Tags
Confused about what an Intellectual Turing Test is? Click here! Please read, then vote at the end of the post.
How do you define woman/man?
The source of gender identity is the mind. Neuroscience doesn’t to my knowledge have the ability yet to explain this fully, but it looks like some combination of brain structure, hormonal environment, and other brain chemical environment causes a brain to perceive itself as being a woman or a man. Most of the time this lines up with chromosomal sex and primary and secondary sexual characteristics but not always, so there is no way to know from the outside whether a person is a woman or a man. So being a woman or a man (or some other kind of person) is defined only by the person themselves.
In practice, whether someone is a woman, a man, or neither is not very useful information about what they are like as a person. Most of the time I don’t see a point in defining “woman” or “man” in either direction. By that I mean that considering a person and deciding that they are a woman or a man based on appearances doesn’t give me new information, and also that learning that someone is a woman or a man (or neither) doesn’t have much in the way of predictive value. So it’s easier to leave these terms pretty much undefined except in the case where someone wants to define themselves in those terms.
What are your opinions on the cotton ceiling?
Trans-exclusionary radical feminist lesbians believe that having male genitalia, being assigned male at birth, and being raised socially as a boy make a person fundamentally a man in a way that cannot be changed. So they might be polite to trans women and claim not to be transphobic – but they still don’t think trans women are “real” women and they won’t even consider having sex with them. This is bigoted and transphobic, or at least is a result of years of being acculturated into a bigoted and transphobic society, which teaches all of us that trans bodies are not desirable and that trans people are not suitable life partners.
Of course all people have a right to choose which sex partners they do or don’t want, consent is critical, and nobody should ever try to bully others into having sex with them. But even so, if lesbians were to try harder to reject the transphobia instilled in them by the patriarchy and become philosophically open to having sex with trans women (instead of insisting on defining people by their genitals) their lives would on the whole likely be improved by this openness.
Why are trans women disproportionately likely to be programmers?
I don’t think this is known. But because the source of gender identity is in the mind, it seems likely and uncontroversial to hypothesize that people who have bodies that are assigned male at birth but the mind of a woman tend to be unusual, tend to be unusual in a way that is similar to each other, and that this particularity of mind makes programming or similar tasks more congenial than these tasks are to the rest of people.
The other possibility that presents itself to me is that most careers involve a lot of interpersonal contact with strangers and coworkers. For most people, even most introverts, this is no big deal. But for people whose gender identity is different from their outward appearance, interacting with people all day and at best being constantly misgendered (while at worst being actively harassed) is liable to be deeply personally painful and difficult. Programming and other IT-related jobs pay a decent wage and are reasonably stable, but usually allow a minimum of in-person or over-the-phone contact with strangers.
Why do many trans women experience sexual fantasies about being or becoming a woman?
They are women. The biggest sex organ for any person is the brain, and fantasies about sex are an important part of sexuality for any person. People whose bodies and partners match their gender identity and sexual orientation may have sexual fantasies about themselves as themselves and this is totally unremarkable. And indeed it should be unremarkable that a woman would have a sexual fantasy about herself being a woman even if her body does not look at that moment like the body most people expect a woman to have.
In addition to this, women are known to have a much more fluid sexuality than men and to be sexually interested by and fantasize about a wide variety of sometimes surprising topics. It shouldn’t be surprising for women of any description to have sexual fantasies that include her body being different than its current state in any particular way – if they want to, women can have sexual fantasies about themselves as men, as dolphins, as robots, whatever. I’m not entirely sure why this finding (that trans women experience sexual fantasies about being women) even needs an explanation.
—
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.
It’s kind of unfair for me to vote that this is fake, because I’m pretty sure lots of people do believe exactly this, and this does a good job explaining the strongest version of the GI claim. But in practice I’ve noticed that BB proponents often argue as though everyone who disagrees with them believes this precise thing, even when that’s not the case, and on the other hand I think many GI proponents who are likely to participate in this have somewhat more nuanced views. So voting fake, though not a bad one.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yeah, I’m not voting, but it struck me as too direct a summary of the GI side. Pretty much every essay starts out with: “Since gender is determined by mental state . . .”
It’s definitely possible that someone thinks that way, but it’s so to-the-point that it kind of reads like someone summarizing the other side’s argument.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is pretty much exactly what past!me would’ve argued, so I know it’s possible for people to believe this honestly. OTOH, since I’m now rounding myself off to BB (though maybe I shouldn’t, according to Ozy’s definitions of the sides), this might indicate that people who interpret the GI position in this way are predisposed to BB. I dunno. I’m guessing Gender Identity…
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think fake. The answer to “Why do many trans women experience sexual fantasies about being or becoming a woman?” is either a GI person who hasn’t been exposed to BB (and doesn’t realise that the question is asking about trans women fantasising about having female genitals, not just imagining themselves with female genitals in their fantasies), or a BB person who can’t model a sophisticated GI person. I think the latter is more likely.
LikeLike
I voted ‘this is an identitarian and I’m a Blanchardian’ and was stunned to see every other voter had the exact opposite, especially given as, much like tailcalled, this is exactly what I would have argued in my early-to-mid teens. (Though, uh, I don’t think I realized AGP existed at all in my early-to-mid teens. I thought the issue people had with Blanchardianism was ‘he’s saying we’re fetishists when we’re not’ as opposed to ‘he’s saying we’re fetishists when we’re more than that’.)
I see exactly this argued about five times a day from a great political variety of people anywhere where trans women congregate, so I can easily accept this as true.
I’ve been keeping a spreadsheet, but I’ll start adding my answers for posterity:
GI #1: Blanchard
GI #2: Blanchard
GI #3: Identity
LikeLike
There’s no individual distinctiveness or personality. It’s too precisely “this is what everyone would expect a GI person to say” to really sound like a GI person.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is pretty much exactly what I believe … but it just feels too perfect.
Even though I agree with every statement made, I know that if I’d written an entry, it would have included some original arguments (even if they didn’t land properly.)
Still, I’m impressed by the author.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The specific views aren’t implausible, sure, but the *way * it’s written feels really… Off. Kind of robotic and stiff. It doesn’t feel like somebody expressing views they believe in; it feels like somebody trying to summarize something they heard about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have to wonder what life experiences someone must have had to come up with this. A concept that exists across the whole physical and temporal distribution of humanity might… just might… be useful in some way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have probably met more people who have that viewpoint than who don’t, especially if you interpret it more widely as ‘there are no psychological gender differences’ rather than ‘someone’s claimed gender implies absolutely nothing about them in any way’.
(I no longer subscribe to either of those.)
LikeLike
I actually agree with that statement. Even though I *do* believe there are psychological gender differences. Because those are trends that are true on average of the groups men and women, but there is enough overlap and there are enough things that are independent of gender that on the level of the individual, it’s not very useful information.
This is particularly true in that I would interpret ‘what they are like as a person’ to be about personality, interests and so on, rather than life experiences, which are much more affected by gender but have unpredictable effects on what someone is like as a person.
Anyway as to the OP I voted fake, but the caveat is this: I don’t think it’s unbelievable as the views of a random gender-identity-believing person. I just don’t buy an Ozy’s-blog-reading GI person not being more nuanced about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Either we have someone who actually believe in the cotton ceiling, or a fake. So far I had never seen anyone make a cotton ceiling argument, that wasn’t being reblogged by a radfem and/or TERF countering it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you find it so truly implausible that people sincerely believe in the cotton ceiling? In the immorality of a genital preference? Are radical feminists in your mind tilting at windmills and reblogging posts from five years ago? Such innocuous blogs as ndgirlfriends are plastered with “but not twefs”. Like this isn’t made up or out of date.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m an undecided on BB/GI, but I have an opinion on Cotton Ceiling, and believe it’s a thing, although I don’t know how widespread. (Certainly including at least several bloggers on each side!): Apologies for any terms I get wrong!
1) IIUC, the origin of the issue was when a lesbian porn actress backed out on a shoot with a trans woman actress upon learning that she had a penis. After that, there was a trans women only workshop where the “cotton ceiling” term was coined to discuss how to address some of the issues, and from there, there is sporadic blogging by people on one side or the other. Everybody who is getting angry on either side could probably do some good by stepping back, identifying common ground, and then working on the remaining issues constructively.
2) IMHO,
a) It’s understandable that trans women would have an interest in more people seeing them as viable sexual/romantic partners. I don’t see that as any different from high body fat people, short people, the disabled, whatever, discussing “can we work to change norms so more people see us as viable romantic partners.”
b) It’s understandable that people, particularly GLB, etc, would be sensitive to someone telling them who they are supposed to be attracted to. I have lesbian friends who are still smarting from when they came out and their parents tried to talk them into dating guys. (This includes the ones who decided ultimately to include guys in their romantic menu, maybe most so).
c) There is a “TERF” complaint that I’m not qualified to judge, which is that certain specific trans women are oppressive or harassing in a way extremely similar to men. I don’t know if that’s a valid complaint, and I don’t know if there is a less hurtful way to put it. (As a cis dude who identified as ASJ in the last ITT, it seems to me that it’s a byproduct of trying to put people in buckets and decide that this group can be rounded up to “oppressor/privileged” and this group can be rounded up to “oppressed,” but as I said, I’m not really qualified in this area.)
d) With that said, it seems like there is a large area of compromise people could work on, and it would be better to put areas of possible agreement at the front of the discussion.
i) It’s not OK to ask any specific person to change their romantic drive.
ii) But it’s OK to ask in general that people privately consider whether they could change.
iii) And people should think about whether they can express themselves less hurtfully. Cis dudes have mostly given up “trap,” and years ago, Dan Savage led a campaign to get “no femmes” and “straight appearing” out of gay personal ads. So I think most people agree that you shouldn’t deny women who date trans women the right to identify as lesbian, and I don’t know what the non-harmful way would be to address this in personals, but I guess there should be some discussion.
iv) If trans women (or cis lesbians!) want to have a workshop to discuss whether this is an issue, I can’t see a problem, unless their solution involves hate or violence or something.
e) That leaves the problem areas.
i) Assuming that there are some cis lesbians who will date cis women and trans men, but not trans women, I’m sure that’s hurtful, but I’m not sure if there’s a solution, especially short term. Ideally, honest discussion would leave us all more aware where the other people are coming from.
ii) As I said, I don’t know what to make of the argument that some trans women relate to cis lesbians in ways that are harmful and similar to cis men. It seems possible, but again, is there a way to have the discussion that’s not so loaded?
LikeLiked by 5 people
I agree 100% with all of that. May I repost this elsewhere? (to the subreddit /r/GCdebatesQT)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yikes – they’re not kidding that that subreddit is not a safe space . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
@tailcalled. Absolutely, thanks for asking.
LikeLike
Pingback: Intellectual Turing Test Results | Thing of Things