Transgender women (biological men) dominating women's sports

[zurew]

@Razard86 I made a clear distinction between sex and gender above, and thats a framework you can use to try to make sense of what i wrote above. Now, you don't need to agree with that framework, but that distinction is practical and it can be important.  You are using language in a reductive way and almost no one use it the way you use it, because nuance and meaning is being lost there . The way you use it, is like this: Everything is a social construct: biology , gender , language, physics  etcetc. If we use the word 'social construct' your way ,then it will lose its meaning and basically won't mean anything, because it can be used to describe any word. 

Try to make sense what i wrote above, with the definitions and meanings that i gave to the word gender and sex.

16 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Because its just another word to describe the same thing that is claimed to be different. 

No its not, I made a clear distinction between the two ,and i provided examples to make it more clear. If you don't want to engage with that framework thats fine, but don't tell me i don't understand what a social construction is, just because you don't want to engage with my framework. 

From an ultimate standpoint, yes it is a social construction, but again i think to use language that way its too reductive.

If we want to have a good faith debate or a conversation we have to use the same set of definitions, because if we don't, then our convo or debate won't even make any sense, because we will be arguing over points that are not even being made by the other person, but by ourselves.

Gender is an inner image of yourself. - An Indian man will have a totally different inner image what a man is (, than a German man. Thats just one example.

Sex is about biological traits -  differences in :reproductive organs, genitals, chromosomes,bone density etc. 

Edited June 21, 2022 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

Sex and gender are both social constructs.

Sex is more strongly coupled with reality, hence more useful in daily life for pragmatic purposes. 

Gender is used mostly social situations and only in such situations. 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Preety_India]

@Razard86 I kinda agree with @zurew you don't make any sense. 

 

[Bobby_2021]

17 hours ago, Arcangelo said:

Today I feel at peace.

Thank you Bob!

?❤️

[Carl-Richard]

Interesting meta-theoretical analysis of the statement "all trans women are women" (from the philosopher who debated Vaush recently):

 

I think this shows that the trans-inclusive movement should generally move away from appealing to academic standards of argumentation and simply focus on promoting social acceptance, especially on the language issue, as laymen language is mostly pragmatic anyway.

[Yog]

I don't think you can equate gender and sex, nor can you mark both as 100% socially constructed. This is just a common progressive mistake. To focus on this part of the game and therefore think that things are 100% socially constructed, when in fact the construction is partial and is something you tend to layer on top of something else. So there are degrees with it. Everything is socially constructed, but in part.

So if gender is mostly socially constructed. Than sex would be partly. (less)

You know this because sex pre dates humans and their social constructions.
You can project sex onto animals, or not, they would still behave, or have traits of their sex.

Even if all humans got extinct and no human were present to observe/project onto it, the rules of sex will still be in the game.
 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Yog

[Bobby_2021]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Interesting meta-theoretical analysis of the statement "all trans women are women" (from the philosopher who debated Vaush recently):

 

I think this shows that the trans-inclusive movement should generally move away from appealing to academic standards of argumentation and simply focus on promoting social acceptance, especially on the language issue, as laymen language is mostly pragmatic anyway.

Good representation. There is no problem with the self Id view, if you define  "woman" like this:

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/81686-what-is-woman/?do=findComment&comment=1155639

Woman = Male/Female/Intersex person identifying as a female.

This isn't circular. But males can identify as woman, which is what transwoman is.

What do you think @Carl-Richard? 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Woman = Male/Female/Intersex person identifying as a female.

This isn't circular.

What is a woman and what is a female?

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What is a woman and what is a female?

Do we have an academic definition of a woman? It seems impossible not to exclude some woman, when we try to define what a woman is.

I know , i am begging the question, but i just want to point out, that it seems really hard to perfectly define what anything is, without excluding some stuff, that we wouldn't want to exclude otherwise.

I assume, that we don't want to go for a perfect definition, but for a definition that excludes the least amount of things that we would include otherwise.

Edited June 21, 2022 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

What is a woman and what is a female?

Well first of all the significant question is if language has any inherent meaning. Since you jse language to communicate with me on this forum I am assuming that you think language is meaningful.

Since there are only 

1) finite number of words in the English language.

2) you use words to define and give meaning to other words

We can safely say that language is itself circular. Circular things can still convey meaning. (With a large enough circle of course).

With that said, 

Female is a human with the sex organ vagina and boobies. XX chromosome blah blah... The typical biological definition. 

It is a socially defined definition, the social circle being a bunch of nerd scientists.

A woman is also a person who identifies with the characteristics of a biological woman. 

For most females, they already identify as women.

But some males also identify as a woman. 

Which means that a woman is anyone who identifies as a female. 

A woman and female are two entirely different things. 

Hence it is meaningfully defined without being too circular. 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Razard86]

21 hours ago, zurew said:

@Razard86 I made a clear distinction between sex and gender above, and thats a framework you can use to try to make sense of what i wrote above. Now, you don't need to agree with that framework, but that distinction is practical and it can be important.  You are using language in a reductive way and almost no one use it the way you use it, because nuance and meaning is being lost there . The way you use it, is like this: Everything is a social construct: biology , gender , language, physics  etcetc. If we use the word 'social construct' your way ,then it will lose its meaning and basically won't mean anything, because it can be used to describe any word. 

Try to make sense what i wrote above, with the definitions and meanings that i gave to the word gender and sex.

No its not, I made a clear distinction between the two ,and i provided examples to make it more clear. If you don't want to engage with that framework thats fine, but don't tell me i don't understand what a social construction is, just because you don't want to engage with my framework. 

From an ultimate standpoint, yes it is a social construction, but again i think to use language that way its too reductive.

If we want to have a good faith debate or a conversation we have to use the same set of definitions, because if we don't, then our convo or debate won't even make any sense, because we will be arguing over points that are not even being made by the other person, but by ourselves.

Gender is an inner image of yourself. - An Indian man will have a totally different inner image what a man is (, than a German man. Thats just one example.

Sex is about biological traits -  differences in :reproductive organs, genitals, chromosomes,bone density etc. 

Thats the thing there isn't a real distinction between Gender and Sex. I did gender studies in College and I'm like...they could just use the word Sex. All they have to say is that just because someone has designated Sex they don't have to conform to how they express said sexuality. Then they wanted to make a whole new word called gender....I'm like you don't need a new word!!! Just expand the definition of the original word!!! But its just a personal issue I have it is what it is. LOL.

[Preety_India]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

What is a woman and what is a female?

How come nobody asks what's a man? 

 

[Danioover9000]

    I'm just curious, but have they banned certain words associated with trans people, like transexuality?

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

There is no problem with the self Id view, if you define "woman" like this:

A woman is a person who identifies with the characteristics of a biological woman an adult human female.

My understanding of the self-ID view is that you're a woman if you identify as whatever you think a woman is, which as a general definition (in strict analytical terms) tends towards circularity.

If the definition contains some explicitly defined word that limits what you're able to identify as (like "adult human female"), then it's not self-ID, thus your definition is not the self-ID view.

For example, somebody who calls themselves a woman because they identify with the social roles associated with being a woman, is actually not a woman under your definition, despite self-identifying themselves that way.

The reason people don't care about the self-ID view being circular as a general definition is because, again, they don't care about viewing language that way. They don't approach language in strict analytical terms. They merely use it as a tool, and tools are imperfect. Even analytically consistent definitions are imperfect in their own ways.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Preety_India said:

How come nobody asks what's a man? 

I think it's because women and transwomen generally face more social challenges than men and transmen, so a lot of trans issues tend to naturally revolve around that side of things.

[Bobby_2021]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

My understanding of the self-ID view is that you're a woman if you identify as whatever you think a woman is, which as a general definition (in strict analytical terms) tends towards circularity.

A woman is a concept/idea.

You cannot point to a thing and say that's it's a woman or not. 

Just like santa claus. You can identify as a santa Claus simply by wearing a red dress and a beard and you expect people to treat you like a santa claus.

Likewise you can also wear a skirt and people should treat you like a women, regardless of your sex(m or f).

 

A female is an object.

Like a rock or a tree or a house. 

Although normally you cannot identify as a female since, it's a definite object, reality is that even female is a concept, if you dig deep enough. Just like human is also a concept. 

The problem lies in the fact that all of them are social constructs. But there are crucial distinctions even within social constructs.

 

I agree to the fact that they will collapse once you start questioning them, whether they are traditional gender roles or LGBT gender. But if you value that distinction between concept and objects then gender could have some legitimacy. 

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Interesting meta-theoretical analysis of the statement "all trans women are women" (from the philosopher who debated Vaush recently):

 

I think this shows that the trans-inclusive movement should generally move away from appealing to academic standards of argumentation and simply focus on promoting social acceptance, especially on the language issue, as laymen language is mostly pragmatic anyway.

   Nice modal share. I'm also leaning towards trans people shouldn't fully lean on academic language as that can further confuse the situation.

[Danioover9000]

   I'm curious, how many people here agree with this statement: "Transexuality is merely body dysmorphia?".

[Carl-Richard]

@Bobby_2021 I fail to see what anything you just said has to do with what you quoted from my post.

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Bobby_2021 I fail to see what anything you just said has to do with what you quoted from my post.

"My understanding of the self-ID view is that you're a woman if you identify as whatever you think a woman is,"

 

As you have said.

I am saying that a women is a concept much like Santa claus. 

A woman is someone who identify with the concept of a woman.

Just like you are batman if you dress like batman and identify as such.

So what is a batman?

It's a fictional concept.

Likewise a woman is also a fictional concept. 

It isn't a circular definition is what I am saying.

Because a woman isn't a definitive object to point to. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Bobby_2021