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

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

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    No. This is the manner in which I am defining the terms "man" and "woman", not "table" and "chair".
    I didn't think so. My point was that you're using a massively distorted method of categorisation which is used only for men and women and which has no effect other than to define transwomen as not women and transmen as not men. Why would you do that?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    I didn't think so. My point was that you're using a massively distorted method of categorisation which is used only for men and women and which has no effect other than to define transwomen as not women and transmen as not men. Why would you do that?
    Because "man" and "woman" do not have simple one-liner definitions. They are categories based on collections of traits. In order to belong to the category, you have to therefore fulfil every trait in the collection. Otherwise we have no distinction between someone who is actually a woman, and someone who is similar to a woman.

    The same is not true of tables and chairs. For example, if it's a piece of furniture designed for people to sit on, then it's a chair. It's not a case of conforming to collections of traits and qualities of other objects which are agreed to be chairs. It's just a check to see if it fits the definition of "chair" or not. It's like deciding whether a number is odd or even.

    If a trans-woman can be identified as a trans-woman as opposed to a non-trans-woman, the only way this is possible is if they still possess some trait that non-trans-women do not have, which men do have. They have therefore not fully fit themselves into the category of women by accumulating all of the traits. If they successfully did that, they would be women.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.
    They have a y chromosome, how is that not a male trait?
    Two things are only the same if there is no difference between them.
    So why do you consider women with androgen insensitivity disorder to be women?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.
    Yet you still havent provided reasoning as to why their current gender needs to be related to this initial gender?

    - as post-op they do have 'physical trains in common with all of the women in the female catagory, which is not shared by the men of the male catagory'

    to use your own words..
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Because "man" and "woman" do not have simple one-liner definitions. They are categories based on collections of traits. In order to belong to the category, you have to therefore fulfil every trait in the collection. The same is not true of tables and chairs.

    If a trans-woman can be identified as a trans-woman as opposed to a non-trans-woman, the only way this is possible is if they still possess some trait that non-trans-women do not have, which men do have. They have therefore not fully fit themselves into the category of women.
    No, it isn't, see my genetic serial number thought experiment where you concluded they hadn't changed their sex.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Because "man" and "woman" do not have simple one-liner definitions. They are categories based on collections of traits. In order to belong to the category, you have to therefore fulfil every trait in the collection. The same is not true of tables and chairs.

    Im going to use your exact words:

    ' In order to belong to the catagory, you therefor have to fullfill EVERY trait in the collection'

    The women listed previosuly, does not do this. infact quite a number of women dont fullfill EVERY trait that would be listed..


    If a trans-woman can be identified as a trans-woman as opposed to a non-trans-woman, the only way this is possible is if they still possess some trait that non-trans-women do not have, which men do have. They have therefore not fully fit themselves into the category of women.

    'If they posess some trait that a non-trans-women do not have, which men do have'

    My previously mentioned, unfortunate women does fits this perfectly: she has artificial brests ,and vagina.. like a trans women.. - and she has a hormonal imbalence like a man.. - she fits your discription of what would be required to be different, and not a women.. - yet you have no problem with her?

    xx
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    No, it isn't, see my genetic serial number though experiment where you concluded they hadn't changed their sex.
    Yes, I concluded that they hadn't changed their sex because they possessed a trait that non-trans-women don't have - namely the serial number. Get rid of the serial number, and they're women now.

    They have a y chromosome, how is that not a male trait?
    If it's something that females can be born with, then it's not a solely male trait.
    Whereas a female can't be born for example, with the ability to produce sperm. So if they are able to do that, then you know that they were born male.

    So why do you consider women with androgen insensitivity disorder to be women?
    Because, as you said earlier, they have no traces of maleness within them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Yes, I concluded that they hadn't changed their sex because they possessed a trait that non-trans-women don't have - namely the serial number. Get rid of the serial number, and they're women now.
    You said:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    the only way this is possible is if they still possess some trait that non-trans-women do not have, which men do have.
    In my thought experiment the men did not have a barcode and you agreed that they were still not complete sex changes.
    Offline

    16
    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.
    The above step would exclude people with both androgen insensitivity syndrome and XX male syndrome. As a result, both genes and genitalia would become defining factors for what it means to be male and what it means to be female.

    As a result, in the next step they would be classed as both male and female.
    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.
    None of the boys were XX and all of the girls were, none of the girls were XY and all of the boys were. The same applies to their genitals.

    This seems like a serious flaw in your definition to me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    You said:

    the only way this is possible is if they still possess some trait that non-trans-women do not have, which men do have.

    In my thought experiment the men did not have a barcode and you agreed that they were still not complete sex changes.
    Sorry - I didn't make myself clear.

    I meant that the only way it is possible is if they possess some trait that non-trans-women do have. As a matter of providing extra description, in real life, it follows that this must be a trait that men do have. However, in your thought experiment, it need not be a trait that men have.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    The above step would exclude people with both androgen insensitivity syndrome and XX male syndrome. As a result, both genes and genitalia would become defining factors for what it means to be male and what it means to be female.

    As a result, in the next step they would be classed as both male and female.

    None of the boys were XX and all of the girls were, none of the girls were XY and all of the boys were. The same applies to their genitals.

    This seems like a serious flaw in your definition to me.
    I don't think the first step would exclude people with androgen insensitivity and XX male syndrome. When I say excluding disorders, I'm not just talking about any old disorders. I'm talking specifically about disorders which make their gender ambiguous. So for example, suppose (hypothetically) that a person is born without any kind of reproductive system, and with no genetic similarity to normal males or normal females, and with no other manner in which you can put them into one category or another. Obviously you can't use them to define distinct categories.

    A person born as an XX male would go into the male category to start with.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    Yet you still havent provided reasoning as to why their current gender needs to be related to this initial gender?

    - as post-op they do have 'physical trains in common with all of the women in the female catagory, which is not shared by the men of the male catagory'

    to use your own words..
    They also share traits in common with the men in the inital male category, which are not shared by the women in the initial female category. So their sex change is not complete at that stage.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    x
    (Original post by incipient)
    x
    I'm off to sleep, it's 5am
    If you make more posts I'll reply tomorrow.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I don't think the first step would exclude people with androgen insensitivity and XX male syndrome. When I say excluding disorders, I'm not just talking about any old disorders. I'm talking specifically about disorders which make their gender ambiguous. So for example, suppose (hypothetically) that a person is born without any kind of reproductive system, and with no genetic similarity to normal males or normal females, and with no other manner in which you can put them into one category or another. Obviously you can't use them to define distinct categories.

    A person born as an XX male would go into the male category to start with.
    Why should we only exclude disorders which result in (large) visible changes to the external genitalia? Women with androgen insensitivity have testes instead of ovaries...
    Offline

    17
    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.
    Yeah, you're male or you're not male (and this is still depending on where you draw the line). This doesn't mean you're male or you're female.
    All dichotomies are false dichotomies (John Green)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why do people get angry if someone doesn't agree with what they say! You can't confine people to one way of thinking. I for one can't understand why people get angry when I say that I personally find being gay/trans wrong. Don't get me wrong, I would NEVER mistreat someone because of our differences in gender/sexuality/age/appearance, but I don't see how it makes me homo/trans-phobic? I talk/party/go out with gay/trans people at my school etc and we get along well, but if I (personally) find aspects of what they do unnatural or whatever then it doesn't mean I'm not accepting or tolerant of those people it just means I don't agree...It's similar to when people debate religion, why can't they just accept that everyone has a different viewpoint. Of course some people are intolerant, but not agreeing with the general/'what is deemed to be politically correct' notion doesn't make you a '____'phobe.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    Why should we only exclude disorders which result in (large) visible changes to the external genitalia? Women with androgen insensitivity have testes instead of ovaries...
    I was under the impression that androgens are hormones which stimulate the development of male characteristics, and so a person who is insensitive to androgens have their development of testes etc. inhibited, rather than promoted. And so there would be no reason why women with androgen insensitivity should have testes instead of ovaries.

    Perhaps I've misunderstood what this disorder actually is. If so, ignore what I've said about it so far.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I was under the impression that androgens are hormones which stimulate the development of male characteristics, and so a person who is insensitive to androgens have their development of testes etc. inhibited, rather than promoted. And so there would be no reason why women with androgen insensitivity should have testes instead of ovaries.

    Perhaps I've misunderstood what this disorder actually is. If so, ignore what I've said about it so far.
    They are, however the development of testes is controlled by a different mechanism.

    Women with androgen insensitivity look like every other women externally but have some differences internally. None of these genetic disorders results in 100% normal body development that I know of, however externally they look like one sex or the other at birth so they are classed as one sex or the other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I personally don't mind transsexual people, probably due to knowing one. However, one thing I can't put up with for long is transsexual people that try to act 'cute' to the point that it becomes sickly to see or hear Actually, that applies to every person that I meet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=fallen_acorns;42676617]You seem to be relying to much on absolutes.. 'this must be 100% identical to X, to be X'

    When in reality the world doesnt work or function on such definates. - instead we live in much more of a grey area..

    + she is not distinguishable? in what way? - she is very physically different to the other women? - and is infact much much closer physically to a trans women?

    you seem fixated on this idea that things have to be uterly utterly 100% impossible to tell apart, for something to be considered something..


    I would like to know one thing why do you care so much on the Subject of Trans people ??? I am just wondering why you seen so worried about it all for what resins ? )O( O yea I am here remember The one you call names etc . Ya lil Bugger
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

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