Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How transphobic is the UK? Are you transphobic...? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I disagree - I think such definites do exist in the world, and that everyone falls into such a category. If a person was born physically male, then it's either possible to identify them as such, or it isn't. Everybody who was born physically male falls into one of these two categories.

    Yes, something must be 100% identical to X to be X. Otherwise it isn't X. It's just something similar to X. A person can't claim to be a man if they have physical traits that no men are ever born with, and that many people who aren't men are born with.



    It's not a case of which she is closer to. Given her current physical condition, it is possible (even if it's difficult) to tell which sex she was born into. Therefore she is that sex.
    A women who is born with XY chromasomes
    A women who has had her reproductive organs removed
    A women who is born with a hormonal imbalence, meaning she is very hairy
    A women who is born with a deformity meaning she isnt physically like 'normal women'

    All of these are not 100% identical.

    Yet they are all women.

    Things do not have to be 100% exactly the same to part of the same label, or catagory.


    - you draw the line, that you would except all those to be able to be female.

    - others draw the line that they would also include transwomen into that catagory.. of things which, are still female - but dont fit all the boxes 100%.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    x.
    also. out of curriousity:

    How would you physically determine the difference between a transwomen, who looks identical to a normal women..

    And a women who has had all her reproductive organs removed, and reconstructed?


    If the transwomen was on HRT before puberty then:


    They would have a similar bone structure,
    They would have very similar sexual organs
    They would have no reproductive organs
    They would both have to be on HRT

    The trans person would not:

    Have a different facial shape
    Have a large adams apple
    Have larger arms/hands

    Would infact have more natrual breasts then the other women..

    Would be no larger in size..


    So how would you physically tell the difference?


    they could be, to all intensive purpouses identical?

    so is that transperson now a women? - as you sourself said that the other women was?

    If so, how are you differentiating between that transwomen and the others?

    Because she is more 'feminine' more beautiful? looks better?

    Yet medically she is the same..
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    A women who is born with XY chromasomes
    A women who has had her reproductive organs removed
    A women who is born with a hormonal imbalence, meaning she is very hairy
    A women who is born with a deformity meaning she isnt physically like 'normal women'

    All of these are not 100% identical.

    - you draw the line, that you would except all those to be able to be female.

    - others draw the line that they would also include transwomen into that catagory.. of things which, are still female - but dont fit all the boxes 100%.

    Yet they are all women.

    Things do not have to be 100% exactly the same to part of the same label, or category.
    You're still misunderstanding me. They're not 100% identical to each other. However, they 100% fit the criteria for being a woman (i.e. none of them are in any way whatsoever identifiable as people who were not born as women). Therefore they fall into the category of women. I agree that things do not need to be 100% the same, to be part of the same category. However, 100% of the people in any category need to share something in common.

    A trans-woman does not fit the criteria 100%. It may be very difficult, but it is still possible to identify them as a person who was not born female. They do not share the criteria of being unidentifiable as people who were born male. Therefore they do not fall into the category of women.

    I'm not drawing an arbitrary line anywhere. My line is at the level of 100% - in that it shouldn't be merely "difficult" to identify their birth sex, it should be "impossible".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    No, I don't mean that. I mean born with so much resemblance to a male and so little resemblance to a female that, whether the doctor simply looked between their legs or performed a detailed genetic analysis on them, their sex is not questionable in any way.
    So the XX male mentioned perviously probably wouldn't count, since they're genetically female aside from one gene. Women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome definitely don't count since there is absolutely no trace of maleness in their genes.
    Their medical record is not a physical trait of theirs, it's a record of their history. If I'm defining "man" and "woman" to be on the basis of a person's physical nature, then I have to exclude any non-physical manner of determining what sex they used to be. So for example, in a test to identify a person's birth-sex, you can't just go up to them and ask "what sex were you born into?".

    If things were defined based on their history, then it would never be possible for one thing to change into another.



    Because if they still have remnants of their previous sex within them, to the extent that it is physically possible to determine that they were previously of a different sex, then they are not able to blend into the category of people who were born into the sex they have chosen. They still have traits which set them apart from all those who were born into this sex, and which liken them to those who were born into their previous sex. This means their sex change is not a complete success.
    Many of the things that could be used to distinguish between trans people and cis people have absolutely nothing to do with "remnants". It could include things like a distinctive pattern of scars from surgery.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    also. out of curriousity:

    How would you physically determine the difference between a transwomen, who looks identical to a normal women..

    And a women who has had all her reproductive organs removed, and reconstructed?


    If the transwomen was on HRT before puberty then:


    They would have a similar bone structure,
    They would have very similar sexual organs
    They would have no reproductive organs
    They would both have to be on HRT

    The trans person would not:

    Have a different facial shape
    Have a large adams apple
    Have larger arms/hands

    Would infact have more natrual breasts then the other women..

    Would be no larger in size..


    So how would you physically tell the difference?


    they could be, to all intensive purpouses identical?

    so is that transperson now a women? - as you sourself said that the other women was?

    If so, how are you differentiating between that transwomen and the others?

    Because she is more 'feminine' more beautiful? looks better?

    Yet medically she is the same..
    They're not medically the same. Their genes are different, for example.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I'm not drawing an arbitrary line anywhere. My line is at the level of 100% - in that it shouldn't be merely "difficult" to identify their birth sex, it should be "impossible".
    Here's a hypothetical scenario for you; in the future it becomes possible to create perfect replicas of human organs and for trans people to be perfectly indistinguishable from cis people. However, the organ cloning companies decide to put serial numbers into the genes of all of their products, some of which are only used by trans people, so it's always possible to tell that a person is trans. Have these trans people truly changed their sex and if not, would removing the serial numbers make them change sex?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    So the XX male mentioned perviously probably wouldn't count, since they're genetically female aside from one gene.
    Yes, they would count, because of that one gene. If they were born female, they should not have this gene. This one gene allows us to identify them as male, and so they are male, not female.

    Women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome definitely don't count since there is absolutely no trace of maleness in their genes.
    Yes, they count too. There may be no trace of maleness in their genes, but there doesn't need to be, because they are women. There is no reason to doubt that they are women.

    Many of the things that could be used to distinguish between trans people and cis people have absolutely nothing to do with "remnants". It could include things like a distinctive pattern of scars from surgery.
    I agree. But even if those scars were not there, it would still be possible to tell the difference. The scars alone do not reliably identify which sex a person used to be previously. In theory, a "cis-gender" person could have the same scars put onto themselves if they wanted to".

    Given current surgical methods, if a person chooses to go from male to female, there will always be some physical trait associated with being male remaining within them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    They're not medically the same. Their genes are different, for example.
    earlier you said the genes didnt matter.. and that wouldnt be a deciding factor in whether they are male or female? only a physical test..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    You're still misunderstanding me. They're not 100% identical to each other. However, they 100% fit the criteria for being a woman (i.e. none of them are in any way whatsoever identifiable as people who were not born as women). Therefore they fall into the category of women. I agree that things do not need to be 100% the same, to be part of the same category. However, 100% of the people in any category need to share something in common.

    A trans-woman does not fit the criteria 100%. It may be very difficult, but it is still possible to identify them as a person who was not born female. They do not share the criteria of being unidentifiable as people who were born male. Therefore they do not fall into the category of women.

    I'm not drawing an arbitrary line anywhere. My line is at the level of 100% - in that it shouldn't be merely "difficult" to identify their birth sex, it should be "impossible".
    what defines being born female?

    Having XX genes - one of the women fails this
    Being born with a vagina/womb - one of the women fail this
    Producing the correct gamates - one of the women fail this
    Looking right? - one of the women fail this
    Having the correct level of female hormones? - one of the women fail this.



    you still seem fixated on birth.. - why does ones current state have to be dependant on how one was so so many years ago.. - your line is, if its possible to tell they were different 20 years ago.. then they are not the same now?

    Even though as pointed out, you could hypothetically have a transwomen who is physically identical to a normal women? (all be it one with very unfortunate circumstances)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    Here's a hypothetical scenario for you; in the future it becomes possible to create perfect replicas of human organs and for trans people to be perfectly indistinguishable from cis people. However, the organ cloning companies decide to put serial numbers into the genes of all of their products, some of which are only used by trans people, so it's always possible to tell that a person is trans. Have these trans people truly changed their sex and if not, would removing the serial numbers make them change sex?
    No, they have not changed their sex if they have a trans serial number. If there were no serial numbers, then yes, they would have changed their sex (according to the definition of changing one's sex I provided earlier).

    A sex change operation is a successful one if nobody can tell that the operation ever occurred, given the person's current physical state.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    earlier you said the genes didnt matter.. and that wouldnt be a deciding factor in whether they are male or female? only a physical test..
    I didn't say that. I said that we wouldn't need to rely solely on a genetic test. I did not say that we are excluding genetic tests.
    Any and every kind of test available is fair game.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Yes, they count too. There may be no trace of maleness in their genes, but there doesn't need to be, because they are women. There is no reason to doubt that they are women.
    Your reasoning here is circular: they are women, therefor any differences between them and other women don't count.

    They're classed as women because they look like women, their genes are totally irrelevant, as are any number of other differences. Why do you insist that transwomen have to not only look like women, but be completely impossible to distinguish from non-transwomen? Why not require that women with androgen insensitivity have to be completely indistinguishable from non androgen insenstive women too?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    A sex change operation is a successful one if nobody can tell that the operation ever occurred, given the person's current physical state.
    says you?

    Why is something only sucsessfull if you cant tell it happened?

    You seem to be putting criteria on things for arbitary reasons, that no one else does..
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    No, they have not changed their sex if they have a trans serial number. If there were no serial numbers, then yes, they would have changed their sex (according to the definition of changing one's sex I provided earlier).

    A sex change operation is a successful one if nobody can tell that the operation ever occurred, given the person's current physical state.
    Well, what can I say? That's the weirdest method of categorisation I've ever heard of, bar none. If you dismantled a desk and made a chair out of it but a brand name was still visible on the chair, would you really consider it to still be a table??
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    what defines being born female?

    Having XX genes - one of the women fails this
    Being born with a vagina/womb - one of the women fail this
    Producing the correct gamates - one of the women fail this
    Looking right? - one of the women fail this
    Having the correct level of female hormones? - one of the women fail this.
    Well to start off with, if we exclude people with disorders, there are two obviously distinct categories of babies who are born male and babies who are born female. This doesn't need defining, it's something we're all familiar with.

    Following this initial categorisation - a person is born female if they have any physical trait in common with all of the babies in the initial female category, which is not shared by any of the babies in the initial male category.

    you still seem fixated on birth.. - why does ones current state have to be dependant on how one was so so many years ago..
    It doesn't depend on how one was many years ago. It depends on whether or not, using their current physical state, it is possible to tell what they were many years ago.

    your line is, if its possible to tell they were different 20 years ago.. then they are not the same now?
    Yes. If it is possible to tell that they used to be a man 20 years ago, then they must have something that none of the born-women have. Which means that they do not fit perfectly into the category of women - rather they have a category of their own.

    Even though as pointed out, you could hypothetically have a transwomen who is physically identical to a normal women? (all be it one with very unfortunate circumstances)
    If they are physically identical to a normal woman, then they have had a successful sex change operation, and they are now a woman. Because this means that it is now impossible to physically identify them as someone who used to be male.

    I don't believe that current surgical methods can accomplish this.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    Well, what can I say? That's the weirdest method of categorisation I've ever heard of, bar none. If you dismantled a desk and made a chair out of it but a brand name was still visible on the chair, would you really consider it to still be a table??
    No. This is the manner in which I am defining the terms "man" and "woman", not "table" and "chair".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    says you?

    Why is something only sucsessfull if you cant tell it happened?

    You seem to be putting criteria on things for arbitary reasons, that no one else does..
    My definition was asked for, and I'm providing my definition.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Well to start off with, if we exclude people with disorders, there are two obviously distinct categories of babies who are born male and babies who are born female. This doesn't need defining, it's something we're all familiar with.

    If they are physically identical to a normal woman, then they have had a successful sex change operation, and they are now a woman. Because this means that it is now impossible to physically identify them as someone who used to be male.

    I don't believe that current surgical methods can accomplish this.
    for the first part - yes.. it does work well, if you exclude the people who fall out of the perfect system.. funny that..

    to bad for them, who dont fit they system, - but yes, if we ignore the millions of them, it is quite perfect.. :rolleyes:

    + current surgical methods can achieve that.. a transwomen who started her treatment before puberty, and had the latest GRC, proper hormone treatment and possibly FRC - would be utterly indistinguishable from the women I previously listed..
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    Your reasoning here is circular: they are women, therefor any differences between them and other women don't count.
    That is not my reasoning, no.

    Just because there is some difference between you and the rest of the female population does not stop you from being a woman. If you got yourself a tattoo that no other woman had, it would not stop you from being a woman. If you wore clothes that no other women wore, it would not stop you from being a woman. And if you had a disorder that no other women had, it would not stop you from being a woman.

    The reason they are women in the first place is because they carry the traits by which we categorise people as women (e.g. genes), and not men. The fact that they are androgen insensitive doesn't provide them with any male traits, nor does it take away from their female traits, so it does not call their gender into question.

    Why do you insist that transwomen have to not only look like women, but be completely impossible to distinguish from non-transwomen?
    Two things are only the same if there is no difference between them.

    Why not require that women with androgen insensitivity have to be completely indistinguishable from non androgen insenstive women too?
    Because you're asking me to provide my definition for whether a person is male vs female, not androgen insensitive vs androgen sensitive.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    for the first part - yes.. it does work well, if you exclude the people who fall out of the perfect system.. funny that..

    to bad for them, who dont fit they system, - but yes, if we ignore the millions of them, it is quite perfect.. :rolleyes:
    Did you not understand the definition?
    We only exclude them for the initial categorisation. Did you miss the part where I used the phrase "to start off with", and the word "initial"?

    Once you've formed your two initial categories, people with disorders and sex change operations etc. can be placed into the existing categories according to the definition I provided, which you decided to delete when you quoted my post. I shall therefore provide it again:

    Following this initial categorisation - a person is born female if they have any physical trait in common with all of the babies in the initial female category, which is not shared by any of the babies in the initial male category.


    Could you please explain why you decided to delete this part? You felt that you had to remove half of my definition so that it no longer made sense, before you could find fault with it?

    + current surgical methods can achieve that.. a transwomen who started her treatment before puberty, and had the latest GRC, proper hormone treatment and possibly FRC - would be utterly indistinguishable from the women I previously listed..
    They would not be genetically identical to any of the women you listed.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.