My very first post was questioning the consistency of the statement, "It's harmful to tell people they're wrong". You pointed out that they might not be wrong, and when I asked you to define how they might not be wrong, you say I'm bringing up old arguments and that we won't agree. Go figure.

If you can't answer that one, then start by answering the other questions I first started with in this thread and the others I posed to you in the post you cherry-picked. You're being intellectually dishonest.

Saying, "We're never going to agree." shows how close-minded you are. You can't be swayed with evidence and logic. I am allowing you to sway me by asking you a question that could either make or break my point. Have you ever asked that question of yourself, and if so what was the answer?

How am I being inconsistent? I'm simply saying that "it's true" isn't a good defence against the accusation that what you're saying is violent. I have no interest in debating whether or not transwomen are women.

Somewhere around here, the rubber hits the road.

If you look at the picture, you may want to call this person a lady or a gentleman, and you may have an argument to make. But if you lock this sort of offender in what we traditionally call a male prison, you can expect certain consequences that will not be beneficial to the person concerned. Seemingly the blindness of justice does not prevent it from coping a feel and making a decision, but the feel coped must have been confined to the groin region.

'This is a man - fact.' really doesn't 'do justice' to the situation does it? Not according to the other male prisoners, anyway.

Men get raped in prison regardless of whether or not they look like women, so I really don't see the relevance.

The article says that "she was placed in an atmosphere that was “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive”. Hmmm, sounds like the standard experience of anyone being in prison.

Men get raped in prison regardless of whether or not they look like women, so I really don't see the relevance. — JustSomeGuy

A man can look like a woman. How can that be? Only because the 'definitive attributes' are made invisible. So what you don't see is highly relevant by your own definition of maleness.

Hmmm, sounds like the standard experience of anyone being in prison. — Bitter Crank

I don't suspect that this person had "the standard experience of anyone being in prison". Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Not all men get raped in prison, but rather the more effeminate men. So what shall we say, that the essence of masculinity is to rape, and the essence of effeminacy is to be raped? But this is a radical move from the groin equipment definition.

To the question in the OP I'd have to say no. I think broadening definitions has created a lot of problems regarding social issues. Words like rape, sexual harassment, triggered, Nazi, etc., are used by many in such a broad sense that their meanings are diluted and muddy. I understand the desire by those supporting the trans movement to use words that they feel adequately convey the hardships trans people face, but there are plenty of other words that can do the job without resulting in as much equivocation.

As to whether being trans is a mental illness, I think the question needs to be framed around harm and outcomes. If there is no treatment for trans people that helps them identify as their apparent biological sex and transitioning results in better health outcomes, that would seem to be the way forward.

Also, if there is a biological basis for being trans, that would make it less subjective and dispel other ideas such as transracialism.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? — unenlightened

Imprisonment is intended to be “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive”. EDIT: and rape isn't a requirement for prison to meet that description. Perhaps your experience wasn't that way, but it squares with many people's experience. So... who is being obtuse? BTW, I don't think it should be very very bad; it just is, in many countries.

So... who is being obtuse? — Bitter Crank

You are.

I don't think so, unenlightened.

What is it about the various county, state, federal, or provincial prisons that isn't intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive? So, I'm sure the big, well muscled type A personality might do OK in a prison where the inmates have the upper hand. He would do the intimidating, humiliating acts in a hostile, degrading way. The not-so-well muscled, heterosexual, not-so-A-type personality are not going to fare so well, never mind the effeminate gay guy. Then there are the prisons where the guards have the upper hand which is what many assume always goes on in prison, except that it's not. Guards can provide the intimidating, humiliating conditions in a hostile degrading way, even better.

Some inmates who are very vulnerable (like the slight, effeminate gay guy or transsexual) often end up in "protective custody" which is fairly often indistinguishable from solitary confinement.

I'll grant that not everyone comes out of prison with the maximally negative possible experience.

Of course the social role of "white" exists; and "black" and "gay" and all others. Stereotypes and social roles exist because we are not all one big cultural frappe, the same everywhere. Cultural groups are just unique enough to be noticeable. So, what is the "white" social role? Among other things, it's a distinctive kind of language (depending on geography); it's certain kinds of food and clothing preferences; it's a way of relating to institutions (like the police or government officials) that is a bit different than other people's; it's a generally practiced style of self-presentation. Han Chinese, Nigerians, Argentinians, Ugandans, Indonesians, Zimbabweans, Russians, Peruvians, French, Italians, Swedish, Canadians... pick a group, any group, and there will be a certain style of "XYZ" culture which will be unique to a particular time and place. — Bitter Crank

Cultures and sub-cultures are not social roles.

Social roles are things like teacher, student, client, consumer, boss, leader, citizen, suspect, elite, man, woman, intellectual, mother, father, etc., etc.

Some people with certain characteristics might be more likely to end up in certain roles, such as African-Americans in the role of suspect, and be likely to have to play the role differently, such as not being believed, having deadly force used against you, etc., but that does not make those characteristics a role.

I think maybe what WfPOMO might be saying is that there is arguably a male role that is derived from some set of rationally justifiable beliefs about being male, — Pseudonym

The point I tried to make is that race is not biological and is socially constructed from arbitrary traits while sex--male and female--is purely biological and the things it is based on, such as uteruses and testicles, are not traits (just like kidneys are not a trait) and are not arbitrary.

I think maybe what WfPOMO might be saying is that there is arguably a male role that is derived from some set of rationally justifiable beliefs about being male, whereas the 'white' role is only stereotypes, nothing more than the pursuit of power evident in all humanity which, means that, by virtue of historical power plays alone, whites have largely adopted expressions of power where they can. Nothing about being 'white' directly caused them to do this. — Pseudonym

No.

I juxtaposed sex, a biological fact, and gender, a role a person plays. Nothing more, nothing less.

Somebody then suggested that races--white, black, Native American, etc.--are roles just like man and woman are roles, and I showed how that is false. Nothing more, nothing less.

A 'male' role is arguably, not a role a woman would adopt even if they could. According to the logic behind it, its largely to do with greater average physical strength and the inability to suckle children. So, the theory goes, women would not adopt the typical male roles because they are not, on average, stronger, and they can suckle children. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this argument (although I have a great deal of sympathy for it), I'm just saying there is one.

With race, however, whilst a few extreme racists exist who have ideas about racial differences leading to behavioural differences, most people who exhibit 'white' stereotypes do so by virtue of the historical context alone, meaning that had history taken a different route, blacks would have adopted this role instead.

So the argument is, nothing about their 'whiteness' causes them directly to adopt this role, whereas something about a man's 'male-ness' causes him to adopt the roles he does. — Pseudonym

I did not say any of that.

I simply said that a post-racial society sounds plausible while a post-gender society does not, and that transgender people might therefore be better served by a focus on how we are all the same rather than a focus on their struggle with gender.

In other words, if gender could be dissolved then that could liberate transgender people from their struggles. But the dissolution of gender seems highly unlikely to happen anytime soon, therefore resources available for helping transgender people are not well spent doing things like attacking gender by saying calling somebody a "man" is violence.

I never said it was, you did--that's been my point this whole time. — JustSomeGuy

No, I never said that living up to a stereotype is acting in a role.

I never said anything about stereotypes. Somebody else brought up stereotypes.

You are attacking your own straw men.

You listed some stereotypes, claiming that doing them would mean you are "acting in the role of man". — JustSomeGuy

No I did not.

I listed acts that are performed, such as opening doors for women.

These "roles" you speak of are just stereotypes. — JustSomeGuy

No they are not.

They are acts that are part of a script called genders.

Stereotypes are things like blondes being dumb, white/caucasian athletes being slow, nerds/geeks being inept at mating, etc.

According to you, I am not a man because I don't do these stereotypical "male" things. — JustSomeGuy

Straw man.

I did not say anything about stereotypes. I did not say that anything is stereotypical of anybody.

I said that "white" is not a role like "man" is. Somebody assigned the role of "man" can do a good or bad acting job, but there is no acting job to be done with "white", I said.

And yet despite not doing any of them, I am a man. It's almost as if being a man means nothing more than having a Y chromosome, just as being white means nothing more than having a certain skin tone....anything beyond that is a stereotype. — JustSomeGuy

Male and female are biological facts. Man and woman are not. A lot of theory in the social sciences calls the latter genders.

Social roles are assigned to genders, not sexes. Nobody says, "Be a male!" or "Male up!". People do say, " Be a man! " and "Man up!". Nobody says, "My daughter grew up to be a great female. I'm so proud of her". People do say, "My daughter grew up to be a great woman. I'm so proud of her".

Gender is not set in stone. The act that must be performed--the script that must be followed--in the roles of man and woman varies temporally and spatially. It used to be that being a woman meant being skilled in making and keeping the perfect home. But now in a lot of places not knowing how to prepare meals from scratch does not mean failing at being a woman. Now, it seems, not exerting power means failing at being a woman--"Lean in" is the way to be a woman now, it seems.

The point is that "white" is not in the same category as man, teacher, consumer, leader, mother, etc. "White" is not a role to be played. There is no script--no opening doors for women, or anything like it--to be followed acting in a social role called "white".

None of your responses to me address any of this. They have filled a field with straw men.

Somebody then suggested that races--white, black, Native American, etc.--are roles just like man and woman are roles, and I showed how that is false. Nothing more, nothing less. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You haven't shown anything. You have provided zero evidence for your claim other than "because I say so".

I'd also like to make clear that my claim was that gender roles are based on stereotypes--no different than racial roles/stereotypes--and you have yet to show why gender stereotypes are different from racial stereotypes in any significant way, which was your original claim.

The point I tried to make is that race is not biological — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If race is not biological, why are children born the same race as their parents? How can we find our racial ancestry by looking at our DNA? How can forensic scientists tell what race a person is based on their blood?

The fact that you won't acknowledge that the "acts" you listed are stereotypes does not mean I created a straw man. I think you're being intellectually dishonest in an attempt to avoid facing the problem with what you originally claimed.

You have provided zero evidence for your claim other than "because I say so". — JustSomeGuy

I asked for evidence of a social role called "white". How do I know when I am failing at being a "white", I asked. Who would be a good role model for being a "white", I asked.

The responses were evidence of stereotypes, cultures and sub-cultures, not any evidence of a social role.

If there is a social role called "white", ample opportunity to show evidence of it has been given.

I'd also like to make clear that my claim was that gender roles are based on stereotypes--no different than racial roles/stereotypes — JustSomeGuy

I have made clear that I believe that conflating stereotypes and social roles is a fallacy.

And I have made clear my view that race is a social construct. Therefore, even if social roles are based on stereotypes derived from biology, there are no such stereotypes to build a "white" social role with--there are no biological races in homo sapiens sapiens.

and you have yet to show why gender stereotypes are different from racial stereotypes in any significant way, which was your original claim. — JustSomeGuy

Straw man.

I never said anything about stereotypes.

If race is not biological, why are children born the same race as their parents? How can we find our racial ancestry by looking at our DNA? How can forensic scientists tell what race a person is based on their blood? — JustSomeGuy

Again, race is socially/culturally constructed based on arbitrary characteristics.

Biological races do not exist in the species homo sapiens sapiens.

Biological sexes do exist. Nobody, as far as I know, arbitrarily picked uteruses to create categories called sexes. But that is exactly the origin of race--some arbitrary characteristic, skin color, was chosen to be used to place people in fictional categories. It did not have to be skin color. It could have been hanging ear lobes, stature 6' or greater, or belly stars. Either way, I guess "you can't teach a sneetch".

I have made clear that I believe that conflating stereotypes and social roles is a fallacy. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, and as I said that is absolutely all you have made clear: that you believe it. You have presented zero support for this belief of yours.

Again, race is socially/culturally constructed based on arbitrary characteristics. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Racial classification is not based on arbitrary characteristics; it's based on biological clustering of physiological traits within geographic populations. You apparently have a very poor understanding of what race actually is.

The fact that you won't acknowledge that the "acts" you listed are stereotypes does not mean I created a straw man. — JustSomeGuy

There is nothing to acknowledge about stereotypes.

People here are insisting that stereotypes are derived from biology.

Gender is not biology. Man and woman are not biology. Male and female are biology.

If gender is not biology, and if stereotypes are derived from biology, then stereotypes do not apply to gender.

Gender is not a trait. It is a role. Just like consumer, citizen, boss, worker, husband, mother, suspect, leader, intellectual, guru, pundit, etc. are roles. Roles are things that are performed.

Stereotypes are not performed. That is further evidence that stereotypes and social roles cannot logically be conflated.

Racial classification is...based on biological clustering of physiological traits within geographic populations. — JustSomeGuy

And it is completely culturally constructed and corresponds to no known biological reality.

And it is completely culturally constructed and corresponds to no known biological reality. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Gender is not biology. Man and woman are not biology. Male and female are biology. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What is your stake in the view that "race is culturally constructed" and that "gender is culturally constructed"?

Some people take this view as a strategy to free people from supposing that black youth are "naturally more violent" than white youth, or that "blacks have natural rhythm", rather than recognizing that "negroid people" came from Africa, and that whites with blond hair and blue eyes come from Northern Europe, and that Asians generally do not look like either Africans or Europeans.

There is a simpler (and I think a more truthful) way of de-linking race and culture: Race is real and isn't determined by culture; it's inherent in the genetic makeup of a person. Culture is also real, and is learned. There isn't a genetic link between race and culture. There are links of learning and environment, however, between race and culture. People tend to behave like those around them--that's cultural.

Maleness and femaleness are real and are biologically determined. Men are males, women are females. Both males or men, females or women, have certain sex-linked characteristics and traits, and both males or men and females or women learn an array of culturally specific roles in connection with their sex and gender.

All humans inherit tendencies to behave in various ways, and also learn behaviors in early life. Some of the behaviors are "stereotypes", a term applied to specific types of individuals or certain ways of behaving intended to represent the entire group of those individuals or behaviors as a whole. So, girls playing with dolls and boys with trucks are "stereotypes".

A "role" is culturally defined manner of behaving. "The stereotypical male role in a family is to provide financial support and leadership." A "role" may also be biological. The male "role" in reproduction is inseminating females. The female "role" in reproduction is bearing off-spring. The male may play the role of "family defender" because biologically he is bigger and stronger than the female (usually). The male may also play the role of care-giver, which is a role usually assigned in stereotypical fashion to females.

It's just an inconvenient fact of life that roles, stereotypes, biology, and culture are braided together. With some effort the specifics can be teased apart. We struggle to do this all the time. "Was so-and-so born with high intelligence (genes, biology, prenatal environment, etc.) or is so-and-so very successful as a result of obsessively hard work? Or in joke form, "If you're so smart, how come you are not rich?"

No.

I juxtaposed sex, a biological fact, and gender, a role a person plays. Nothing more, nothing less.

Somebody then suggested that races--white, black, Native American, etc.--are roles just like man and woman are roles, and I showed how that is false. Nothing more, nothing less. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Oh, well in that case I apologise for misrepresenting your argument. I thought you might have some logical point to make that had not been properly understood, but you are, in fact, as completely wrong as JSG has outlined.

In what way is the selection of reproductive organs to define two sets of people not arbitrary, but the selection of skin colour (and connected racial genetics) is arbitrary? As far as I can see they are both just biological features of the body. It's true we might have divided society by height, or earlobe size, but those features have always been mixed so there's no historical reason to. We divided people on the basis of sex because their roles are forcibly different in at least one aspect (men cannot bear children). We have, in the past, divided the population along the lines of race because it signified a different cultural origin and so a potentially different set of behaviours. We have never had any reason to divide society by height, or ear lobes, so we never have.

So, to the extent that the roles for 'man' and 'woman' derive from biological features, they remain relevant to society. Like any role, personal autonomy should be paramount and if a man wants to adopt a woman's role, or vice versa, there should be no barrier to them doing so, but neither would it be honest to say the roles are entirely cultural.

The roles assigned to race, on the other hand derived from the historical fact that race was a signifier of cultural origin. Not only is this no longer true, but the roles related to that cultural origin never derived from any causally linked aspect of that culture.

I agree with you, therefore, that a post-racial culture is possible (indeed probable), whereas a post-gender culture is not, but not, it seems, for the same reasons.

How am I being inconsistent? I'm simply saying that "it's true" isn't a good defence against the accusation that what you're saying is violent. I have no interest in debating whether or not transwomen are women. — Michael

That's not all I'm saying. You're being purposely obtuse.

I have made the point, several times, that NOT saying something can be just as violent. By reinforcing someone's delusions can be just as harmful. Reinforcing somone's ignorance is just as harmful and can lead to death, like in the case of obesity and anorexia. The fact that I have to reiterate this, when it's all in my posts, most of which are direct replies to you, just means that you are ignoring a key point because you don't have a defense against it.

You also don't want to "debate" whether or not transwomen are women because you know it is fundamental root of the problem that you have. If transwomen are women, then are all women transwomen? What is the difference? Where is your logic? It is non-existent. All you do is keep going in circles because you lack a defense altogether.

This was my original post:

Your post suggests that 1) transwomen are men and that 2) it isn't violence to tell the truth. We're probably never going to agree about 1), so let's address 2):

Is telling a fat and ugly person that they're fat and ugly a form of violence? If we accept that the term "violence" covers psychological violence, and not just physical violence, then I think it is a form of violence. It's certainly something people say to bully.

All I am trying to say is that "it's true" isn't a defense against the accusation of violence.

All I am trying to say is that "it's true" isn't a defense against the accusation of violence. — Michael

:-} And I'm saying is that NOT telling them it's true isn't a defense against the accusation of violence.

I haven't claimed it is.

Of course you have - by saying it is harmful to tell them the truth (something you haven't denied because you fail to explain the difference in your categories, so your also making a category error.), you imply that it isn't harmful to lie to them, or at least to allow them to maintain their delusion which is killing them.

Of course you have - by saying it is harmful to tell them the truth — Harry Hindu

I haven't said that.

Then you haven't actually said anything useful. I can see you aren't interested in getting at the truth. You are only interested in being obtuse. Ignorant.

I'm not being obtuse. You're just reading claims into my posts that I'm not making. All I am saying is that it is incorrect to claim that because what you're saying is true it isn't violence.

and, as I keep pointing out, but you fail to notice (because you're being obtuse), is that it is more harmful to not speak the truth, or to lie (perpetuate ignorance).