Restate the question, and then explain the point of the question.
…nope. You are doing that implicitly.
The problem is that fear-mongering from people like you make it more likely that women who don’t present as traditionally female are more likely to get harassed and kicked out of the bathroom. This isn’t some sort of an innocent mistake.
And I’ll note that you’ve avoided the transmen question. Yet again.
You managed to address the question of butch lesbians. It was literally in the same sentence when you equated me actually defending butch lesbians with homophobia.
Geena Davis, the actress, is six feet tall, a characteristic overwhelmingly associated with men, not women. Still, I am pretty sure she’s a woman. Sex is bimodal, but some characteristics overlap at the extreme ends. Being really tall is more common than having a beard among women, but, still.
No one thinks Alex Drummond is male just because of the beard.
Did I not articulate, in the very bit of my post that you quoted
But guilt of what? If I am charged of theft there would need to be such a concept as “theft” and a means of describing what it is and how I might reasonably be considered guilty of it
So, what would guilt of “failing to commit to living as ones preferred gender” look like? If you or I were sitting on a jury in such a case what evidence would suffice?
…the question wasn’t “does Alma meet the classical definition of a women.” The question was does Alma’s decision not to shave her beard align with living as a women?
I know this is off-topic, but I’m suddenly reminded of the movie Yentl. Only in a Hollywood fantasy could a 40-something woman fool everyone into thinking she is a young man.
You sure are going through a lot of effort to dodge the question “Do you feel that a transwoman having a full beard aligns with living as a woman?”.
What, so Tootsie is chopped liver?
I get misgendered by customer service people frequently because most times they are just doing a quick glance when deciding whether to pull out a “sir” or “ma’am”. And my short hair makes me ping as “man”. But I don’t think folks will look at my thumbnail photo and think “man”.
…yeah you did. Why is a simple (statutory) declaration not enough? What problem does a more extensive process try to solve?
Yep.
The question that might be asked is “is this person only pretending to be transgender in order to access women only spaces?” There wouldn’t be an objective answer to that. But there could be a preponderance of evidence that supports that.
…I thought you would have gotten that now. A beard doesn’t appear to be an inherent part of one’s gender identity. I provided an example of a cis-women who chose to have a beard and is aligned with living as a women. So yes, you can be either cis or trans, have a beard and be aligned with living as a women.
If transmen are men, as I‘ve been repeatedly urged to accept, then why shouldn’t women be summoning management when transmen use the women’s locker room? That’s exactly what should be expected if this room is a restricted space.
If transmen are men, you shouldn’t even be bringing this up as a gotcha. Your position should be that they don’t belong in the women’s locker room.
The fact that you are lumping them together with a group of women (lesbians) is an indication you see transmen as another group of women. Not as another group of men.
Thanks for flagging this out. It is one more inconsistency that has popped up in this game of wack-a-mole.
such as? I can’t believe this is so difficult. What sort of evidence could there be?
I differ from you in this respect in that I feel that someone making a commitment to live as a woman is different than someone who is a woman by the classical definition. I feel a genetically XY person should make a reasonable effort to conform to gender norms rather than gender anomalies. I don’t feel that they are being honorable about their commitment to live as a woman when they pick and choose from traits that only a tiny percentage of women have.
Are there any characteristics or traits which would indicate a person was not living as a woman? What would make you look at a transwoman and say “Ah ha! I know she’s lying because of ____!”?
So you’re essentially saying that “living as a woman” has no meaning.
Ciswomen can have beards and still live as women.
Ciswomen can wear masculine clothing and still live as women.
Ciswomen can have deep voices and still live as women.
Ciswomen can go by non-feminine pronouns and still live as women.
So that means a transwoman doesn’t have to demonstrate anything to show they’ve been living as a woman. They can have a functioning penis, a blood stream full of testosterone, short hair, beard, masculine clothing, deep voice, and go by non-feminine pronouns and still have folks such as yourself saying they are women–entitled to be in women’s spaces, take spots away from ciswomen for special programs, and be protected the same as females.
And you don’t understand why ciswomen would have a problem with this?
I suspect they know why. They just don’t care.
“Woman” is reducible to a feeling inside a man’s head. The cradle-to-grave lived experience of female human beings—the experience that you are going through right now due to female biology—is on the same plane of importance and consequentiality as the feeling that lives in a male’s head.
A female adult isn’t a woman because of how they choose to make themselves appear. It’s a transwoman that has to do something - to transition - to be a woman. What exactly that transition is composed of is apparently a matter of debate, but Alma doesn’t have to transition. She just is, beard or no. It’s akin to if my wife decides not to let her hair grow long. She’d still be a woman.
Someone gave the example earlier of how the definition of ‘mother’ has been expanded. It used to mean a woman who gave birth to and raised children. But it’s been expanded to include adoptive mothers too. Now imagine the following conversation:
“You wouldn’t say my friend Anita isn’t a mother just because she adopted her kids instead of giving birth to them?”
“No.”
“And you wouldn’t tell my friend Betty she’s not a mother just because she had to give her baby up for adoption, surely?”
“Nope”
“So you agree you don’t have to give birth to be a mother, and you don’t have to raise kids to be a mother. The only important thing is whether you feel like a mother or not. My childless friend Clare is a mother, because she feels like one.”
“Wait, what?”
That’s kind of how I see the new philosophy of gender.
The most recent posts are hitting on why “cis” is objectionable to so women, including myself.
It enables the false equivalences that @BB is making.
“A adult female can have a beard and still be a woman so why can’t an adult male have a beard and be a woman?”
“Um, because an adult female = woman”.
The concept of cis implies gender is what makes an adult female a woman rather than her status as a member of the female sex class. But this is silly. What is gender? If females are not obligated to do anything except exist and still be women, then gender is irrelevant to being a woman. ”Cis” disrespects this basic truth by making it seem like adult females have to opt in to their own demographic group.
People have trouble with this.
The problem is letting go of 1-dimensional thinking. Which is hard. They’re treating it as a one-dimensional bimodal distribution whenever that one physical feature is pointed out.
x y
x y
x y
x y
x y
x y
x! x!And it’s like, “This person violates this one single dimension of analysis, therefore the entire idea of a bimodal distribution is incoherent!”
But that’s not how it works.
We’re dealing with a bimodal distribution in like 10- or 15-degree space. Maybe even higher. A person can easily be “out of place” on a single dimension. But if we mapped all the points onto the 15-degree space, there would be two obvious clusters of points, and very few points that are outside those clusters. It would be easy to draw a line (a hyperplane) between the two clusters and identify the overwhelming majority of people as belonging to one cluster or the other, as they were on one side of the line or the other. Even the majority of intersex people would tend to fit one cluster or the other. An xy-woman is almost always recognized as a woman, despite the y-chromosome often leading to some missing internal reproductive organs. It wouldn’t be absolutely perfect. But it would be very good.
This is true even if there is a large amount of overlap in any single dimension. That one-dimensional overlap is entirely swamped by the positioning in multi-dimensional space. We could even limit the analysis to personality traits, like the 5-factor personality model, and we could make a fairly decent hyperplane cut between the two clusters.
Whenever a single trait is pointed out, like a beard, people jump on that trait as not fitting a perfect pattern. Because clearly it doesn’t.
But some sort of “perfect” one-dimensional sorting mechanism was never what this was about. People are looking at large constellation of traits that clearly, unequivocally, incontrovertibly group into two major clusters. A bimodal distribution, where practically all the points in one cluster are much closer to each other (along the higher-dimensional metric) than they are to practically any point in the other cluster.
But this is hard to see. Or to communicate. I’m not sure exactly where the hurdle is, but it’s somewhere in here.