5 ms·

You're not pro-LGBT if you think trans women aren't women.

by fwip 7y ago

DuskStar 7y ago
And you're anti-women if you think trans women should be able to compete in weightlifting competitions as women. This isn't an issue with easy, clearcut answers.
jim_dow_jones 7y ago
Why not? Do you have to share the views of every single person within a group to be considered a supporter? What if they vote for every pro-LGBT politician that runs for office? What if they vote for every pro-LGBT legislation that they come across? What if they give support and words of affirmation to LGBT family members that are close to them? Why is he suddenly not a supporter because he disagrees with a small part of the discussion? This seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- ModernMech 7y ago
  > Why is he suddenly not a supporter because he disagrees with a small part of the discussion? That trans women are women isn't a "small part" of the discussion. It's kind of the whole point.
QualityReboot 7y ago
I think you meant to say "You're not pro-LGBT if you think women aren't women." Why are you segregating "trans women" as different than just "women"?
- fwip 7y ago
  Because trans women are the people being discussed, duh. If you were saying "tall women aren't women," the appropriate rejoinder is "yes, tall women are women," not the useless tautology "women are women."
  - QualityReboot 7y ago
    My understanding is that most trans women don't want to be identified as such, and that "passing" is a really big deal. "Tall" is an acceptable descriptor for a person, obvious to all and not usually very sensitive. "Trans" isn't like this and remarking on "how trans" someone is carries a very different meaning than remarking on "how tall" someone is. Maybe it's still acceptable or useful to accept "trans women" as their own group, but eventually that will probably go away and "trans woman" will become a dated and bigoted term. You may find yourself shocked that you ever used the term "trans" in the same way that it's now shocking that black people were once referred to as "colored". Or alternatively, being trans might become an identity badge of honor, in the same way "gay" has in many places. My point is that these things evolve over time, so either people are going to be allowed to make mistakes and have debates and figure things out in public, or we have to only use useless tautologies to describe people. When you tell the GP (who claims to be pro-LGBT) that they're not pro-LGBT because they're struggling to speak correctly on the topic and they used the "wrong" language, you might not be having the effect you intended. In this case, the GP mistakenly believes the dated idea that "gender" is a biological term, but enlightened folks are aware that gender is now a social construct. I think they simply meant "biologically male people are not female" instead of "trans women aren't women". The language is confusing because it's evolving, but getting everyone on the same page is going to require a lot of public errors that would be better met with debate than shaming.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - fwip 7y ago
      I'm a trans woman, so I'm gonna go ahead and be gentle when I say that my understanding does not match yours. Some trans women are as you describe, preoccupied with passing and going stealth, especially for safety reasons. Many aren't. You can speculate on if the term is gonna go away, but right now it's the best adjective to describe trans people. It's not offensive or a slur, it's literally the community's chosen language. And you're right, sometimes it's better to be nice and gentle to people who are wrong. I won't be mad if you pop back upthread and correct them gently. We can do one of those good cop bad cop things.
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  Because they are different. No transwoman can give birth or have a period. None of them has a womb. None of them are genetically female. Most of them have all the advantages of a man like higher bone density, more upper body strength. Why are you so afraid of different groups of people being physically different? As long as you treat all groups as humans, it shouldn't be a problem. Denying basic biological facts is not a path to truth.
  - QualityReboot 7y ago
    The distinction is supposed to be that "biological facts" no longer include gender. Gender is now fluid psychological term, not a biological one. In other words, you said "advantages of a man" instead of "advantages of a genetic male", which is now wrong. But apparently I'm incorrect in thinking that you're not supposed to discuss "trans women" as a group, which is still confusing to me.
    - bufferoverflow 7y ago
      Sure, gender is different from sex. The point stands. There are major biological differences between females and trans women. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a part of life. Pretending everyone is equal is just lying to yourself. But of course, people should be treated equally (in most cases).
      - QualityReboot 7y ago
        True, but you're not supposed to say trans women have biological traits of men, because trans men are also a thing, and they're still "men". So really, trans women have biological traits of genetic males, which is fine.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
kypro 7y ago
This isn't my opinion. I will happily call people by whatever pronoun they wish to be called. That's just common decency in my opinion. That comment was in reference to this story, it looks like I got the quote wrong: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/journalist-sues-twitter-for-banning-her-over-women-arent-men-tweets/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/journalist-sues-twitter-... I think there's a difference between how we should recognise someone socially and the reality of an individual's biology. What's worrying here is that stating a biological fact can be viewed as too extreme if it goes against a certain political ideology. But there are plenty of examples like this. I know people have been kick off of social media for suggesting the Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, or for discussing racial crime stats. And many of the examples I've seen of this don't appear to be in bad faith either, in fact most seem to be in the interest of honest dialogue. They just had the wrong opinions.
- fwip 7y ago
  "In reality, you're not a woman, we're just pretending because we're polite" isn't a very pro-trans stance.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    But "trans women cannot (yet?) bear children" shouldn't be an anti-trans stance, either.
    - fwip 7y ago
      Is anyone saying otherwise? I haven't heard of anyone being banned for that. N.B: what somebody says they are banned for and what they were actually banned for often differ.
      - dang 7y ago
        > what somebody says they are banned for and what they were actually banned for often differ Based on our experience at HN (not that it generalizes) I'd even say they usually differ.
Nadya 7y ago
This is patently untrue in some domains that could be life-impacting, particularly in healthcare/medicine where differences in gender matters for treatment. If a trans-man is given medicine in doses as a man, and not a woman, they have a much higher risk of overdosing because of differences in how the body metabolizes drugs for each gender [0] [1]. It isn't transphobic to identify them as a woman and give them the proper dosage for their gender. I'd prefer to be given the correct amount of medicine than to pretend there aren't important gender differences and that my actual gender and the gender I would prefer to identify and portray myself as differs [2]. Then you get into the mess of trans-women competing (and usually one-sidingly dominating) in women's sports because lo' and behold there are still gender differences between men and women regardless of how they choose to identify. I'm becoming accustomed to being told how I should think. Must be my internalized transphobia speaking for me though and not that political correctness is going to cost someone their life one day and that that person could be me. [0] https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/the-drug-dose-gender-gap/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/the-drug-dose-gend... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=lindsey%20w%2C%20sex%2C%20drug https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=lindsey%20w%2C%20se... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648189 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648189
- minikites 7y ago
  >This is patently untrue in some domains that could be life-impacting, particularly in healthcare/medicine where differences in gender matters for treatment. https://www.bustle.com/articles/144447-what-is-concern-trolling-watch-out-for-this-subtle-form-of-shaming https://www.bustle.com/articles/144447-what-is-concern-troll...
- fwip 7y ago
  It's important for doctors to know your medical history, that's obviously true. Do you know how trans people on HRT respond to Ambien, as your first link brings up? I sure don't. Depends on why the drug works differently. If you're scared that you'll die because your doctor thinks you're cis, tell them you're trans. That doesn't mean you have to tell your doctor "I'm really a man, despite being a trans woman, and it's definitely important for you to store an M in your records because you might suddenly forget that I'm trans and also I'm sure my reaction to medicine is the same as a cis man's." Just be an adult and talk with your doctor honestly.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bufferoverflow 7y ago
It depends on your definition of "woman". Biologically/genetically they different from biological women (females). It's a simple scientific fact. Of course, we should treat them as humans in any case.
dang 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20106922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20106922.

You're not pro-LGBT if you think trans women aren't women.

by fwip 7y ago

You're not pro-LGBT if you think trans women aren't women.

And you're anti-women if you think trans women should be able to compete in weightlifting competitions as women. This isn't an issue with easy, clearcut answers.

jim_dow_jones 7y ago

Why not? Do you have to share the views of every single person within a group to be considered a supporter? What if they vote for every pro-LGBT politician that runs for office? What if they vote for every pro-LGBT legislation that they come across? What if they give support and words of affirmation to LGBT family members that are close to them? Why is he suddenly not a supporter because he disagrees with a small part of the discussion? This seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

ModernMech 7y ago
> Why is he suddenly not a supporter because he disagrees with a small part of the discussion? That trans women are women isn't a "small part" of the discussion. It's kind of the whole point.

QualityReboot 7y ago

I think you meant to say "You're not pro-LGBT if you think women aren't women." Why are you segregating "trans women" as different than just "women"?

fwip 7y ago
Because trans women are the people being discussed, duh. If you were saying "tall women aren't women," the appropriate rejoinder is "yes, tall women are women," not the useless tautology "women are women."
- QualityReboot 7y ago
  My understanding is that most trans women don't want to be identified as such, and that "passing" is a really big deal. "Tall" is an acceptable descriptor for a person, obvious to all and not usually very sensitive. "Trans" isn't like this and remarking on "how trans" someone is carries a very different meaning than remarking on "how tall" someone is. Maybe it's still acceptable or useful to accept "trans women" as their own group, but eventually that will probably go away and "trans woman" will become a dated and bigoted term. You may find yourself shocked that you ever used the term "trans" in the same way that it's now shocking that black people were once referred to as "colored". Or alternatively, being trans might become an identity badge of honor, in the same way "gay" has in many places. My point is that these things evolve over time, so either people are going to be allowed to make mistakes and have debates and figure things out in public, or we have to only use useless tautologies to describe people. When you tell the GP (who claims to be pro-LGBT) that they're not pro-LGBT because they're struggling to speak correctly on the topic and they used the "wrong" language, you might not be having the effect you intended. In this case, the GP mistakenly believes the dated idea that "gender" is a biological term, but enlightened folks are aware that gender is now a social construct. I think they simply meant "biologically male people are not female" instead of "trans women aren't women". The language is confusing because it's evolving, but getting everyone on the same page is going to require a lot of public errors that would be better met with debate than shaming.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - fwip 7y ago
    I'm a trans woman, so I'm gonna go ahead and be gentle when I say that my understanding does not match yours. Some trans women are as you describe, preoccupied with passing and going stealth, especially for safety reasons. Many aren't. You can speculate on if the term is gonna go away, but right now it's the best adjective to describe trans people. It's not offensive or a slur, it's literally the community's chosen language. And you're right, sometimes it's better to be nice and gentle to people who are wrong. I won't be mad if you pop back upthread and correct them gently. We can do one of those good cop bad cop things.
bufferoverflow 7y ago
Because they are different. No transwoman can give birth or have a period. None of them has a womb. None of them are genetically female. Most of them have all the advantages of a man like higher bone density, more upper body strength. Why are you so afraid of different groups of people being physically different? As long as you treat all groups as humans, it shouldn't be a problem. Denying basic biological facts is not a path to truth.
- QualityReboot 7y ago
  The distinction is supposed to be that "biological facts" no longer include gender. Gender is now fluid psychological term, not a biological one. In other words, you said "advantages of a man" instead of "advantages of a genetic male", which is now wrong. But apparently I'm incorrect in thinking that you're not supposed to discuss "trans women" as a group, which is still confusing to me.
  - bufferoverflow 7y ago
    Sure, gender is different from sex. The point stands. There are major biological differences between females and trans women. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a part of life. Pretending everyone is equal is just lying to yourself. But of course, people should be treated equally (in most cases).
    - QualityReboot 7y ago
      True, but you're not supposed to say trans women have biological traits of men, because trans men are also a thing, and they're still "men". So really, trans women have biological traits of genetic males, which is fine.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

kypro 7y ago

This isn't my opinion. I will happily call people by whatever pronoun they wish to be called. That's just common decency in my opinion. That comment was in reference to this story, it looks like I got the quote wrong: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/journalist-sues-twitter-for-banning-her-over-women-arent-men-tweets/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/journalist-sues-twitter-... I think there's a difference between how we should recognise someone socially and the reality of an individual's biology. What's worrying here is that stating a biological fact can be viewed as too extreme if it goes against a certain political ideology. But there are plenty of examples like this. I know people have been kick off of social media for suggesting the Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, or for discussing racial crime stats. And many of the examples I've seen of this don't appear to be in bad faith either, in fact most seem to be in the interest of honest dialogue. They just had the wrong opinions.

fwip 7y ago
"In reality, you're not a woman, we're just pretending because we're polite" isn't a very pro-trans stance.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  But "trans women cannot (yet?) bear children" shouldn't be an anti-trans stance, either.
  - fwip 7y ago
    Is anyone saying otherwise? I haven't heard of anyone being banned for that. N.B: what somebody says they are banned for and what they were actually banned for often differ.
    - dang 7y ago
      > what somebody says they are banned for and what they were actually banned for often differ Based on our experience at HN (not that it generalizes) I'd even say they usually differ.

Nadya 7y ago

This is patently untrue in some domains that could be life-impacting, particularly in healthcare/medicine where differences in gender matters for treatment. If a trans-man is given medicine in doses as a man, and not a woman, they have a much higher risk of overdosing because of differences in how the body metabolizes drugs for each gender [0] [1]. It isn't transphobic to identify them as a woman and give them the proper dosage for their gender. I'd prefer to be given the correct amount of medicine than to pretend there aren't important gender differences and that my actual gender and the gender I would prefer to identify and portray myself as differs [2]. Then you get into the mess of trans-women competing (and usually one-sidingly dominating) in women's sports because lo' and behold there are still gender differences between men and women regardless of how they choose to identify. I'm becoming accustomed to being told how I should think. Must be my internalized transphobia speaking for me though and not that political correctness is going to cost someone their life one day and that that person could be me. [0] https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/the-drug-dose-gender-gap/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/the-drug-dose-gend... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=lindsey%20w%2C%20sex%2C%20drug https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=lindsey%20w%2C%20se... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648189 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648189

minikites 7y ago
>This is patently untrue in some domains that could be life-impacting, particularly in healthcare/medicine where differences in gender matters for treatment. https://www.bustle.com/articles/144447-what-is-concern-trolling-watch-out-for-this-subtle-form-of-shaming https://www.bustle.com/articles/144447-what-is-concern-troll...
fwip 7y ago
It's important for doctors to know your medical history, that's obviously true. Do you know how trans people on HRT respond to Ambien, as your first link brings up? I sure don't. Depends on why the drug works differently. If you're scared that you'll die because your doctor thinks you're cis, tell them you're trans. That doesn't mean you have to tell your doctor "I'm really a man, despite being a trans woman, and it's definitely important for you to store an M in your records because you might suddenly forget that I'm trans and also I'm sure my reaction to medicine is the same as a cis man's." Just be an adult and talk with your doctor honestly.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bufferoverflow 7y ago

It depends on your definition of "woman". Biologically/genetically they different from biological women (females). It's a simple scientific fact. Of course, we should treat them as humans in any case.

dang 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20106922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20106922.