel sympathy for someone who just wants to be included, and don’t understand or consider the effect on other competitors.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Imagine what it will be like if, in 10 years, the majority of female Olympic medalists are transwomen. The amount of mental gymnastics needed to see this as fair and progressive will no doubt be colossal, but those defending trans inclusivity now pretty much are committing themselves to doing so in the future, regardless of where it leads.
If there ever was a time to get off this inevitable path of self-deceiving irrationality, it is now. Before the psychological commitments have become entrenched.
Today I learned that any woman engaging in non gender conforming behavior could potentially find herself posthumously declared a transman by future historians.
Because, like, it’s just impossible to conceive of women ever being Viking warriors. So when evidence suggest they existed, we have to hypothesize that these were simply men with XX chromosomes. Totally woke, totally progressive, totally what we all should be teaching our daughters and sons in the year 2020.
That article required a trial subscription, do I looked into the circumstances. It’s actually really interesting. The skeleton is female, but there are no female trappings, clothing or jewelry, no household items, and and what’s there is not what’s been found in other Viking women’s graves, even if the women had weapons. It appears that the Viking was a commander of some kind.
It’s an interesting question, and I think, from what else is known of the Viking culture and the gender roles that seemed to prevail, it’s worthwhile to contemplate if this was a woman who lived as a man. Transgender? Maybe not, but why was she buried as a man would be?
Except we know about Joan of Arc, and know that she was a woman who took up arms, and that she identified as a woman. Dismissing the idea that any person in history may have lived as the opposite sex and identified as such is kind of ridiculous.
I’m not saying that the Viking warrior was transgender. We don’t know.
Except some people, I guess, know that she was cisgender.
I agree it is interesting, but I don’t think we have to jump to “OMG THAT FEMALE PERSON WAS A MALE!” to explain it.
Look at contemporary culture. There are butch women (mostly lesbian) who dress in masculine/androgynous clothing but who identify as women. I have a close friend who is a lesbian with an androgynous mien. She got married in a suit. A thousand years from now, will historians recognize her suit as androgynous, neither overtly feminine nor masculine? Or when they find her remains will they speculate that they’ve uncovered a transgender male…when really they are looking at the remains of a proud woman?
For all we know, burying a female warrior in “male” regalia was more about paying respect to her warrior lifestyle than her gender identity. It might have been a way to pay respect to her bravery and courage, a way of saying “This really was a bad-ass bitch, y’all”. Perhaps she was totally fine with her woman identity and had no problem donning the “woman” uniform when she wasn’t in the role of warrior. Or maybe she was totally butch and didn’t done any female attire, but she still identified as a woman.
I mean, I can totally see how the attitudes towards gender non-conformity in a society can surmised from a very distant vantage point. I don’t how a person can reasonably surmise that a person identified a certain way just from their burial remains. We know gender bendy folks have existed since time immemorial. We know women have fought as warriors, either openly or secretively. Yes, it’s interesting but only to a certain point, IMHO.
That’s kind of my point. We don’t know if it’s an homage to the warrior aspect of her life, but people have found Viking women buried with weapons, and they have (apparently) always included grave goods that acknowledge womanly aspects as well.
People who don’t confirm to gender stereotypes have always existed, and always will. Refusing to consider that this may be one of those cases is dismissive, at best, of that very fact.
She was living as a warrior; it takes a leap to say she was living as a man. If being a warrior was her culture and lifestyle, then why expect her to be associated with household effects and jewelry? She would possess the same accoutrements that others in her clique would possess.
Why would a woman be buried as a man would be? The same reason schools give honorary degrees to non-graduates. In a sexist society, the way you esteem the exceptional woman is to give them the honors reserved for men.
History is riddled with examples of women who have deviated from female gender norms. Harriet Tubman comes to mind not just because she sometimes disguised herself as a man but because she led a badass military operation that is not exactly in line with a Betty Crocker homemaker stereotype.
I’m dreading the day I see a article that suggests Tubman was anything except the wonderfully brave woman she was. It’s probably in press now, at the rate things are going.
The article mentions that there were codes in Viking culture that forbade men and women from breaking gender norms in dress and behavior.
We had that in the US not that long ago, at least respect to dress… Within living memory. I’m sure there are quite a few backwaters (and maybe not even backwaters) that have not repealed those laws. Yet, when is the last time we’ve heard of a woman wearing men’s clothing being arrested? Gays and lesbians have defied heteornormative dress since forever. So I don’t know why finding female remains in masculine clothing should raise the transgender flag before the lesbian flag. Yes, either of those things could be true. But it seems to me the latter is more likely to be true.
Not all women are the same, so the idea that her personal effects differed from other gals is completely unsurprising to me. Truly, it’s like expecting all little girls to have dolls and then speculating that the girl who doesn’t might not really be a girl.
Then perhaps you should bring that up with the ancient Vikings who buried women with female items, even if male items were ALSO included.
My point is, from an anthropological standpoint, it’s fascinating. She contradicts what we know or think we know. One possible explanation is that she was a lesbian, or what we would consider a transman, or most likely according to the researcher quoted a badass warrior woman.
But acting offended that there is any other possibility than “cisgender as we know it” is ridiculous.
I’m not refusing to consider. I just don’t see why it isn’t interesting enough that there’s compelling evidence the Vikings permitted some degree of gender non-conformity and leave it at that until more information comes in. Why mention transgenderism when there are no written accounts of Viking individuals denying their sex or gender, and there are more likely explanations than transgenderism?
I gotta think the only reason we’re talking about this research is because the authors mentioned transgenderism. If they didn’t want to lead anyone to that conclusion, they shouldn’t have mentioned it. But I suspect they did so to attract interest in their research since transgenderism is so “it” right now. (Which reminds me of the fad from a few years ago where every geek of historical renown was posthumously diagnosed as autistic.)
This came across as something more than “cringy” as did the comment about expecting all little girls to like dolls and a girl who doesn’t like dolls is therefore a boy- but meh. True feelings can be difficult to discern over the text medium. It seemed a continuation of saying that women are being erased.
As I said, I find it interesting. Some people don’t.
She doesn’t contradict what we know. Women who don’t conform to gender stereotypes and roles are not novel or biologically abnormal entities. If they are ubiquitous today, then finding some in the past is not a shocker. As you acknowledge, we know female Viking warriors existed. So why is the existence of a female Viking warrior who was also a commander that flabbergastastic that we need gender theory to make sense of it?
I’m not offended by people speculating this woman was trans. But I do find it ridiculous an entire article is dedicated to proposing this idea just because of her apparent gender nonconformity.
It also seems sociologically implausible. For transgender acceptance to work, there needs to be a critical mass of people willing to accept that women can be men (and vice versa).
“Yes, Mr. Patriarch, never mind my boobs, feminine facial features, high-pitched voice, and the likelihood that blood is flowing from my cooch right now. I’m a man trapped in a female’s body. Capice?”
“Okay, here’s your battle ax, dude.”
I’m just not seeing this happening. In these days, no one was taking hormones and getting mastectomies to affect a masculine apparance. What I think is much more likely is that this woman demonstrated exceptional fighting and leadership skills and was recognized as a formidable asset in spite of societal attitudes about her sex. And so rather than not utilitizing her talents and relegating her to the sidelines, she was allowed to step into a role that was closed off to other women. Perhaps gender nonconformity helped her fit in this macho culture, but it was her fortitude and prowess that was responsible for her position in society.
Since this is a pattern that has occurred throughout history (how else does a lowly runaway slave like Tubman get entrusted to lead white men into battle?), in the absence of real evidence, I see no reason we shouldn’t assume the same pattern explains this Viking situation.
