3 ms·

Have you come to the same conclusion for parenthood? Are adopted children not real, and we must not refer to their adoptive parents as "parents"? You understand

by Latty 4y ago

Have you come to the same conclusion for parenthood? Are adopted children not real, and we must not refer to their adoptive parents as "parents"? You understand why that is hateful, right? Biology may be a fact, but we can, and do, choose to value the link between parent and child socially as the most important part, not the biological link. We can do the same with gender, referencing identity over biology in the general case. Why have you come to the opposite conclusion?

slibhb 4y ago
Because, unlike with parenting, I think the biological part is the most important part when it comes to "man"/"woman".
- Latty 4y ago
  Why? If someone said that about adoptive parents, would you just accept that?
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    For me the difference is that the parental relationship is a wonderful thing. Whereas gender norms (which as far as I can see is all you are left with once you remove biology from gender) are pretty problematic and harmful in their own right.
    - Latty 4y ago
      Gender expression (the norms you talk of) is distinct from both gender identity and biological sex, and identity doesn't prescribe them. The difference is you are saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. If you want to get rid of the words man/woman altogether socially, feel free to advocate for that, but until you succeed, don't dictate to trans people that live in a society with those words that they (and they alone) can't use the ones they identify with.
      - nicoburns 4y ago
        > If you want to get rid of the words man/woman altogether socially, feel free to advocate for that I do somewhat think that this might need to be the solution. However, I think this goes both ways. If trans people don't want to me to use the words "man"/"woman" in the ways that I see fit, then they shouldn't use them either. I certainly don't appreciate what now seems to be a connotation of "man" (the identity I use), that I "feel like a man" (I have no such feeling). > The difference is you are saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. I'm not saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. I am saying that it is reasonable to identify someone on the basis of many gendered categories. Three key ones would be: - biological sex (physical characteristics) - gender feeling (an internal feeling of gender) - political gender (how other people gender you) Importantly for me, identifying someone as a gender in one sense (say a man in the biological sense) does not contradict someone else identifying someone as a gender in another sense (say that person identifying themselves as a woman in the feeling sense). They can both be valid simultaneously. We wouldn't say you shouldn't describe someone as black (race) because they're really a man (gender), because gender and race aren't equivalent. To me, it seems like the same applies to the different dimensions of gender. They exist independently of one another, and shouldn't be seen as equivalent. The only problem is that we use same words for both categories. I would add that there are good reasons for people to want to identify others in ways other than that they self-identify. As an example: I am exclusively attracted to biologically female people. If I can't identify people by their biological sex, then I cannot express my sexuality. I therefore think it's reasonable for me to want to talk about the class of biological females. And given that there is no socially accepted term for this other than "women", I think it is reasonable for me to use that term, even if not everyone in that groups identifies as a woman.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
kweingar 4y ago
This is the argument that I circle back to over and over again as an adopted child, and like with your comment, people mostly choose not to engage with it or just flatly assert “that’s different and you know it.” But it’s not different. All of the same arguments apply. One could argue that “father” has a deep-rooted, unambiguous, biological meaning. One could argue that the use of “father” to describe an adoptive guardian is distorting this fundamental biological truth. One could assert their right to never refer to your adoptive guardian as your “father” because it’s just untrue. But nobody does that because obviously that would be extremely hurtful and rude to adopted children and adoptive parents. I have never once seen a screed like “Their birth certificate might say you’re their father, and you might play catch with them and celebrate Father’s Day, but at the end of the day, that doesn’t change the fact that at the genetic level, this child is simply not yours. They are someone else’s.” Few people will see an adoptive mother at a class for new mothers and say “This is really uncomfortable for me. Why is she here? She did not give birth to this child. She’s not even lactating at all. What made her choose to spend her time hanging around us real mothers? I’d rather be with a group of only birth-giving mothers. I would feel safer sharing my experiences.”
- cluedos 4y ago
  Here's a well-argued critical analysis of this analogy to adoption: https://hollylawford-smith.org/the-adoption-analogy-revisited https://hollylawford-smith.org/the-adoption-analogy-revisite... In summary: "There are several crucial differences between biological and adoptive parents, on the one hand, and transwomen and women, on the other hand. These include: - that both biological and adoptive parents actually parent, whereas it’s not at all clear what transwomen and women have in common that is supposed to play this same role; - that there is no historical power relationship between biological and adoptive parents, whereas there is between male and female people; - that calling adoptive parents parents doesn’t undermine our understanding of what it is to be a parent because what is core to parenting — raising children — is done by both, whereas what is core to being a woman is being female, and that is not done by both; - there is no established history of adoptive parental violence against biological parents, whereas there is an established history of male violence against women; - that adoptive parents do have ‘similar enough concerns and interests’ to biological parents, but transwomen do not have these to women (especially considering the heterogeneity among transwomen); - that there is no ‘oppressive ideological agenda of parenthood’ but there is of being a woman (namely being feminine); and finally, - that there are many ways to be a bad parent, which we can probably agree on, but there are no ways to be a bad woman."
boredhedgehog 4y ago
Adoptive parents are called such as a legal fiction with the necessary mental qualifications. The transgender activists aren't content with that solution. They insist on the terms in the full metaphysical sense.

by Latty 4y ago

slibhb 4y ago

Because, unlike with parenting, I think the biological part is the most important part when it comes to "man"/"woman".

Latty 4y ago
Why? If someone said that about adoptive parents, would you just accept that?
- nicoburns 4y ago
  For me the difference is that the parental relationship is a wonderful thing. Whereas gender norms (which as far as I can see is all you are left with once you remove biology from gender) are pretty problematic and harmful in their own right.
  - Latty 4y ago
    Gender expression (the norms you talk of) is distinct from both gender identity and biological sex, and identity doesn't prescribe them. The difference is you are saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. If you want to get rid of the words man/woman altogether socially, feel free to advocate for that, but until you succeed, don't dictate to trans people that live in a society with those words that they (and they alone) can't use the ones they identify with.
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      > If you want to get rid of the words man/woman altogether socially, feel free to advocate for that I do somewhat think that this might need to be the solution. However, I think this goes both ways. If trans people don't want to me to use the words "man"/"woman" in the ways that I see fit, then they shouldn't use them either. I certainly don't appreciate what now seems to be a connotation of "man" (the identity I use), that I "feel like a man" (I have no such feeling). > The difference is you are saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. I'm not saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. I am saying that it is reasonable to identify someone on the basis of many gendered categories. Three key ones would be: - biological sex (physical characteristics) - gender feeling (an internal feeling of gender) - political gender (how other people gender you) Importantly for me, identifying someone as a gender in one sense (say a man in the biological sense) does not contradict someone else identifying someone as a gender in another sense (say that person identifying themselves as a woman in the feeling sense). They can both be valid simultaneously. We wouldn't say you shouldn't describe someone as black (race) because they're really a man (gender), because gender and race aren't equivalent. To me, it seems like the same applies to the different dimensions of gender. They exist independently of one another, and shouldn't be seen as equivalent. The only problem is that we use same words for both categories. I would add that there are good reasons for people to want to identify others in ways other than that they self-identify. As an example: I am exclusively attracted to biologically female people. If I can't identify people by their biological sex, then I cannot express my sexuality. I therefore think it's reasonable for me to want to talk about the class of biological females. And given that there is no socially accepted term for this other than "women", I think it is reasonable for me to use that term, even if not everyone in that groups identifies as a woman.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

kweingar 4y ago

This is the argument that I circle back to over and over again as an adopted child, and like with your comment, people mostly choose not to engage with it or just flatly assert “that’s different and you know it.” But it’s not different. All of the same arguments apply. One could argue that “father” has a deep-rooted, unambiguous, biological meaning. One could argue that the use of “father” to describe an adoptive guardian is distorting this fundamental biological truth. One could assert their right to never refer to your adoptive guardian as your “father” because it’s just untrue. But nobody does that because obviously that would be extremely hurtful and rude to adopted children and adoptive parents. I have never once seen a screed like “Their birth certificate might say you’re their father, and you might play catch with them and celebrate Father’s Day, but at the end of the day, that doesn’t change the fact that at the genetic level, this child is simply not yours. They are someone else’s.” Few people will see an adoptive mother at a class for new mothers and say “This is really uncomfortable for me. Why is she here? She did not give birth to this child. She’s not even lactating at all. What made her choose to spend her time hanging around us real mothers? I’d rather be with a group of only birth-giving mothers. I would feel safer sharing my experiences.”

cluedos 4y ago
Here's a well-argued critical analysis of this analogy to adoption: https://hollylawford-smith.org/the-adoption-analogy-revisited https://hollylawford-smith.org/the-adoption-analogy-revisite... In summary: "There are several crucial differences between biological and adoptive parents, on the one hand, and transwomen and women, on the other hand. These include: - that both biological and adoptive parents actually parent, whereas it’s not at all clear what transwomen and women have in common that is supposed to play this same role; - that there is no historical power relationship between biological and adoptive parents, whereas there is between male and female people; - that calling adoptive parents parents doesn’t undermine our understanding of what it is to be a parent because what is core to parenting — raising children — is done by both, whereas what is core to being a woman is being female, and that is not done by both; - there is no established history of adoptive parental violence against biological parents, whereas there is an established history of male violence against women; - that adoptive parents do have ‘similar enough concerns and interests’ to biological parents, but transwomen do not have these to women (especially considering the heterogeneity among transwomen); - that there is no ‘oppressive ideological agenda of parenthood’ but there is of being a woman (namely being feminine); and finally, - that there are many ways to be a bad parent, which we can probably agree on, but there are no ways to be a bad woman."

boredhedgehog 4y ago

Adoptive parents are called such as a legal fiction with the necessary mental qualifications. The transgender activists aren't content with that solution. They insist on the terms in the full metaphysical sense.