4 ms·

I don't think your explanation of "TERF talking points" is fair. Contra Judith Butler it's not clear that feminism has any meaning without some essential idea o

by slibhb 5y ago

I don't think your explanation of "TERF talking points" is fair. Contra Judith Butler it's not clear that feminism has any meaning without some essential idea of "womanhood". That is fundamentally what disturbs "TERFs". When you talk about "this Goldilocks zone of womanhood," I think you've rediscovering one of the oldest philosophical discoveries: mental concepts and ideas (in this case "woman") do not apply perfectly to the world of appearences. But this does not mean we can jettison concepts and ideas altogether. In fact they seem necessary. So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category. And that's what's being asked of us. We are told "trans women are women". What does that mean? It if means "there is a category, women, and in that category there are trans women and biological women," that's fine with me. If it means "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," that seems wrong to me and to the vast majority of people.

worik 5y ago
I am with you until "...the vast majority of people". I am not sure it is true, and utterly sure it does not matter
- analognoise 5y ago
  I don't think "trans women are women" is a literal statement - I think it means "we should give trans women the rights and protections afforded to women"; it's an expression of support. Kinda like "Black Lives Matter" - obviously they do, but the fact that you have to say it out loud and directly highlights the disparity and systemic injustices faced by people of color. At least, that's what I think those things mean, someone with a more sophisticated understanding will probably correct me if I'm wrong.
danShumway 5y ago
> "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," There is no category of women that is entirely identical, where you couldn't distinguish between them. Some AFAB women can't give birth. Some of them have more androgynous bodies. Some of them are black. Some of them have different levels of estrogen, or grow up in different social circles that impose different expectations about how they should act, or provide different opportunities. Nobody is saying that AFAB women don't have different experiences than trans women, any more than anyone is saying that Black women don't have different experiences than white women. Womanhood has always been a broad category, and there has never been a point where you could accurately say that there are no distinctions between the subcategories within womanhood. If TERFs believe there is a fundamental quality that makes them indistinguishable from every other woman, then they are being absurd. Even if you ignore trans women, that world doesn't exist.
- slibhb 5y ago
  Did you read my post? I addressed all of this very directly. To quote myself: > When you talk about "this Goldilocks zone of womanhood," I think you've rediscovering one of the oldest philosophical discoveries: mental concepts and ideas (in this case "woman") do not apply perfectly to the world of appearences. But this does not mean we can jettison concepts and ideas altogether. In fact they seem necessary. So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category. So, regardless of whether we can specify criteria by which we can decide whether or not someone is a biological woman, the essential concept of "biological woman" seems to me (and to gender critical feminists) to be indispensible. To me, because it allows us to provide a good (though not perfect) answer to the question "where do babies come from?" and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as central to their political/philosophical project. In fact, we can use your method of argument to demolish any category or concept. Take death for instance. How do we define death? By what criteria can we say anything is dead? Take life. By what criteria can we say something is alive? In fact we can't answer these questions perfectly and this is well known. But I don't see any use in getting rid of concepts like life and death which seem central to how we all understand the world. Along the same lines, I don't think we can dispense with "biological woman". And while all of this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category. Right. But nobody is asking you to dispense of the category of women, what we're doing is we're agreeing with you that the category is fuzzy and we're saying that genitalia and sex assignment at birth do not clearly designate identity. Nor are we getting rid of the category of cisgender and/or AFAB women. Trans women are not (and have never claimed to be) biologically identical to AFAB women. If trans women were claiming that they were biologically identical to women, then many of them wouldn't be taking estrogen. They are very aware about their biology :) But acknowledging the fuzziness of women as a category overall means regularly reassessing our social norms about how women are expected to act and what their bodies are expected to look like. This is especially true in instances where we see people who are sharing a lot of experiences with other women. Many trans women know what it's like to be catcalled. They know what it's like to be discriminated against at their jobs. Their experiences are not identical to everyone else's, in the same way that women's experiences in these areas are not all identical depending on their backgrounds/bodies/environments. But there is enough overlap that it is useful to group them together under the banner of womanhood. Because there isn't a perfect criterion for "woman", and part of feminism is critically examining biases about what hoops people need to jump through to be considered an "acceptable" woman -- regardless of whether those hoops are set up by men, or by other women. > To me, because it allows us to provide a fairly good answer to the question "where do babies come from?" Well, except for infertile women, who are fully woman and fully valid regardless of their ability to have children. > and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as cental to their political/philosophical project. I disagree that trans women mean that these political/philosophical goals can't be achieved. To me, this is just gatekeeping, I don't see a real motivating need for this kind of exclusion. Trans women do not have an agenda to take away women's rights, many of these people are feminists themselves. > And while this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me. The absurdity is not that you have different opinions about the definition of a woman, the absurdity is your implication that acknowledging the womanhood of trans women is tantamount to saying that their experiences are completely identical to cisgender, AFAB women, or that it's destroying some kind of sacred bond. That position is absurd because cisgender, AFAB women do not have identical experiences with each other. You wrote: > If it means "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," that seems wrong to me and to the vast majority of people. That would be an absurd thing for anyone to claim about any attribute of womanhood, and nobody is doing so.
Latty 5y ago
It's really not complex. "Trans women are women" is directly comparable to "Adoptive parents are parents". It is a statement that biology is not the important factor generally, identity is. The supposed fear that people believe there is some magic change to your chromosomes the second you chose to identify with a gender is patently absurd. There is obviously no real support for such an idea—it is a straw-man that no one reading the phrase "trans women are women" in good faith and taking even a second to look into what trans people are saying would assume was the intent.

by slibhb 5y ago

worik 5y ago

I am with you until "...the vast majority of people". I am not sure it is true, and utterly sure it does not matter

analognoise 5y ago
I don't think "trans women are women" is a literal statement - I think it means "we should give trans women the rights and protections afforded to women"; it's an expression of support. Kinda like "Black Lives Matter" - obviously they do, but the fact that you have to say it out loud and directly highlights the disparity and systemic injustices faced by people of color. At least, that's what I think those things mean, someone with a more sophisticated understanding will probably correct me if I'm wrong.

danShumway 5y ago

> "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," There is no category of women that is entirely identical, where you couldn't distinguish between them. Some AFAB women can't give birth. Some of them have more androgynous bodies. Some of them are black. Some of them have different levels of estrogen, or grow up in different social circles that impose different expectations about how they should act, or provide different opportunities. Nobody is saying that AFAB women don't have different experiences than trans women, any more than anyone is saying that Black women don't have different experiences than white women. Womanhood has always been a broad category, and there has never been a point where you could accurately say that there are no distinctions between the subcategories within womanhood. If TERFs believe there is a fundamental quality that makes them indistinguishable from every other woman, then they are being absurd. Even if you ignore trans women, that world doesn't exist.

slibhb 5y ago
Did you read my post? I addressed all of this very directly. To quote myself: > When you talk about "this Goldilocks zone of womanhood," I think you've rediscovering one of the oldest philosophical discoveries: mental concepts and ideas (in this case "woman") do not apply perfectly to the world of appearences. But this does not mean we can jettison concepts and ideas altogether. In fact they seem necessary. So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category. So, regardless of whether we can specify criteria by which we can decide whether or not someone is a biological woman, the essential concept of "biological woman" seems to me (and to gender critical feminists) to be indispensible. To me, because it allows us to provide a good (though not perfect) answer to the question "where do babies come from?" and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as central to their political/philosophical project. In fact, we can use your method of argument to demolish any category or concept. Take death for instance. How do we define death? By what criteria can we say anything is dead? Take life. By what criteria can we say something is alive? In fact we can't answer these questions perfectly and this is well known. But I don't see any use in getting rid of concepts like life and death which seem central to how we all understand the world. Along the same lines, I don't think we can dispense with "biological woman". And while all of this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category. Right. But nobody is asking you to dispense of the category of women, what we're doing is we're agreeing with you that the category is fuzzy and we're saying that genitalia and sex assignment at birth do not clearly designate identity. Nor are we getting rid of the category of cisgender and/or AFAB women. Trans women are not (and have never claimed to be) biologically identical to AFAB women. If trans women were claiming that they were biologically identical to women, then many of them wouldn't be taking estrogen. They are very aware about their biology :) But acknowledging the fuzziness of women as a category overall means regularly reassessing our social norms about how women are expected to act and what their bodies are expected to look like. This is especially true in instances where we see people who are sharing a lot of experiences with other women. Many trans women know what it's like to be catcalled. They know what it's like to be discriminated against at their jobs. Their experiences are not identical to everyone else's, in the same way that women's experiences in these areas are not all identical depending on their backgrounds/bodies/environments. But there is enough overlap that it is useful to group them together under the banner of womanhood. Because there isn't a perfect criterion for "woman", and part of feminism is critically examining biases about what hoops people need to jump through to be considered an "acceptable" woman -- regardless of whether those hoops are set up by men, or by other women. > To me, because it allows us to provide a fairly good answer to the question "where do babies come from?" Well, except for infertile women, who are fully woman and fully valid regardless of their ability to have children. > and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as cental to their political/philosophical project. I disagree that trans women mean that these political/philosophical goals can't be achieved. To me, this is just gatekeeping, I don't see a real motivating need for this kind of exclusion. Trans women do not have an agenda to take away women's rights, many of these people are feminists themselves. > And while this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me. The absurdity is not that you have different opinions about the definition of a woman, the absurdity is your implication that acknowledging the womanhood of trans women is tantamount to saying that their experiences are completely identical to cisgender, AFAB women, or that it's destroying some kind of sacred bond. That position is absurd because cisgender, AFAB women do not have identical experiences with each other. You wrote: > If it means "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," that seems wrong to me and to the vast majority of people. That would be an absurd thing for anyone to claim about any attribute of womanhood, and nobody is doing so.

Latty 5y ago

It's really not complex. "Trans women are women" is directly comparable to "Adoptive parents are parents". It is a statement that biology is not the important factor generally, identity is. The supposed fear that people believe there is some magic change to your chromosomes the second you chose to identify with a gender is patently absurd. There is obviously no real support for such an idea—it is a straw-man that no one reading the phrase "trans women are women" in good faith and taking even a second to look into what trans people are saying would assume was the intent.