Me too. The contrast in attitudes is instructive.
If this is true, this is terrible. Assault and harassment should never be tolerated, no matter the gender or gender identity (or claimed gender identity) of the assaulter/harasser.
I’d say it more resembles an illness or injury+convalescence than a disability. Disabilities are constant and permanent (or, at least, fairly long-lasting).
Breaking your leg and having to be in a cast for 6 months is not a disability. Breaking it so badly you have a permanent limp, is. Now, some pregnancies certainly lead to states like the latter. Some pregnancies can even be fatal. But pregnancy, overall, is not a disability.
By all means provide evidence there’s a massive online, just-say-it-out-loud “kill the trannies” movement anywhere near the scale of the hate and threats directed at Rowling.
It is not disingenuous to use the word “women” in that manner because that is what the word means, and it is an attempt of extremely recent vintage to alter it to mean “anyone who identifies as a woman,” a meaning that is circular and serves no purpose. No one uses the word “woman” to mean “a female human” out of a desire to be deceptive, they use it because that’s the meaning they’ve attached to the word their whole lives, the meaning in every dictionary I can find and the meaning with which it’s been used five hundred billion times in our language. Describing the use of a word to mean what it’s meant for centuries as “disingenuous” is ridiculous. It’s not disingenuous to use words to mean what they mean. We’re speaking English, not Newspeak.
I am still waiting for someone to coherently explain what “woman” means if it DOESN’T mean “a female human being.”
…
I don’t have much faith in your personal impression of who is “at least as guilty” as whoever else, as an objective quantitative measure of which “side” is more responsible for engaging in unhinged bigotry.
I’m not at all persuaded that you have any objective quantitative answers to the question of relative “guilt” of different “sides”, as opposed to just a bunch of confirmation-bias-inspired vague rhetoric.
Why is this still a thing in this discussion? One relatively new definition of “woman” is “biologically female human being, unless they are a trans man; also, trans women”. Unless you think “trans man” and “trans woman” don’t have definitions, then this is a pretty clear (and, yes, new, but still real) definition of “woman”.
This has been explained over and over, and it’s also in common usage. This is one of those “resolved” things. Some people use “woman” only how you do, but many people also use it per this “new” definition.
I’ll also note (again) that this “new” definition is generally a social definition, meaning that it doesn’t necessarily mean or imply that trans women are identical to cis women and can/should be treated exactly the same in all circumstances. Trans women are women, but they are not cis women. There are certainly challenges and obstacles faced by cis women that aren’t faced by others.
Are you suggesting that if more people really believed that women are weaker than men that fewer women would be victims of abuse, and that lack of that understanding leads to more abuse?
Here’s an applicable definition of disability.
a physical, mental, cognitive, or developmental condition that impairs, interferes with, or limits a person’s ability to engage in certain tasks or actions or participate in typical daily activities and interactions
I think of it like this:
- A subset of humans have a congenital condition that has systemic affects on the body’s development.
- This condition is not pathological but it does interfere with their ability to perform tasks requiring significant outlays of strength, speed, and power.
- Other features of this condition include cyclical vaginal bleeding and associated effects (pain/discomfort/fatigue/anemia), bones that are more prone to breakage, and shortened stature relative to those without this condition on average.
- As a side-effect of sexual intercourse, they also are at risk of a condition called pregnancy, which has a whole suite of health-altering physical manifestations ranging from nausea, fatigue, weakness, shortness of breath, diabetes, severe abdominal swelling, heart palpitations, and joint pain. Pregnancy typically leads to a dramatic process called labor which can result in permanent changes to the body, such as pelvic floor collapse and vaginal tearing. Pregnancy and labor can also be fatal.
When looking at the impacts of being in a XX body compared to being in a XY one, it’s hard not see this in terms of disability. It’s possible people have a hard time making this association because of the stigma attached to the physically impaired, but the truth is the truth.
One aspect to this is that many trans people have an appearance which strongly aligns with their gender identity. There are many transwomen who look very feminine and many transmen who look very masculine. If they use the locker room based on their biological sex or genetics, then there would be very masculine transmen in the women’s locker room and very feminine transwomen in the men’s locker room. Since their appearance would be in contrast to most other people in those rooms, it could still cause problems.
Sports are not appearance based, so there it could still make sense to separate based on biological and genetic differences.
There’s the rub. We think of ourselves as so advanced, but there’s still a huge stigma to being disabled.
I’m not keen on this characterisation, but playing along:
If you don’t like having this condition and/or the societal stigma and discrimination that goes with it, then doctors have a ‘cure’. They can give you testosterone to make you stronger and change the physical features associated with the condition, and remove those pesky organs that cause so much trouble and carry a risk of pregnancy.
I believe abusers are more apt to abuse when they can mentally convince themselves they aren’t really committing abuse. When they believe they are engaging in a fair fight, it is easier for them to justify their actions. This is human psychology 101 stuff.
It’s really no different than a rapist convincing himself “she was asking for it”.
This diversion into the concept of disability is a little misguided. Being a woman is not a “Disability” in the sense that word is normally used, and is not a “Disability” in the various ways that “disability” is used in a legal sense. Being a woman does not quality as a disability under most related legislation, for instance. Women can’t park in the disabled space just for being women.
The physical differences between men and women are quite perfectly encapsulated by recognizing that some people are men and some people are women. We don’t have to rope the concept of disability into it, even if we acknowledge there are some distant parallels.
So
-
You’d agree it’s not disingenuous to use the word “Woman” the way most people do and always have, right?
-
So you’re saying a woman is a female human unless they’re a female human but not a woman, or are a male human and are a woman. That’s, as I expected, incoherent. What makes a trans woman a woman? What makes a trans man not a woman?
-
As I have explained several times, if you get your wish and redefine “woman” to meaninglessness, that’s fine; people will just use a new word, like “female” or “ciswoman,” and in a few years you’ll be trying to redefine that. (The former is already being appropriated, actually.) The important distinction is between humans who are of the female sex and humans of the male sex. That concept will always exist. People will always find words to describe those.
But even this wouldn’t be a “cure”. Testosterone injections cannot make transmen equal in strength, speed, and power to men. Try as they might, they cannot fully escape the biological realities of a XX body.
Unfortunately, when females take T they actually create pathological side effects. Like vaginal atrophy. Heart and skeletal problems. There is no such thing as a free lunch, even in this Brave New World of gender identity.
-
Not necessarily. Depends on the circumstances.
-
No, that’s not what I said. I said something different. Unless you don’t believe “trans woman” and “trans man” are real concepts, with real definitions, then this is a pretty clear definition. Do you not believe these concepts have real definitions?
-
Some people might, certainly. Some people still don’t count gay marriages as “real” marriages. Maybe they’ll come up with a new word for their extra-special hetero marriages. If not, maybe this isn’t really something to worry about – some people will use one definition, some will use others. Like it already is for many, many words.
None of this matters to my point, since I’m not making a legal argument. I’m making a philosophical one. Women have physical impairments that men don’t. These impairments may not matter in most day-to-day activities, but they matter very much in sports. Minimizing this reality to defend trans inclusivity is wrong, just as it would be wrong if we were talking about allowing able-bodied athletes to compete against disabled ones.
Millions of people take a daily pill to “treat” this condition. The pill prevents the more severe manifestations of this condition (pregnancy causes death in hundreds of thousands every year), but it also reduces the severity of the more low-key symptoms of this condition. Because the pill affects the cycling of two sex hormones–estrogen and progestorone, some might say the pill changes who these people are. But the people taking the pill would argue it allows them to function like everyone else does. They would say it allows them to be their “best” selves, not “different” selves.
This is true, but by what necessity do these people have to go men’s or women’s rooms? If we created a mixed-sex space where they wouldn’t stand out as out of place, this would be fine, right?
Sure. A trans woman is a man who acts, and prefers to be treated as if, they are a woman. A trans man, reverse those words.
That’s not my understanding of these concepts.
Which I think might be the big disagreement. Some of us really believe that transgender is a real and serious psychological concept, involving deeply held beliefs and understandings about a person’s identity, rather than some passing fancy, or a fad, or a whim decision made by weirdos. Based on the language you use regarding trans people, it’s apparent that you disagree.
I don’t think it’s necessary to create a separate space. There is a huge existing system based on just men/women. It’s not feasible to expect all these existing places to add on a new space. Maybe in a few decades things will change, but this is something we have to deal with now.
But fundamentally, I don’t think it’s necessary to separate restrooms and locker rooms based on genetics. I feel these spaces should be based more around appearances. Just like restaurants might have a dress code, so should these spaces. If someone has the appropriate appearance, I think they should be able to use the facilities. So for transmen and transwomen who generally appear as their gender, I think it’s fine if they use the facilities designated for that gender. The area I disagree is when people don’t make a reasonable effort to conform to gender appearances and still expect to use the facilities. A transwoman with a full beard, body hair, masculine hair cut, masculine clothing, etc. is not making an effort to meet the dress code, so I don’t think they should be able to use the women’s rooms.