5 ms·

It's possible to be against the idea of trans women competing in female competitive sports without intentionally misgendering all trans athletes/humans.

memling 5y ago
> It's possible to be against the idea of trans women competing in female competitive sports without intentionally misgendering all trans athletes/humans. Genuine question, one about which I haven't seen much in the way of conversation—although my experience is relatively limited. Why is the subjective experience of gender privileged over the objective biology of sex? I can anticipate a couple possible responses for which I'm not sure I have very clear thoughts, either—maybe someone can contribute more light than heat here? 1. Biology isn't actually all that objective: one's subjective experience is at least partially determined by biology, too. 2. We can turn the question on its head: why should objective biology be privileged over subjective experience?
- nandhinianand 5y ago
  1. is pretty close for ex: most brain functions can be called subjective, and therefore not that relevant. 2. is relatively a trend in how civilization has been moving. The cavemen bashed a skull that seemed unfamiliar or they didn't like, we don't we try to setup a legal system and judge a sense of justice. I don't think every subjective experience should be allowed to be used over other person's choices. I guess we would need something like "your right to swing your hand stops a feet/inch from my nose" kinda principle.
  - memling 5y ago
    > 1. is pretty close for ex: most brain functions can be called subjective, and therefore not that relevant. Sorry for the delay. HN is not a great forum for long discussions (on purpose, I guess). I've been noodling on this for awhile, and so maybe just blathering into the ether. I'm not sure that subjective and irrelevant necessarily go together. I guess the argument I'm thinking of is more this: my pronoun preference is biological, so if my chromosomes disagree with my pronoun preference why should my chromosomes govern communication protocols instead of the rest of my biology? If these things are truly irrelevant, then the notion of gender identity is itself irrelevant and so, too, are pronouns, aren't they? (I mean, maybe not, but I don't see how one could say chromosomes don't matter but preferences do.) One of the real challenges gender identity raises is that it acknowledges that the body actually means something. It also implies that language means something. Mind and body go together, and when they disagree some kind of resolution is needed. Language shapes reality, so when language contradicts that resolution the reality of my existence, my very identity, is threatened or negated. If we stipulate that, I think we have to admit pronoun use really isn't neutral. It's not merely a matter of common decency and respect (although it certainly is part of that), but about what we think it means to be human and how we attempt to shape and react to reality. My own thoughts here aren't super well formed, hence my line of questioning and (perhaps poorly worded and thought out) reasoning...but I do think it bears some critical examination.
    - nandhinianand 5y ago
      I think we're on the same page..I was collating subjective and irrelevant together for the sake of the parent comment. and it is quite common in the "objectivist philosophy/meta-physical" view . > Language shapes reality, Sorry I have disagree on this one. I don't think language shapes reality. It definitely shapes our perception, filters, and biases but shapes reality only in a very Probabilistic graphical model sense. And even then it shapes(as in cavemen---> civilization) reality as much as say, air shapes reality, mathematical formulae and theories shape reality . My usual stance on the gender identity debate comes along with the "freedom to swing your arm but not hit my nose" sense. In this case of weightlifting for ex: I recently saw a twitter mention comparing the same athlete before starting HRT therapy and now.(along with a co-competitor in the male category she used to compete with) It pointed out how much the gap between both the lifters progress has been because of the Hormones. Anyway, I don't have a clear stance on trans-people competing in their gender category .. I think the gender based categorization in sports has to move further, but I'm ambiguous even about how the sports laws work on even doping. So since I don't have skin-in-the-game I only try to add clarity to the discussion without taking either stance strongly.
      - memling 5y ago
        > > Language shapes reality, > Sorry I have disagree on this one. I don't think language shapes reality. It definitely shapes our perception, filters, and biases but shapes reality only in a very Probabilistic graphical model sense. And even then it shapes(as in cavemen---> civilization) reality as much as say, air shapes reality, mathematical formulae and theories shape reality . Sorry if it's not clear: I'm not trying to say what's true, despite having opinions on the subject; I'm interested in best arguments. What I think the implications are in assuming that gender is as much state-of-mind as state-of-body (if not more) is two-fold: 1. The body really does matter. It's inconsistent to say that the body has to align with the mind if the body doesn't matter. Surgical and hormonal intervention make no sense if the mind and the body aren't somehow connected in a very deep way. 2. The desire for pronoun usage is more, too, than mere courtesy, but the desire for consensus on reality. If I'm a woman trapped in a man's body or have no particular gender, when I ask someone to use pronouns of my preference I am actually asking them to make a statement about what is real and true. This implies in no small way that language shapes and makes reality in some nontrivial way.
- maybeOneDay 5y ago
  2. Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm? If nothing else it seems to me to come down to basic decency and respect for others. It's less about one term being "privileged" (I must confess that word seems slightly unclear to me in this context) over another and more about the ease of treating people the way they would like, with no real downsides that I can see. Anecdotally, refusing to use a trans person's pronouns seems typically to be a dogwhistle for not respecting the existence/legitimacy of transgender people.
  - atq2119 5y ago
    > Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm So I think a natural conservative argument there would be that the primary reason why we have sex-based (not gender-based!) pronouns in the first place is so that we can talk about biological categories that are important for the continuation of our species: while some men cannot father offspring, certainly no transman can. So why should we call them men, if it is in fact the reproductive function because of which we use these terms in the first place? Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly. Even as somebody who is non-conservative on most issues, the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing rubs me slightly the wrong way.
    - maybeOneDay 5y ago
      That logic would also state that we should no longer call a man a man if he becomes infertile through choice (or otherwise), no? > Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly. I disagree with this. Unsurprisingly so, given that I am non-conservative. I believe in personal choice over reproduction and I believe that this choice simply is more important than any tiny effect on societies survival - something that in fact means very little to me other than the 'coincidental' lack of suffering in people I care about/humanity in general. I'm not sure there's any objective value in the human race surviving, in fact if I could push a button that meant all humans would be incredibly fulfilled and lead happy lives and then naturally (peacefully, painlessly, etc) die out in 3 generations time I would certainly strongly consider doing so... I'm rambling now, though. > the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing I think that's because it's largely incidental - indeed, it doesn't stop them from becoming adoptive parents. It doesn't stop them from freezing sperm/eggs and creating children through more modern means. It may not even lead to infertility in many cases - I'll admit I don't know any detailed knowledge on that. But most importantly their right to lead their life in whichever way they want, and to choose not to have children, is not especially relevant to anyone else. Nobody should be forced (or be guilted into) to have(ing) children.
- realityking 5y ago
  Adding a third option, proposing sex being the superior categorisation completely ignores the existence of intersex people. Take Hanne Gaby Odiele (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanne_Gaby_Odiele https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanne_Gaby_Odiele). They (their preferred pronoun) have an XY chromosome but due to an androgen insensitivity looks traditionally female - to the point of being a fairly successful model for woman's fashion. They'd certainly be very out of place in a mens bathroom if forced there due to their chromosome.
  - memling 5y ago
    > Adding a third option, proposing sex being the superior categorisation completely ignores the existence of intersex people. This is another assertion that I also don't quite understand. (I want to emphasize I'm not trolling here—I'm genuinely interested. Topics like this are obviously highly charged and challenging to discuss in a fruitful way.) Vocabulary exists for discussing intersex characteristics, so the existence of intersex people is known and acknowledged. Is there something special about pronouns?
    - realityking 5y ago
      How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themselves. Their chromosomes might be ambiguous or just don’t match their physical characteristics. Like Hanne Gaby Odiele having an XY chromosome, looking (to me) physically female and preferring the they/them pronoun.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > How would you address an intersex person? "You." HTH!
      - memling 5y ago
        > How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themselves. Their chromosomes might be ambiguous or just don’t match their physical characteristics. Like Hanne Gaby Odiele having an XY chromosome, looking (to me) physically female and preferring the they/them pronoun. My default is to use appearance in the absence of other factors; I understand there are cases in which this is challenging at best. Even so, I'm still not quite sure how this addresses my question about how using biological pronouns instead of preferred pronouns somehow "ignores the existence of the intersex" as you earlier asserted. (Indeed, it seems as though the question of pronouns actually rather highlights the existence of the person, if in an uncomfortable and potentially discriminatory way.)

memling 5y ago

> It's possible to be against the idea of trans women competing in female competitive sports without intentionally misgendering all trans athletes/humans. Genuine question, one about which I haven't seen much in the way of conversation—although my experience is relatively limited. Why is the subjective experience of gender privileged over the objective biology of sex? I can anticipate a couple possible responses for which I'm not sure I have very clear thoughts, either—maybe someone can contribute more light than heat here? 1. Biology isn't actually all that objective: one's subjective experience is at least partially determined by biology, too. 2. We can turn the question on its head: why should objective biology be privileged over subjective experience?

nandhinianand 5y ago
1. is pretty close for ex: most brain functions can be called subjective, and therefore not that relevant. 2. is relatively a trend in how civilization has been moving. The cavemen bashed a skull that seemed unfamiliar or they didn't like, we don't we try to setup a legal system and judge a sense of justice. I don't think every subjective experience should be allowed to be used over other person's choices. I guess we would need something like "your right to swing your hand stops a feet/inch from my nose" kinda principle.
- memling 5y ago
  > 1. is pretty close for ex: most brain functions can be called subjective, and therefore not that relevant. Sorry for the delay. HN is not a great forum for long discussions (on purpose, I guess). I've been noodling on this for awhile, and so maybe just blathering into the ether. I'm not sure that subjective and irrelevant necessarily go together. I guess the argument I'm thinking of is more this: my pronoun preference is biological, so if my chromosomes disagree with my pronoun preference why should my chromosomes govern communication protocols instead of the rest of my biology? If these things are truly irrelevant, then the notion of gender identity is itself irrelevant and so, too, are pronouns, aren't they? (I mean, maybe not, but I don't see how one could say chromosomes don't matter but preferences do.) One of the real challenges gender identity raises is that it acknowledges that the body actually means something. It also implies that language means something. Mind and body go together, and when they disagree some kind of resolution is needed. Language shapes reality, so when language contradicts that resolution the reality of my existence, my very identity, is threatened or negated. If we stipulate that, I think we have to admit pronoun use really isn't neutral. It's not merely a matter of common decency and respect (although it certainly is part of that), but about what we think it means to be human and how we attempt to shape and react to reality. My own thoughts here aren't super well formed, hence my line of questioning and (perhaps poorly worded and thought out) reasoning...but I do think it bears some critical examination.
  - nandhinianand 5y ago
    I think we're on the same page..I was collating subjective and irrelevant together for the sake of the parent comment. and it is quite common in the "objectivist philosophy/meta-physical" view . > Language shapes reality, Sorry I have disagree on this one. I don't think language shapes reality. It definitely shapes our perception, filters, and biases but shapes reality only in a very Probabilistic graphical model sense. And even then it shapes(as in cavemen---> civilization) reality as much as say, air shapes reality, mathematical formulae and theories shape reality . My usual stance on the gender identity debate comes along with the "freedom to swing your arm but not hit my nose" sense. In this case of weightlifting for ex: I recently saw a twitter mention comparing the same athlete before starting HRT therapy and now.(along with a co-competitor in the male category she used to compete with) It pointed out how much the gap between both the lifters progress has been because of the Hormones. Anyway, I don't have a clear stance on trans-people competing in their gender category .. I think the gender based categorization in sports has to move further, but I'm ambiguous even about how the sports laws work on even doping. So since I don't have skin-in-the-game I only try to add clarity to the discussion without taking either stance strongly.
    - memling 5y ago
      > > Language shapes reality, > Sorry I have disagree on this one. I don't think language shapes reality. It definitely shapes our perception, filters, and biases but shapes reality only in a very Probabilistic graphical model sense. And even then it shapes(as in cavemen---> civilization) reality as much as say, air shapes reality, mathematical formulae and theories shape reality . Sorry if it's not clear: I'm not trying to say what's true, despite having opinions on the subject; I'm interested in best arguments. What I think the implications are in assuming that gender is as much state-of-mind as state-of-body (if not more) is two-fold: 1. The body really does matter. It's inconsistent to say that the body has to align with the mind if the body doesn't matter. Surgical and hormonal intervention make no sense if the mind and the body aren't somehow connected in a very deep way. 2. The desire for pronoun usage is more, too, than mere courtesy, but the desire for consensus on reality. If I'm a woman trapped in a man's body or have no particular gender, when I ask someone to use pronouns of my preference I am actually asking them to make a statement about what is real and true. This implies in no small way that language shapes and makes reality in some nontrivial way.
maybeOneDay 5y ago
2. Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm? If nothing else it seems to me to come down to basic decency and respect for others. It's less about one term being "privileged" (I must confess that word seems slightly unclear to me in this context) over another and more about the ease of treating people the way they would like, with no real downsides that I can see. Anecdotally, refusing to use a trans person's pronouns seems typically to be a dogwhistle for not respecting the existence/legitimacy of transgender people.
- atq2119 5y ago
  > Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm So I think a natural conservative argument there would be that the primary reason why we have sex-based (not gender-based!) pronouns in the first place is so that we can talk about biological categories that are important for the continuation of our species: while some men cannot father offspring, certainly no transman can. So why should we call them men, if it is in fact the reproductive function because of which we use these terms in the first place? Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly. Even as somebody who is non-conservative on most issues, the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing rubs me slightly the wrong way.
  - maybeOneDay 5y ago
    That logic would also state that we should no longer call a man a man if he becomes infertile through choice (or otherwise), no? > Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly. I disagree with this. Unsurprisingly so, given that I am non-conservative. I believe in personal choice over reproduction and I believe that this choice simply is more important than any tiny effect on societies survival - something that in fact means very little to me other than the 'coincidental' lack of suffering in people I care about/humanity in general. I'm not sure there's any objective value in the human race surviving, in fact if I could push a button that meant all humans would be incredibly fulfilled and lead happy lives and then naturally (peacefully, painlessly, etc) die out in 3 generations time I would certainly strongly consider doing so... I'm rambling now, though. > the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing I think that's because it's largely incidental - indeed, it doesn't stop them from becoming adoptive parents. It doesn't stop them from freezing sperm/eggs and creating children through more modern means. It may not even lead to infertility in many cases - I'll admit I don't know any detailed knowledge on that. But most importantly their right to lead their life in whichever way they want, and to choose not to have children, is not especially relevant to anyone else. Nobody should be forced (or be guilted into) to have(ing) children.
realityking 5y ago
Adding a third option, proposing sex being the superior categorisation completely ignores the existence of intersex people. Take Hanne Gaby Odiele (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanne_Gaby_Odiele https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanne_Gaby_Odiele). They (their preferred pronoun) have an XY chromosome but due to an androgen insensitivity looks traditionally female - to the point of being a fairly successful model for woman's fashion. They'd certainly be very out of place in a mens bathroom if forced there due to their chromosome.
- memling 5y ago
  > Adding a third option, proposing sex being the superior categorisation completely ignores the existence of intersex people. This is another assertion that I also don't quite understand. (I want to emphasize I'm not trolling here—I'm genuinely interested. Topics like this are obviously highly charged and challenging to discuss in a fruitful way.) Vocabulary exists for discussing intersex characteristics, so the existence of intersex people is known and acknowledged. Is there something special about pronouns?
  - realityking 5y ago
    How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themselves. Their chromosomes might be ambiguous or just don’t match their physical characteristics. Like Hanne Gaby Odiele having an XY chromosome, looking (to me) physically female and preferring the they/them pronoun.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > How would you address an intersex person? "You." HTH!
    - memling 5y ago
      > How would you address an intersex person? Their physical characteristics might have been decided by a doctor shortly after birth without any input from themselves. Their chromosomes might be ambiguous or just don’t match their physical characteristics. Like Hanne Gaby Odiele having an XY chromosome, looking (to me) physically female and preferring the they/them pronoun. My default is to use appearance in the absence of other factors; I understand there are cases in which this is challenging at best. Even so, I'm still not quite sure how this addresses my question about how using biological pronouns instead of preferred pronouns somehow "ignores the existence of the intersex" as you earlier asserted. (Indeed, it seems as though the question of pronouns actually rather highlights the existence of the person, if in an uncomfortable and potentially discriminatory way.)