He absolutely did not.
After the umpteenth reiteration of, “BuT WHaT iF a bUrLY BEaRdeD mAn TrIEd tO USe tHe WOmaN’s rESTRoom!” I can certainly feel you on the, “This is getting really gaslighty,” thing. I don’t think a single person in this thread has disagreed that some degree of gatekeeping is acceptable to prevent outright frauds or dangerous situations, and yet we’re still getting this almost every other post.
[quote=Riemann]The appropriate term would be “biologically male”, or (depending on context) “assigned male at birth”.
Your use of “male” without qualification or context is not “great” because it obviously implies that people without male anatomy are not men.[/quote]
It only implies that if you assume sex = gender. Which you told me that no one here is doing except for me, YWTF, and DemonTree.
And if “biological male” is the obvious appropriate term, why did iiandyiiii go to “cismen, transwomen, and some nonbinary people” for a solution? He’s a smart guy. Why wouldn’t his mind immediately go to “male” instead of a parade of gender groups that are not cohesive biologically?
Right, I get that. Obviously I think your simpler paradigm is wrong, and that simplicity is not a virtue when reality is complex! So I was pushing back in you digging down into how confusing gender really can be, with the implication that the very complexity is equivalent to a reductio ad absurdum that invalidates our modern concept of gender.
I take it back. Apparently you do agree with my simpler paradigm. Maybe you can persuade @iiandyiiii to agree also?
It only implies that if you assume sex = gender. Which you told me that no one here is doing except for me, YWTF, and DemonTree.
And if “biological male” is the obvious appropriate term, why did iiandyiiii go to “cismen, transwomen, and some nonbinary people” for a solution? He’s a smart guy. Why wouldn’t his mind immediately go to “male” instead of a parade of gender groups that are not cohesive biologically?
I’d agree with them. That’s be terribly offensive and objectifying, to reduce women to body parts. Just as it would be terribly offensive to equate men to “people with penises”.
These are largely overlapping categories, but it would still be highly offensive. If you want to talk about some issue specific to people with vaginas, then “people with vaginas” would be fine and appropriate. But if the issue is just about women? Terrible, offensive, and highly inappropriate.
I largely follow the lead of cis women feminists on this issue. They’re cis women feminists who disagree with JKR on this, but that’s whose lead I’m largely following here.
I think this language is very clearly in flux. Lots of this stuff is very new. In 20-30 years, we’ll probably have it mostly nailed down, and these kinds of discussions are part of that process.
I found the original article. The specific incident they mention involve cis men choosing stalls next to cis girls, and sticking cameras through gaps between the stalls to film.
And yeah, I can totally see where a cis male predator might see a unisex changing room as an environment that would make this sort of crime easier. However, that doesn’t translate to saying that a cis male predator is going to find a single sex, trans-friendly changing room to be an environment friendly to their crimes.
Question for Riemann:
Can a person switch genders (woman to man) without also changing sex (female to male)? Is this something that people do? Or has a committee convened and decided that going by “woman” obligates the usage of the “female” as an adjective?
I don’t think I’d have a problem with “biologically male” or “male assigned at birth” if that was the most accurate descriptor for some medical purpose. Accuracy doesn’t bother me at all - it’s the inaccuracy that bothers me.
This is key. My FB feed is full of cis women who are furious at Rowling for her comments. Equating “offending trans people” (by essentially denying their reality) and “offending cis women” (by disagreeing with some section of cis women) is disingenuous.
AFAICT, there are issues that affect women. There are issues that affect cis women. There are issues that affect people with vaginas, and people who menstruate. There are issues that affect trans people and trans women. Often these are quite different issues for these different but often overlapping groups. It’s fine IMO to use all of these words and terms if that’s the issue being discussed. IMO it’s inappropriate to mix these up and use them less accurately, for wokeness or other reasons.
You mean you follow the lead of the ones who disagree with JKR. She is a feminist too. I’m a feminist, I’m guessing so are Monstro and YWTF. It’s hardly a settled issue, but I can see you’ve made your mind up.
@monstro that’s a secondary issue. The far more basic issue that I was disputing was your assertion that it is something physical rather something mental that is critically important in determining whether somebody is a man or a woman. My view (and the standard modern view of gender) is that it is your gender identity, your internal sense of self, that determines whether you are a man or a woman.
As far as I can discern, your discussion with @iiandyiiii was focused on a subsidiary issue - when we do want to talk about physical attributes rather than identity, what is the best terminology?
As I’ve said upthread, I don’t think “biological sex” is a great term, principally because the brain is also a biological entity. But it’s still colloquially current as shorthand for all the physically sexually dimporphic stuff in general terms (sex organs, secondary sexual characteristics, hormones, chromosomes configuration). When the details of those physical characteristics matter, it certainly may not be the best term.
Right, of course. I didn’t mean to exclude anyone - there are definitely cis women feminists who agree with JKR, and many who do not.
“Biological male” isn’t always accurate either, right? I mean, you can have intersex folks who have penises with ovaries who are described that way, with no one knowing the wiser. But it works for 99% of cases, so we just roll with it.
Every term has exceptions, but we still manage to roll with it because it almost never is a big deal. To go to back to race, we manage to talk about the conclusions of a study focused on black Americans without wringing our hands over the fact that the conclusions don’t apply to white-passing individuals who are black only in the “one drop rule” definition. These people exist, but in such small numbers that worrying about their inclusion is kind of missing the point of the study. Somehow we can talk about “black Americans” without anyone wondering exactly who we are talking about. Because “black American” is a social construct. We all have an intellectual framework of what that means.
“Biological male” communicates okay, I guess. But so does “male”. And so does “man”. All of them are imperfect in their own ways, but language is like that. I can go with “biological males” when I’m wearing my scientist hat. But if I’m speaking informally (like when I’m bragging about how many male-looking individuals have asked for my digits), my go-to is always going to be “men”. Not “cismen, transwomen, and some non-binary people”. And I don’t see why anyone in any of these categories should have a problem with this unless they are just looking for a reason to be upset.
I generally agree with you here. At the same time, I think it’s fine if some organization chooses a more detailed descriptor because they want to be more accurate. Perhaps the difference is formal vs informal discussion. I talk about men and women all the time, using just those words. If I write something more formal regarding statistics or science or whatever, I might use more specific and detailed language.
Lol. No organisation is using a more detailed description of this type because they want to be more accurate. They’re doing it because they truly don’t want to offend certain groups, or because they are afraid of getting pilloried by the woke crowd.
You probably aren’t FB friends with the kind of feminists who are furious.
A lot of these feminists are older than you. They are women like my mother, my graduate advisor, my current uber boss, and my closest friend who is in her 80s. Women who may not be 100% “woke” but know first hand how shitty it is to be a woman and have their experiences dismissed and downplayed. Personally, I don’t know how shitty it is to be a woman. I came into my womanhood in the 80s and 90s. I owe a lot of my devil-may-care attitude towards gender to this fact. If I had come up in the 50s and 60s, I have no doubt in my mind that I’d probably would be more like JK Rowling in my views than I currently am.
At any rate, this place is the only place where I talk about this stuff because I know I can get into a debate with you lovely people without it descending into a screamfest. I avoid talking about it in other forums because I don’t want to be called a TERF or a transphobe every time I post something the least bit blunt. And my LBGT friends don’t know how I feel about some of this stuff because we don’t talk about it. We talk about a bunch of things, but gender politics ain’t one of them.