Tags
How do you define woman/man?
Okay, background here. Firstly, I’m not an Aristotolian. I’m fairly convinced that many, perhaps all of the words we use, do not have tightly defined meanings. Instead they’re pointers to things. Take names: like Ozy. You can tell me your name is Ozy and I can refer to you as that without having to know your full life story (unless you’re an Ent). A useful word is a brief word that picks out meaningful distinctions for the relevant context, not a comprehensive definition of every single possible real world case.
Secondly, social construction. From observation the noun-phrase “social construction” seems to have at least two different meanings. One is something that is entirely socially-constructed. Eg “Donald Trump” is President of the United States and head of state of the United States. Had a small percentage of Americans voted a different way, or the voting laws been slightly different, there could have been a totally different person as President. And voting laws can be very different, the British for example determine their Head of State via hereditary monarchy and have done for several centuries now. No one gets fussed when you claim that the Head of State is a social construction. (Obviously, just because something is entirely socially constructed doesn’t mean it’s not real.)
The other sort of social construction is about boundaries. And this is the sort of social construction claim that gets the headlines. But it’s quite different. Let’s take age. Everyone knows that there’s nothing magically special about the night when you’re 17 years and 364 days old that turns you from a child into an adult. We could move the age of adulthood around by months or even perhaps years. We can phase it in, with different ages for driving, drinking, etc. We can understand phrases like “a 30 year old with the mind of a 5 year old” (even if medical science has gotten a bit more precise) and we can define some people as not legally competent to take care of themselves no matter how old they are. “Adult” and “child” are socially constructed. But a society that makes no distinction between the decision-making responsibilities of a 3 year old and a 30 year old is going to run into problems. There’s an underlying reality there, society only has freedom at the boundaries. We can make nuanced judgments, we can think that the typical 16 year old should have more freedoms than a 6 year old, but it’s still valid to talk about adults and children. Or adults, teenagers and children.
Now let’s take sex. Every argument I have seen that sex is socially constructed is a boundary argument (see for example “Gender is not alone: the social construction of sex”.) The arguments talk about a minority of people who are intersex. Or whose chromosomes are unusual, or who exhibit androgen-insensitivity or what-not. No argument there. But, that does not mean that it’s invalid to talk about people who have small, mobile gametes and those who have large immobile gametes. Even without explicitly noting that some people don’t fit neatly into either definition.
And we do find that even people who maintain that woman and man are matters of self-identfying alone find themselves coming up with words like “female-bodied” and “male-bodied” or DFAB and DMAB. We don’t see this with things that are entirely-socially constructed, the Brits aren’t looking to replace Elizabeth I as their head of state with an orange-haired billionaire reality TV star.
So, finally getting to the question itself, I have multiple definitions of woman/man. For simplicity I will define woman and perhaps other, and leave the definition of man as an exercise for the reader.
1. a woman is an adult human who ticks the Female box on forms when it’s the choice between that or Male. Note, Statistics NZ introduced as an option in 2015.
2. a woman is an adult human who looks/sounds/etc like a woman (bearing in mind clothing, etc as well as body type). Note this is not the same as being feminine, even when I was doing my machine workshop, wearing overalls, with steel-capped boots and short hair, no one ever thought I was a man.
3. a woman is someone with external sex characteristics highly correlated with getting pregnant and having babies.
I’m not particularly attached to any of these words per se. If you prefer to use “female-bodied” in place of (3) or “uterus-bearing”, I’ll probably go along with it for the purposes of conversation with you.
I don’t think we’ll ever have a word or short noun phrase that captures the key distinctions between women and men in my sense 3, there will always be boundary cases not covered. Eg, DMAB falls apart for the Guevedoces, a condition in the Dominican Republic where some people are born appearing female but with XY chromosomes who then turn into boys at puberty when the second flood of hormones hit. They’re male-bodied as adults, but they weren’t designated-male at birth, so not DMAB. Either we go to the Ent naming solution, and we don’t have the lifespans for that, or we’re left with a word that is the verbal equivalent of a vague pointing motion that something is “over there”.
The three definitions have different pros and cons. (2) is practical for every day use. (1) has the advantage of not excluding anyone who wants to be a woman. But (3) is important too. It’s the historical definition, and often a very important one. While that definition can hurt people who don’t fit nicely into the category, and that calls for sensitivity about its use, the same is true when it comes to talking about parenthood, which can really hurt people struggling with fertility. But that doesn’t mean we should never ever talk about parenthood.
What are your opinions on the cotton ceiling?
The cotton ceiling: well if you have a large enough group of people over a long enough period of time, at some point some of that group is going to do something very stupid.
And in this social media age, this is going to be picked up on and fear-mongered about.
So the cotton ceiling in the way it was presented (breaking down barriers to people having sex with transwomen), was fairly terrible. Strong norms against shaming people for their sexual preferences are important. Sex should be about positivity and fun. People who want to increase the sexual range of other people should focus on tactics like encouraging positive representations of said range in media stories and only shame people making transphobic descriptions of other people’s relationships (eg saying that A isn’t a lesbian because she’s in a relationship with a transwoman). I get the sense that the transwomen who had the cotton ceiling workshop are not from people-focused professions.
On the other hand the claims about them from TERFs are also ridiculous. Strong norms against misrepresenting people are also important.
So my opinion is that both sides behaved badly.
Why are trans women disproportionately likely to be programmers?
I am not sure that most trans women are programmers. It is obviously easier for trans people to get together on line, and for a couple of decades there, programmers were much more likely to be online, leading to a sample selection bias.
That said, programming is an escape for kids who are subject to bullying, and kids are notorious for bullying those who aren’t neurotypical. Plus programming brings money which makes it easy to transition. So there are some social reasons for trans women to contain an excessive number of programmers.
Why do many trans women experience sexual fantasies about being or becoming a woman?
As a cis woman, my reaction to this question, is, well, why wouldn’t people have sexual fantasies about being a woman? Being a woman is fun!
Okay, when I achieve my proper position as Empress of the Universe there are going to be some firm words had with biology re the whole pregnancy thing. And menstruation will be replaced by a monthly typed letter from your body giving a plain-language update of your health.
But leaving aside those design faults, women have soft skin, no beards (well mostly), to wear swishing skirts in public, and have better curves than a scenic railway. And, I understand that the clitoris has the same number of nerve endings as the penis, just more concentrated.
And of course trans women don’t have to include periods or pregnancies in their fantasies (not to mention that people can fantasise about overcoming pain and hardships in their own right.)
So fantasizing about having a woman’s body is natural. And, logically therefore, fantasing about becoming a woman is natural.
The real question is why don’t men fantasise about being women?
Well, maybe that’s not the real question. But it’s at least as sensible a question as any other about fantasies.
—
When taking the poll, if you can POSSIBLY round yourself off to Blanchard-Bailey or gender identity, please do so. Please do this even if you have major disagreements with the side you are leaning towards. Only use “neither” if you really really really cannot in good conscience round yourself to either.
Protagoras said:
I’m going to speculate that the answer to the question “why don’t men fantasize about being women” is that it has a false presupposition. Some of them certainly do, and the general impression that I get is that it is not at all uncommon. It would be kind of surprising if they didn’t, given how diverse and strange some of the things people fantasize about are, and how obvious that one is. I am uncertain whether the frequency with which men who have no particular discomfort with being men or interest in actually transitioning have fantasies about being women is relevant to the present debate, but I can imagine ways in which it might be.
LikeLiked by 7 people
jossedley said:
I’ve said this before, but a lot of my fantasies are female POV. I don’t have any desire to transition and don’t believe it would make me any happier* – I’m just really turned on by female arousal. That’s my working theory for why cis guys like lesbian porn, FWIW, and I’m kind of surprised that it’s apparently unusual for cis guys.
* As Ozy points out, in a John Vance transhuman world where I was immortal and transition was close to free, trivial and reversible, I’d probably get around to it sooner or later out of curiosity, but I’d see it just a slightly higher priority than “getting a mustache” on my list of things to try out.
LikeLiked by 6 people
tailcalled said:
I suspect there may not actually be that strong a connection between “wants to get genderbent” (which btw seems different from transness, in that it is a common but not very strong feeling) and “gets turned on by the idea of being the opposite sex”.
In particular, some time ago I did a gender survey (see https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/3r9weq/glorious_glorious_data/ ) that Scott Alexander posted on Slate Star Codex, where among other things I asked people about how people would feel about getting genderbent, and whether they had a kink for genderbending. Compare these results:
http://imgur.com/vcXw5NN
(left n = 515, right n = 45, so take the diagram on the right with a grain of salt)
(The question was essentially Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Great Friendly Genderbender, https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/18/typical-mind-and-gender-identity/#comment-98 .)
There isn’t a big obvious difference between the ones who have a genderbending kink versus the ones who don’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tailcalled said:
(To be clear, “No!” = someone who would definitely not accept the GFGB’s offer, “Probably not” = someone who would be willing to try for a bit, but would require the option to change back, “Sure” = someone who thinks they’re fine with it, and “Yes!” = someone who would do it even if the GFGB didn’t have an opinion on what’s best for society. Both of those numbers are actually somewhat low for the “Yes!” case; I usually get ~15% when I do these kinds of surveys.)
LikeLike
tailcalled said:
Uh, my apparently one of my posts above is stuck in the spam filter (probably because of links), so the second comment won’t make sense until the first one is freed.
LikeLike
tailcalled said:
Oh, I just remembered: IIRC the classical Blanchard/Bailey theory states that gender dysphoria develops very slowly from the genderbending kink, so since the survey respondents were very young, they might not be representative if you believe BB.
(I think modern variants disagree with the idea that it develops slowly? Not sure, maybe we’ll find out in the ITT.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
jossedley said:
Whoops -i meant John Vsrley, not Vance!
LikeLike
tailcalled said:
I’ve heard estimates from 5 to 10% of the male population.
LikeLike
Fisher said:
I think it’s a rather false assumption too. In the Farscape episode “Out of their Minds”, (which was written by men back in the 20th century) When John is busted playing with Aeryn’s body (there has been some bod/mind exchanges among the cast, allowing the actors to really bust out their chops) he justifies his actions by saying “C’mon! They’re here! They’re right… here! Guys dream about this sort of thing!”
LikeLike
jossedley said:
I think I mostly get the key differences between the Blanchard-Bailey theory and gender identity theory, but is it clear that proponents of either theory would answer these questions in a particular way?
If people want to take it easy on a muggle like me and are still writing any essays, it would be helpful if you spelled out whether you see any connection between your identification as a BB/GI believer and your answers – thanks!
LikeLiked by 3 people
tcheasdfjkl said:
I think the first two questions are sort of values questions so neither theory really leads to any answer, but for historical/sociological reasons BB proponents will mostly have one answer and GI proponents will mostly have another. (Generally GI proponents have more liberal/identity-based/social-justicey views of gender.)
In this case the author’s opinions on those two questions sort of lean towards those of BB people even though they were writing for GI – but as I said, GI does not preclude these opinions. This makes me think they’re more likely to be genuinely GI, since I think a BB person trying to masquerade as GI would pick the more stereotypical answers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
tcheasdfjkl said:
Side note – I am learning from my regret at not recording my guesses during the previous ITT, and now I am writing this down in a spreadsheet for later scoring!
LikeLike
tailcalled said:
“As a cis woman, my reaction to this question, is, well, why wouldn’t people have sexual fantasies about being a woman? Being a woman is fun!”
Are the submitters allowed to lie in cases like this, or can I assume that this is true regardless of the submitter’s opinion on B/B vs gender identity?
LikeLike
Protagoras said:
Trying to relate it to the point of an ITT, as I understand it, I do not think that there are different categories of lies that are acceptable or not acceptable; if you’re posting about the position that is not yours, I would expect any lies to be acceptable in your effort to describe the sort of viewpoint you think the other side has and describe yourself as the sort of person who would have those views.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tacitus said:
Do most people really agree with giving fake biographical details? Why do you think it should be acceptable?
LikeLike
tcheasdfjkl said:
I don’t think it is or should be against the rules, but IIRC in the previous ITT nobody lied about things like this so perhaps people just don’t do it anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ozymandias said:
There are no rules about it but IME people don’t lie and instead say things in a misleading yet technically true fashion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
jossedley said:
IMHO, there should at least be the possibility of lying about biographical details, otherwise we details might be a tell for authenticity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ozymandias said:
The submitter would like to say the following:
LikeLiked by 3 people
trentzandrewson said:
I have 80% confidence that I can identify the commenter who wrote this, and I’m not actually sure what she would call herself.
Cross-referencing ‘this is the writer’s views’ with ‘writer is a cis woman’ implies Blanchardian, because identitiarian cis women skew more SJ. ‘Identitarian who just never bought into SJ’ is a very possible option, but one that I’d expect from a trans person more than a cis one — cis people in general and cis women in particular with an opinion on this topic skew SJ for identity and gender-critical for typology.
LikeLike
trentzandrewson said:
Also, unrelated:
“We can understand phrases like “a 30 year old with the mind of a 5 year old” ”
I would argue that few to no people understand this phrase, given their tendency to interpret it as ‘full cognitive and behavioural profile of a 5 year old’ rather than ‘probably similar on a cognitive level to a 5 year old, does not have the behaviour or life experience of one’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
erifnoeorignnierniogoiner said:
imo what “a 30 year old with the mind of a 5 year old” means is “a 30 year old some people decided shouldn’t be allowed to have rights”
LikeLiked by 4 people
Aapje said:
Because that person is utterly incapable of making rational decisions.
LikeLike
Tracy W said:
I think in context it was meant to be “we can process this as a possibly valid description of the world” , that there could be someone who is like a 30 year old in some ways and like a 5 year old in others, rather than wrinkling our brows and saying “but hold on that’s impossible, is English your first language? Did you make a typo?”
LikeLike
jossedley said:
I’d argue that they understand it as well as they can, given the challege of extrapolating to other minds.
IMHO, the author is right that in general, boundary cases don’t establish, by themselves, that we shouldn’t have boundaries. Milo Yiannopolous was just ostracized for saying that he himself, as a teen, was mature enough to have relationships with older men. Even if he’s right,* that doesn’t necessarily mean that we should change the consent laws – at most, it means we should take a look to see if the boundary cases are experiencing injustice and if there’s an acceptable way we an address the situation.
* And his subsequent clarifications suggest to me that he was not correct, FWTW.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MugaSofer said:
Interestingly, the survey results so far show both sides wanting to claim OP as their own.
LikeLike
tailcalled said:
The sample size for the Blanchard-Bailey side is too low to mean much, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
trentzandrewson said:
I wonder if the combination of ‘few Blanchardians’ with ‘not-completely-unconvincing-or-bizarre identitarian submissions’ will result in a disproportionate number of Blanchardians passing the test, in that (as seen in the last ITT) someone who doesn’t completely misunderstand their opponent can pass to them unless they have an ultra-outgroup view nobody wants to own up to (e.g. the NRx in the SJ ITT).
LikeLiked by 1 person
tcheasdfjkl said:
@trentzandrewson
I think it’s likely that more Blanchardians will pass the test because that view is sort of a more *specific* view than the identity/dysphoria view, much like more SJ people passed the previous test because “anti-SJ” is much vaguer than “SJ”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
tailcalled said:
I’m starting to think that the questions might focus too little on the meat of the subject that many will pass, even though they “shouldn’t”, if the questions had been more closely related to the subject. (e.g. rather than “what is a man/woman”, how about “what is a trans man/trans woman”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Autolykos said:
Well, the OP is definitely well-argued, so that kind of makes sense.
(I’m going to abstain on this ITT, since literally everything I know about the distinction is via this blog).
LikeLiked by 1 person
1angelette said:
I voted B/B and B/B In the poll. From my point of view, the biggest tell is “On the other hand the claims about them from TERFs are also ridiculous.” Ridiculous how? It’s not explained. Even what terfs think of the cotton ceiling isn’t actually explained. My most coherent explanation for this oversight is that the author actually considers TERF arguments reasonable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kacey Now said:
I wish the poll could have also filtered by gender. I think the whole section “being a woman is fun!” would break any woman’s sarcasm meter — I say this as a trans woman. But I could *imagine* a G/I man, or at least a not-very-versed-in-the-debate-but-G/I-by-cultural-default man, not seeing any irony there and voting G/I & G/I.
Furthermore, “sex should be about positivity and fun,” sounds like a ridiculous misunderstanding of sex positivity, and it’s absurd that a supposed pro-G/I argument doesn’t even mention dysphoria. So I guess I’m firmly in the B/B and G/I camp.
LikeLike
trentzandrewson said:
I think this is a Blanchardian (and am one myself), but those could fit in pretty well with a lot of things I saw espoused during my SJ days and still see now when I hang out with those people. The issue, of course, is that the overlap between ‘people with those views’ and ‘people who give the answers given to #1 and #2’ is a rounding error.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tcheasdfjkl said:
I’m a cis woman and that didn’t “break my sarcasm meter” even though it doesn’t match my own experiences just because my general assumption is that human experience is incredibly diverse and nothing should surprise me.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Tracy W said:
This interested me enough to do some googling on the topic and I quickly found thiso2016 survey on self.com that reported that 14% of women were happy with their bodies , doubling from the figure in the 1992 version. And from the write-up a major source of unhappiness was about weight and fat, not having a woman’s body at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aapje said:
@tcheasdfjkl
As a man, I would expect that substantial numbers of men and women would declare their gender to be awesome, but also that substantial numbers would declare it to not be awesome.
@Tracy W
Your link is actually about body size, not about bodies in general. It doesn’t factor in things like menstruation or other such biological issues. And as you said, people can separate the overall gender experience from their personal gender-related issues.
I think that it is highly plausible that many people who consider their gender awesome or not so, are not referring to body issues and/or only see those as one aspect in their assessment.
LikeLike
jossedley said:
It’s an interesting statement because it contradicts my assumptions as well.
It seems to me that there are some women who enjoy being women, whether from a general positive outlook or false consciousness or just because there are some things about being women that some people enjoy.
I’m not sure if Kacey Now is saying that no woman could think that could believe that any other woman could think that being a woman is fun, or just that those specific examples aren’t ones that any woman might use.
LikeLike
Tracy W said:
@Aapje: the self.com says that 14 percent of women are happy with their bodies, and the major source of dissatisfaction is body size, there’s no mention in there of women being dissatisfied with their bodies because of menstruation or other biological issues.
As for attitudes to menstruation, a 2003 survey (warning: doc at link) found that 71% of women do not enjoy getting their period each month, which implies that 29% of women are at least neutral about getting their period.
You also say: “And as you said, people can separate the overall gender experience from their personal gender-related issues.” I’ve re-read my earlier comment and I can’t see anywhere I said that, nor does it sound like the sort of thing I would say, I thought the evidence was reasonable that our starting point biases what we see, not just for gender but for everything, even if merely by affecting what we choose to look at. Do you have some evidence that people can separate those two things? And if so, do we know how rare this skill is?
Finally, even if many people who consider their gender awesome are doing so for non-body related reasons (and I note that you provide no evidence for this assertion), that’s very different to claiming that no woman enjoys having a woman’s body. After all, most people are right handed, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who claims to be left-handed is lying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aapje said:
@Tracy
They seem to have asked about ‘body image.’ I wouldn’t consider menstruation issues to primarily be a matter of body image, so people apparently simply answered the question and didn’t answer the question that was not asked.
Anyway, I am simply very skeptical that if you ask people whether they are (dis)satisfied with something about them, this means that they necessarily think their gender is not awesome. This suffers from major issues:
– Cherry picking the negative: you have no idea if there are things about their gender that they like way more than the body image issues or other problems are a negative.
– The assumption that any non-positive answer to one question is crucial to their personal experience. Note that you picked the most extreme statistic anyway. 14% may be happy with their bodies, but that doesn’t mean that 100-14= 86% dislike their bodies*. That statistic lumps in those who are neutral with those who dislike it. Presumably, a portion of those who dislike their bodies also have merely a mild dislike, which they may not consider anywhere serious enough to impact their happiness.
– The assumption that their personal experience is the same as their assessment of their gender.
– The assumption that there is a clear definition of ‘awesome.’ If you ask me about my country’s policies in comparison to my ideals, I find it not so awesome. If you ask me about where my country stands in comparison to most other countries, it is quite awesome.
* I’ve seen statistics that 60% of women and 40% of men dislike their bodies. Interestingly, women almost always seem to want to be thinner, while a substantial number of men who are dissatisfied want to be bigger/more muscled.
Many people seem to hold ideals that are larger than themselves and historically, people seem quite able to even love things that are hurting them. In fact, the belief that this happens seems to be a pretty core part of feminism (internalized misogyny/patriarchy backfiring). I think that you are a feminist? So then I assume you are familiar with this.
PS. Sorry for misreading you.
LikeLike
tcheasdfjkl said:
@Aapje
Being unhappy with one’s body for beauty reasons is indeed very not the same thing as being unhappy with one’s body for gender reasons (though there can be overlap), but at the same time in the context of discussing how likely it is for cis women to think having a cis woman’s body is actively awesome, I think the body image thing is really relevant. For me a big part of why I don’t myself find having a cis woman’s body to be wonderful is indeed the body image thing.
LikeLike
Tracy W said:
@Aapje: what I am interested in here is the validity of Kacey’s claim that no women would think that being a woman is fun. I’m not trying to get an accurate picture of the number of women, just set a lower bound. Thus the negative cherry-picking – I am being charitable to Kacey’s position.
On your other points, please don’t take this the wrong way, but I suspect you might be doing what I am always at risk of doing: reading someone’s comment, thinking about it, and while thinking, forgetting the details of what they said, and what you previously said.
For example you say there’s a major issue in the assumption that there’s a clear definition of “awesome”. You yourself introduced the word “awesome”, in place of the word “fun” that the OP, Kacey and myself were using. If it’s that important to have a clear definition of the word ‘awesome’, wouldn’t it make sense for the person who introduced it to define it? This is the second time you’ve attributed an assertion to me that I’ve never made.
Finally, I don’t follow the connection between your previous assertion that “people can separate the overall gender experience from their personal gender-related issues” and your most recent assertion that people may “hold ideals larger than themselves” and are “able to even love things that are hurting them”. Your first assertion struck me as holding a strong form of objectivity to be true. But people can have ideals larger than themselves that are driven by their personal experiences (plausibly Ayn Rand’s philosophy had something to do with her experiences during the Russian Revolution) and there’s nothing objective about love. Eg marathon runners might love marathons even though they are painful, but that doesn’t mean marathon runners are objective about marathon running. This reads to me like you didn’t quite remember what you originally said.
If my suspicions are right, then, well, the only way I’ve found to deal with that sort of subtle forgetting is to habitually reread people’s comments before replying, including my own prior comments, and then edit and reread where necessary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kacey Now said:
The fact that a lot of people who share a belief don’t have the best arguments supporting that belief isn’t, in and of itself, a good argument against the belief. I feel I have a high degree of familiarity with this conflict because TERF and B&B type arguments arguably delayed my transition by a decade or more — and my guess is anyone with a similar, tested level of commitment to the G/I perspective would also see some of the trans-exclusionary hobby horses shining through in this article. I guess what I’m saying is I’m disappointed to see so many G/I & G/I votes, and wish I could get a better breakdown of those.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ADifferentAnonymous said:
I hope we can drum up more than fourteen BB-leaning voters.
Should someone in communication with BB parts of the internet be promoting there, or something?
LikeLiked by 3 people
trentzandrewson said:
I have discussed this ITT extensively on 4chan’s /lgbt/, which I suppose mostly counts as ‘Blanchardian-leaning’ (half of which is my fault, in that I saw everyone talking about AGP and being Wrong and I tried to correct them but they’re still Wrong they just talk about HSTS too while being Wrong), but most of what happened is that one anon apparently has something personally against Ozy and derails all the threads complaining about them. Also, given both the responses published so far are radfems and the /lgbt/ hivemind does not like radfems, I’m not sure how that would go.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ozymandias said:
I continue to be puzzled by the concept of people having things personally against me.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pingback: Intellectual Turing Test Results | Thing of Things