5 ms·

She's not wrong though, is she. Having 'male women' in the demographic doesn't make the field any less male-dominated. Unfortunately, it's common on HN for com

She's not wrong though, is she. Having 'male women' in the demographic doesn't make the field any less male-dominated. Unfortunately, it's common on HN for commenters here to see things primarily from a male viewpoint, and assume that female-centred perspectives are less valuable or less intelligent or even bigoted in some way. Please do keep an open mind when listening to women share their experiences and perspectives.

jadamson 3y ago
[flagged]
kdmccormick 3y ago
My view, and AFAICT the view of most academic organizations in the US at this point, is that there is no such thing as a "male woman". A trans woman is female, a trans man is male. Trying to separate gender from "biological sex" trivializes the reality of trans people. Even if you don't care about that, it's just not very correct: intersex people exist; chromosomes don't always line up with assigned-at-birth gender; and transitioning can involve physical changes that you might consider changing someone's "biological sex". For situations where one's birth-assigned gender is relevant, the terms "assigned male/female at birth" (AMAB/AFAB) can be used. The researcher's claim about tech diversity could have been framed as, e.g., "a recent uptick in tech diversity can be ascribed to counting trans women by their self-identified gender rather than the gender they were assigned at birth". That comes across as much more sensitive and academic than "men identifying as trans", which just has TERF written all over it.
- jadamson 3y ago
  > Trying to separate gender from "biological sex" trivializes the reality of trans people. The reality of trans people is that their gender identity does not match their biological sex, either at birth or at any time thereafter. That's what being trans is. And no, you cannot change your biological sex. Gene therapy and brain transplants aren't there yet. None of this trivializes trans people, rather it is your argument that trivializes the experience of women who were born and raised female and the distinct experiences and perspectives stemming from that.
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    Our base disagreement is whether human gender and sex are distinct things. I don't think there's anything I do to change your mind and convince you that they're not, so I recommend you do some research or talk to a trans person in your life and see if it updates your understanding of the topic.
    - jadamson 3y ago
      I know trans people, I've including a couple I worked with for years and remain in contact with. Neither would ever claim that sex and gender are the same thing, because they don't have brain rot. Gender is cultural. There are cultures with more than two genders, but they continue to have the same distribution of X and Y chromosomes because sex is biological. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/sex-and-gender https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/sex-and-gender
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        Sex is biological and multidimensional; but the construct assigning a binary categorization based on some (not necessarily static over time) sex traits is, even though the category assigned is often described, even in law, as the described-person’s “sex” is, in fact, a form of socially ascribed gender.
        graplp 3y ago
        [flagged]
        kdmccormick 3y ago
        [flagged]
        graplp 3y ago
        His argument is basically just that redefining words can be used to make statements true that weren't true before the definition was changed. This is great, I can make the statement "pigs can fly" true if I redefine "pigs" to mean what we currently call "birds", or redefine "fly" to mean "roll around in the mud". Easy! So if it is your stance that men who call themselves women are female, or as you stated it, "trans women are female", then any disagreement is easily solved: simply redefine "female" to include those men. A brilliant masterstroke of non-argument, as you don't even need to justify this nonsense. It's true because you said it's true! Of course as per usual this is without any regard to what people who are actually female might think about this, being lumped in with these prostate-havers who fetishize their existence. The Categories Were Made For Man, indeed.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Trying to separate gender from “biological sex” trivializes the reality of trans people. I think this basically gets it, but I would say it somewhat misstates the case: gender is easily distinguished from biological sex (maybe not separated from it; the general correlation and the fact that behavior necessarily has a biological basis suggests that gender identity may itself be among the many dimensions of biological sex traits), but the categorization of people into two groups based on a subset of biological sex traits is not, itself, biological sex, it is ascribed gender. Biological sex is multidimensional (in the usual sense of the entire spectrum of traits that are considered within the ambit of sex) or not binary (in the narrower sense of ability to perform in one, both, or neither of two possible sexual reproductive roles.) Sex essentialism, like race essentialism (whose arguments and methods it generally apes) defends social constructed exclusive categorization by misrepresenting social statuses ascribed based on some subset of physical traits as essential biological categories.
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    Well explained, thanks for the insights.
- lesfts 3y ago
  Your view completely ignores the reality of trans people. >A trans woman is female, a trans man is male. These are explicitly biological terms. A trans woman is NOT female. Even if you only argue the lesser claim that "trans woman are women", I have never seen a convincing follow up to the inevitable response, "what are women".
- satisfice 3y ago
  That may be your view. But it’s out of step with most of the Earth’s population of humans and most of the history of humanity. In that context, it can only fairly be described as controversial and radical. I am amazed at how people who claim to care about their fellow humans can so easily demonize a huge swath of them in favor of a tiny minority. Just admit it: you are engaging in power politics, just like everyone else.
liamwire 3y ago
Let’s suppose the motive of wanting more women in tech is to rally against historic prejudices and institutional biases, in order to assist an otherwise marginalised group towards a more equal footing with the traditional power brokers, men. If you can’t see how this extends to trans women, a group that is almost inarguably as oppressed as cis women, regardless of whether you view them as ‘true’ women, then I can only assume bad faith.

jadamson 3y ago

[flagged]

kdmccormick 3y ago

My view, and AFAICT the view of most academic organizations in the US at this point, is that there is no such thing as a "male woman". A trans woman is female, a trans man is male. Trying to separate gender from "biological sex" trivializes the reality of trans people. Even if you don't care about that, it's just not very correct: intersex people exist; chromosomes don't always line up with assigned-at-birth gender; and transitioning can involve physical changes that you might consider changing someone's "biological sex". For situations where one's birth-assigned gender is relevant, the terms "assigned male/female at birth" (AMAB/AFAB) can be used. The researcher's claim about tech diversity could have been framed as, e.g., "a recent uptick in tech diversity can be ascribed to counting trans women by their self-identified gender rather than the gender they were assigned at birth". That comes across as much more sensitive and academic than "men identifying as trans", which just has TERF written all over it.

jadamson 3y ago
> Trying to separate gender from "biological sex" trivializes the reality of trans people. The reality of trans people is that their gender identity does not match their biological sex, either at birth or at any time thereafter. That's what being trans is. And no, you cannot change your biological sex. Gene therapy and brain transplants aren't there yet. None of this trivializes trans people, rather it is your argument that trivializes the experience of women who were born and raised female and the distinct experiences and perspectives stemming from that.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  Our base disagreement is whether human gender and sex are distinct things. I don't think there's anything I do to change your mind and convince you that they're not, so I recommend you do some research or talk to a trans person in your life and see if it updates your understanding of the topic.
  - jadamson 3y ago
    I know trans people, I've including a couple I worked with for years and remain in contact with. Neither would ever claim that sex and gender are the same thing, because they don't have brain rot. Gender is cultural. There are cultures with more than two genders, but they continue to have the same distribution of X and Y chromosomes because sex is biological. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/sex-and-gender https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/sex-and-gender
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Sex is biological and multidimensional; but the construct assigning a binary categorization based on some (not necessarily static over time) sex traits is, even though the category assigned is often described, even in law, as the described-person’s “sex” is, in fact, a form of socially ascribed gender.
      - graplp 3y ago
        [flagged]
        kdmccormick 3y ago
        [flagged]
        graplp 3y ago
        His argument is basically just that redefining words can be used to make statements true that weren't true before the definition was changed. This is great, I can make the statement "pigs can fly" true if I redefine "pigs" to mean what we currently call "birds", or redefine "fly" to mean "roll around in the mud". Easy! So if it is your stance that men who call themselves women are female, or as you stated it, "trans women are female", then any disagreement is easily solved: simply redefine "female" to include those men. A brilliant masterstroke of non-argument, as you don't even need to justify this nonsense. It's true because you said it's true! Of course as per usual this is without any regard to what people who are actually female might think about this, being lumped in with these prostate-havers who fetishize their existence. The Categories Were Made For Man, indeed.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Trying to separate gender from “biological sex” trivializes the reality of trans people. I think this basically gets it, but I would say it somewhat misstates the case: gender is easily distinguished from biological sex (maybe not separated from it; the general correlation and the fact that behavior necessarily has a biological basis suggests that gender identity may itself be among the many dimensions of biological sex traits), but the categorization of people into two groups based on a subset of biological sex traits is not, itself, biological sex, it is ascribed gender. Biological sex is multidimensional (in the usual sense of the entire spectrum of traits that are considered within the ambit of sex) or not binary (in the narrower sense of ability to perform in one, both, or neither of two possible sexual reproductive roles.) Sex essentialism, like race essentialism (whose arguments and methods it generally apes) defends social constructed exclusive categorization by misrepresenting social statuses ascribed based on some subset of physical traits as essential biological categories.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  Well explained, thanks for the insights.
lesfts 3y ago
Your view completely ignores the reality of trans people. >A trans woman is female, a trans man is male. These are explicitly biological terms. A trans woman is NOT female. Even if you only argue the lesser claim that "trans woman are women", I have never seen a convincing follow up to the inevitable response, "what are women".
satisfice 3y ago
That may be your view. But it’s out of step with most of the Earth’s population of humans and most of the history of humanity. In that context, it can only fairly be described as controversial and radical. I am amazed at how people who claim to care about their fellow humans can so easily demonize a huge swath of them in favor of a tiny minority. Just admit it: you are engaging in power politics, just like everyone else.

liamwire 3y ago

Let’s suppose the motive of wanting more women in tech is to rally against historic prejudices and institutional biases, in order to assist an otherwise marginalised group towards a more equal footing with the traditional power brokers, men. If you can’t see how this extends to trans women, a group that is almost inarguably as oppressed as cis women, regardless of whether you view them as ‘true’ women, then I can only assume bad faith.