More like backwards reasoning. Some people want there to be no difference between night and day and use the existence of twilight to try and prove it.
Here’s an essay debunking the idea, in case anyone needs it:
https://arcdigital.media/is-sex-socially-constructed-81cf3ef79f07
Returning to the origin of the thread, this is pretty funny:
I don’t think it can be argued that biology (male & female animals) is socially constructed, unless you want to get into the philosophy of the forces of evolution. What is obviously socially constructed are customs like having separate men’s and women’s dressing rooms, or the need to officially classify people as male or female for that or other purposes. You might imagine (and writers of fiction have) some alternate-universe civilization where it’s not really an issue what’s embedded in someone’s crotch and people don’t really think about it.
Anyway, I do not know anything about Rowling’s personal history, but she herself wrote about being abused by a man in a violent marriage and being sexually assaulted, so it’s not so hard to understand why she might be concerned about such things.
I can imagine a civilisation where it’s not an issue in most circumstances, but it’s always going to matter when to comes to sex and reproduction, the reason we have two sexes in the first place.
I read a short story (actually a fan fiction) where a species used male and female as social roles rather than basing them off what was in someone’s pants. But then they had to invent different terms for the sexes, because biology was still relevant to reproduction. I finished the story thinking the whole thing was pointless; they should have just kept male and female as their original meanings, and allowed anyone to fill any social role they wanted. I’m sure this was the opposite of the author’s intention of illustrating a perfectly trans-friendly society.
I don’t believe that’s the case, no.
I think most people in this thread expect someone entering woman-only spaces to demonstrate consistent and ongoing effort at identifying and operating in daily life as a woman.
Some others in this thread seem to think that’s not sufficient, though, and that a person should also appear to be a woman to be permitted to enter woman-only spaces.
At least one other person in this thread seems to think that’s not sufficient, either, and that a person should only enter a woman-only space if that person has female genitalia.
Powers &8^]
That’s exactly what I stated before when I said “Well they could do that, but I suspect for many women the concern is having men in their locker room, rather than (or in addition to) having penises in their locker room.”
So given that’s the case, why would you want the women’s locker room renamed the “vagina-haver locker room”?
Don’t tell me what I think.
As I’ve pointed out before, “male” and “female” have a number of different meanings. You consistently use them with only one: the biological one. But any dictionary will tell you that “male” and “female” can also refer to the two primary genders, not just the two primary sexes.
In the context of genitalia, obviously penises are male and vulvae are female. But having male genitalia does not make a person’s gender male.
I disagree. I don’t believe sex is a social construct.
Perhaps the conflict here is that I see these spaces as gender-segregated while you view them as sex-segregated? I wonder if those different views are typical among men and women, respectively.
Powers &8^]
What does ‘operating in daily life as a woman’ mean, if not appearing to be a woman? And when an individual is entering a changing room, how is another user or a gym employee supposed to know whether they have made that consistent effort or not?
Also, what about the gender fluid? Do you support their right to change in the locker room of the gender they feel they are that day? It’s a pity everyone else has bailed out of this thread so I can’t ask them the same question.
Thinking about this some more, it would be nice if we lived in a world where a man could wear dresses and makeup and stay home to raise the kids without any judgement, and if we did then there would be no such thing as social transition, and maybe many people would not feel the need to physically transition, either. But we don’t live in that world, so it’s understandable some people find transitioning the best choice.
But when imagining an ideal world, it would make more sense to pick one where people are not limited by gender roles at all, rather than one where gender roles still exist but are completely divorced from sex. That’s why I think the non-binary/58 genders movement is wrongheaded; we should be eliminating the boxes, not creating more and more in a futile effort to pigeonhole human variation.
For spaces like locker and restrooms, the important thing is appearance and behavior. Someone who is gender fluid should use the room that externally they best fit with. Whatever their mind feels would not be as relevant. As an example, consider Jonathan Van Ness, from Queer Eye. Jon self describes as non-binary gender fluid. Jon’s appearance does not necessarily conform to gender norms, but Jon’s appearance would fit more into male than female. I think Jon should use the men’s room because of Jon’s appearance regardless of his personal gender affinity at the time. Although Jon doesn’t necessarily strongly match with either space, Jon matches more with the men’s space and the men in that space would likely be more tolerant of his presence.
In my time in men’s locker rooms, there have been men who have feminine attributes, such as make up, painted nails, skirts, etc. It’s pretty much not an issue at all. As long as someone keeps to themselves, most people in the men’s locker room don’t really care what you look like. I would guess that even if a woman used the men’s room, most of the men wouldn’t really care all that much.
Powers
That’s exactly what I stated before when I said “Well they could do that, but I suspect for many women the concern is having men in their locker room, rather than (or in addition to) having penises in their locker room.”
And I’m saying this is a daft quibble. Penises and men are inseparable from one another for the vast majority of the human race. So when someone says they want penises excluded from women’s spaces, it is obvious they are talking about men. It’s not like a disembodied penis can go anywhere without a person to go with it; that person is considered a male.
You are trying to draw a distinction between trans women and men, but there is no way to verify which trans women are imposter men and which are not. It’s an unfalsifiable state of being, for all intents and purposes. So even if I were to agree with you that there are some persons who are truly trans, there is no way I can refute a claim of such when a male turns up in the dressing room. This is why my stance on policy is what it is. There needs to be a way to remove men from women’s spaces. Any arrangement that allows them to treat “I’m trans” as a magic password is unacceptable.
So given that’s the case, why would you want the women’s locker room renamed the “vagina-haver locker room”?
I never said I wanted that. I believe we should continue to use “woman” as shorthand for adult people who have vaginas and other primary sex characteristics of a human female.
As I’ve pointed out before, “male” and “female” have a number of different meanings.
Only if you subscribe to gender ideology, which most people don’t. When we speak of male animals, we think of members of the species that have penises and produce sperm. When we speak of male objects, we think of tools or equipment that are inserted into a receiving unit. When we speak of male humans, we don’t think of people who see themselves as male. We only think of members of the human species that have penises and produce sperm.
You consistently use them with only one: the biological one. But any dictionary will tell you that “male” and “female” can also refer to the two primary genders , not just the two primary sexes .
So this is when you show this with, I dunno, a cite. Merriam-Webster doesn’t support your view; notice the absence of the word gender in this definition for male.
In the context of genitalia, obviously penises are male and vulvae are female. But having male genitalia does not make a person’s gender male.
Define gender.
Perhaps the conflict here is that I see these spaces as gender-segregated while you view them as sex-segregated? I wonder if those different views are typical among men and women, respectively.
What would be the purpose of gender-segregated spaces? If gender is in the mind, what material difference is there if a female-brained person disrobes in proximity to a naked male-brained one?
This is why I think you are under the influence of “sex is just a social construct” school of thought: The very fact that you think society should organize itself around gender identity in domains associated with physical bodies allows me to make this inference.
This ultimately is my issue. You can’t build policy around vague and unverifiable expectations such as “consistently operating in daily life as a woman”. When someone walks into the room and there’s a question as to whether they belong or are an intruder with ill intentions, you can’t ascertain their lifestyle or history. They could tell you anything they want you to believe.
You can’t build policy around “looking like a woman“ either. A man could put on a dress, smear lipstick on his mouth, and smack a wig on his head so that a casual observer might not code him as a man, but he’s still a man. I don’t believe men suddenly become entitled to be near naked females if they wear the right clothes or affect a certain aesthetic.
I believe most trans women who are just trying to live their life without being transgressive and self-entitled will either use a space marked for their birth sex, or will be extremely discreet when using the women’s space. These individuals are unlikely to run afoul of any policy that made explicit that penis-havers—regardless of gender identity—needed to use either a men’s space or mixed-sex space. So it is mystifying to see so much hand wringing over this idea.
People who have not been assaulted or aggressed may not comprehend with full gravity Rowling’s and other women’s concerns about needing to feel safe, especially in a place like a public changing room. It is absolutely not something to be glibly dismissed.
If eg a trans woman behaves indiscreetly or even aggressively in a locker room so as to make other athletes uncomfortable, that is obviously extremely not OK and claiming reactions are just transphobia is no defence if someone is doing it on purpose. In general, regardless of the genders of the people involved, while you may chat with your friends, restrooms and shower rooms are not places to accost or interact with strangers, as I have claimed before.
TFW you’re not quite sure if something is satire or not:
Am I a woman (Xx, reasonably female presenting, my pronouns are she and her, though I don’t really care - I have womanly bits but endometriosis has rendered them worthless for reproductive purposes.
Is my friend who is undergoing treatment for cervical cancer a woman? She had hers removed.
Another friend has a cervix still, but identifies as a man, and is very much male presenting. Is he still a woman?
Another friend is stunning beautiful, very feminine but never had bottom surgery and obviously never had a cervix… She’s not a woman, I take it?
In the whole saga of who uses which locker room- I use the women’s, but what of my other friends? A has XX, no cervix, B has a vagina and XX But the t therapy makes him pretty damn masculine, and C is very womanly, but oops she doesn’t have a vagina and is XY.
Or is my respect for my friends, regardless of genitalia, satire? Can I get pissed when my transgender friends are misgendered or told that they need to separate themselves from the rest of us?
[quote=“DemonTree, post:1844, topic:855795, full:true”]https://arcdigital.media/is-sex-socially-constructed-81cf3ef79f07
[/quote]
You know, I read A LOT. I do my own research on everything and I refuse to watch videos, I only go to print media. I know how to read scientific studies and research papers and I’m pretty good with philosophical concepts.
The article at this link was gibberish. Lots of big words, but a zillion monkeys in a room with a zillion typewriters level gibberish. I actually have no idea if supports your opinion or refutes your opinion or both or neither. I find it completely senseless, it starts with this weird misunderstanding of social constructs and death-spirals into nonsense. Maybe I’m just not bright enough to get it, but I call them like I see them.
When someone announces they just had a baby and it’s a girl, are you confused? Do you scratch your head, wondering how they could possibly know the sex of their child? Do you ask whether they verified the presence of a uterus, cervix and ovaries before ascertaining this? Or could it be that this determination is based on their external genitalia and you understand this to be a highly reliably way to sex someone?
If you’re not confused when someone says they just had a girl, then from whence does confusion come in about adult girls? All a woman is an adult female. That’s it. That’s all. Females are the half of the species that cervixes. This doesn’t mean all have them. But it means only females have them.
What is your definition of woman that would make her qualify as one? If she wasn’t beautiful and feminine—and in fact, looked the opposite of these attributes—would you be as tempted to call her a woman?
I don’t understand why it isn’t sufficient to call her a trans woman. When ideology pushes people to divorce “woman” from biology, I see nothing but harm in that.
She lives as a woman, looks like a woman, and if you saw her walk into the bathroom you’re in, you wouldn’t blink an eye. If you saw her on the street, you would have no idea that she’s a transwoman. The only way you’d know is someone told you, or you looked up her skirt.
You left out the transman in my post though. He’s a woman, too? He still has a cervix.
We’re not talking about bathrooms, though.
And we’re not just talking about your friend. We’re talking about all trans women, regardless of what they look like. This is someone who could claim to be living as a woman too. You wouldn’t know just by looking at them that they are a trans woman, because trans women aren’t defined by what they look like.
Neither are women.
He’s female if he has a cervix and other features indicative of a female reproductive system. If he’s an adult, this would make him a woman.
Do you believe sex is a social construct?