It appears that way because the group of sex essentialists (@Swan @Bitter Crank, @Terrapin Station and @Artemis) haven't realised the terms of identification. Trans people are not non-conforming because they fail to meet a standard required to be a sex or gender. They are non-conforming because their identity breaks with what's expected of them by a social expectation.

One does not, for example, need a penis to be male. Or a vagina to be female. Like wearing long hair , dresses or enjoying sports, to have a penis or a vagina is just a another property of a person. Identity is a distinct fact from these properties. Some women have a vagina. Some women have a penis.

In a world where identity is properly understood, trans people would not be trans. Not because they wouldn't have an identity, body or dysphoria, but rather because whatever manifestation of those three they had, it would not break identity rules for them to be trans. The prominent trans woman of imagination would just be a woman, with a penis and dysphoria about her body. She would not to trans in the sense of violating an identity expectation. A woman with a penis, who senses her body with a vagina, would be just as much expected of a woman as having a vagina and feeling it belongs.

Missing the forest for the trees. The social expectations and myths to change ones body do not vanish in a world which properly recognises and is inclusive sex and gender. Alteration of bodies is, in the end, a question of bodies. Social forces manipulating people to that end can still function perfectly well in that space. Body ideals, presented as irresistible, can occur perfectly well in themselves. A lot of the already do. The six packed men and thin woman plastered over advertising, for example, don't always come with a specific reference to gender (i.e. "Women must be this", "Man must be this" ), but instead are shown and imply the value of the body (whatever sex or gender it might be).

We are dropping the ball if we think dissatisfaction with bodies is merely a question of whether if someone with certain properties can belong to sex or gender. A paradise inclusive of sex and gender (in the sense of recognising both are identities in themselves, not given by any particular property or another) does not amount to overcoming dissatisfaction with bodies and social expectations surrounding it.

IME trans people only accidentally sound like they are employing gender essentialism because of the conflation of gender with what I have dubbed “bearing”. — Pfhorrest

But then you not only reinforce the received, mythical psycho-sexual essences called genders and orientations, you invent some more and call them bearings. This is more essentialism not less. You aren't questioning the abstraction of masculinity and femininity (and all their specious, arbitrary and culture-specific associations) from biologically male and female at all. You are reinforcing it by proposing to measure or survey people according to, for example, their

feelings at the thought of being more feminine, — Pfhorrest

... i.e. of having a different sexual essence, no?

That's just having an identity. There is no specific set of properties which amount to being more feminine or not.

Anyone with a sex or gender is in this position. The cis man with a penis who thinks "I'm male" has the same sort significance and feeling of belonging. (it's also true of anyone without a sex and gender, since they will have a thought and sense of belonging to "no sex and gender." )

feelings at the thought of being more feminine,
— Pfhorrest

... i.e. of having a different sexual essence, no? — bongo fury

That's just having an identity. There is no specific set of properties which amount to being more feminine or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You should probably take that up with the OP, as the whole sentence is,

But I get good feelings at the thought of being more feminine, just physically, not talking about anything social yet. — Pfhorrest

Willow, I think the only semblance of common ground among everyone (else) here is acceptance of biological sex as an unproblematic (though complex) biological classification.

If you were at least on that ground (but I fear not), then I could read your comment,

There is no specific set of properties which amount to being more feminine or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

as a critique of essentialism about sex. Would that be appropriate?

In a world where identity is properly understood, — TheWillowOfDarkness

Grateful for a brief outline.

I know that, which is why the fact I don't accept the essentialism of biological sex (by this I mean the idea that someone's anatomical properties make them masculine of feminine) is integral to the point I was making.

My point is not only the properties of gender roles like long hair, wearing dresses,etc. which are essentialist, but also the anatomical properties which are supposed to define sex. Why does one need a penis to be male? Why does one need a vagina to be female? If identity of male and female is indeed non-essentialist, then it should be possible for someone of any body to have an identity of male or female. Even in terms of se, the category of male and female cannot be reduced to a property of body .
The identity of male and female, even in sex, is only given by the identity itself. One can only be male or female, whatever their anatomy, by the fact of having the identity itself. There is no set of properties which makes anyone male or female.

So when Pfhorrest asserts a feminine identity, it's not on the basis of having certain properties which must make them feminine. No essential properties are granting feminine identity. There are no such properties!

Rather, the feminine identity is given in terms of itself.

That's to say, Pfhorrest has a property of feminine identity which is present entirely on its own terms. Not a feature granted by having some set of properties which make one feminine, but to exist with a fact of feminine identity itself.

Just as a cis man with a penis exists with a male identity itself and thinks the concept of man is of him, Pfhorrest exists with a feminine identity and thinks of the concept of woman of her/them/he (I do not know Pfhorrest's pronouns. Normally, I would just use "they" when I don't know pronouns, but I'll put a range here just to make a point about the self-definition of identity).

Just a bunch of made up backwards anti-realist junk science with low philosophical merit. Best to leave, imo.

In a world where identity is properly understood — TheWillowOfDarkness

Jordan Peterson claims that the term of identity should not be overused; he insists that the gender identities under the question should have been constructed through the continuous and long-term of social construction:
“To refuse to engage in the social aspect of identity negotiation — to insist that what you say you are is what everyone must accept — is simply to confuse yourself and everyone else (as no one at all understands the rules of your game, not least because they have not yet been formulated).
The continually expanded plethora of “identities” recently constructed and provided with legal status thus consist of empty terms which (1) do not provide those who claim them with any real social role or direction; (2) confuse all who must deal with the narcissism of the claimant, as the only rule that can exist in the absence of painstakingly, voluntarily and mutually negotiated social role is “it’s morally wrong to say or do anything that hurts my feelings”; (3) risks generating psychological chaos among the vast majority of individuals exposed to the doctrines that insist that identity is essentially fluid and self-generating”.
One could reject Peterson’s arguments as too reactionary and obstructionistic, neglecting the essential rights of the oppressed group. Or, maybe he simply
cannot catch up with our fast-changing time?

Just the opposite, which I covered in the other gender thread:

Sure we categorize the world with words. Sex is an anatomical category, not a social identity. "Sex" refers to those differences of anatomy and their related functions and behaviors that exist in 99.9% organisms of all species that use sex to procreate.

"Man"/"Woman" are terms that refer to differences in species and not just sex. — Harry Hindu

Sex has in mind something more tham just difference in anatomy.

When we use sex, we are not dedicated to identifying anatomical parts. We are interested in identifying which people are male and which people are female. It’s why we don’t just point out an anatomical difference by describing their are different anatomical parts. It’s a self-defined identity. Rather than just describing what bodies people have, it’s an attempt to capture our bodies under specific conceptual meanings. Sex is a categorisation of who takes on an identity of male or female.

You’re right this is an attempt to identify a different species. Species is the same kind of category. If I assert an entity is a certain species, and so must have certain set of anatomical parts, I am making the same sort of argument defining a conceptual identity.

But it’s species which is the illusion (an antiscientific) here. For rather than taking anatomy and people on their own terms, describing bodies in terms of what states occur and are observed an each entity, species attempts to define existing bodies and entities through only our conceptual idea of which anatomy can belong to them on account of identity. The account it’s giving is working backwards.

Instead of looking out at the world, at an entity with identity and taking what bodily features it has, these accounts take species as anatomy, as if the body of entity could be defined merely by our concept of what must be. The approach is anti-scientific because it cannot track instances of the world in which a species exists or behaves in ways we do not expect. It’s using our expectations where the existence of an entity should rule. — TheWillowOfDarkness

i.e. of having a different sexual essence, no? — bongo fury

No. Bearing has nothing to do with any “essence”. It has to do with how you feel about your physical sex. Orientation isn’t a social construct either: it’s a fact about what kind of person someone wants to fuck. Bearing is a similar fact about the kind of person someone wants to BE. Physically. No weird social or metaphysical anything about it.

FWIW I think I mostly disagree with Willow about the metaphysics/language of all this.

Edit to elaborate: I think I mostly disagree with Willow inasmuch as I don't think there are metaphysical essences of anything at all, a general principle with no focus on gender specifically. The closest thing there are to essences are defining characteristics, which is a linguistic matter, not a metaphysical one (how are words defined?). In my proposal about bearing I'm not taking any stance at all on what the proper referents of the words "man" and "woman" are. In general I operate on the principle that words mean what people agree that they mean, and while I expect that most people mean to refer to sexes when they say "man" or "woman", I understand that trans people and allies more usually mean genders or bearings, and so in conversation with them I just roll with the understanding that that's what they mean. I find it an unfortunate circumstance that there is this purely linguistic split that unnecessarily implies some kind of deep metaphysical divide when it's really all about the referents of some words, and I kind of hope that philosophical clarification of all the surrounding topics, like my introduction of the concept of bearing, could help to eventually clear that up.

We are dropping the ball if we think dissatisfaction with bodies is merely a question of whether if someone with certain properties can belong to sex or gender. A paradise inclusive of sex and gender (in the sense of recognising both are identities in themselves, not given by any particular property or another) does not amount to overcoming dissatisfaction with bodies and social expectations surrounding it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, I agree. But I think we are even more losing the ball down the gutter if we think that gender dysphoria is unconnected with the almost universal body dysmorphia, eating disorders, etc, and vast, vast, beauty industry telling everyone that their intimate places (for instance) are smelly hairy and disgusting, but can be made appealing with the application of much product and frequent surgery - without it, you are not a proper member of the human race and deserve to be shunned by all.

I am still not entirely sure why it needs to be anybody else's business what happens in another persons bedroom or pants.
We are all well-versed in the biological method of reproduction. That is a sperm cell and an ovum cell join, science stuff happens, 9 months later comes the bouncing bundle.
To quote Marcus Aurelius;

And in sexual intercourse that it is no more than the friction of a membrane and a spurt of mucus ejected.

. Well, we all have membranes, and we can all spurt mucus.
Instead of saying 'Oh that's Emma. Emma likes to be called as Steve, have sex with some girls and
some boys.', it would be literally as easy to say 'Hey Steve!'
Instead of worrying about whether clothes in the store are for people with a penis or people with vagina, why not worry about whether you like the colour or the cut and the way it looks on you and the way it makes you feel.
If you are at a point in life where you want to reproduce. Options exist, either adopt/foster. Surrogacy, IVF etc.
If someone finds a way to be happy, let them. If two people find a way to make each other happy let them. If three people find a way to make each other happy who cares, they're happy. I am happy. You should be happy.
To put it simply a side-effect of our 'scientific evolution' means that there are no physical barriers to each person on earth simply being themselves and being happy. The only obstacles to this are 'social' ones.

I agree with this legal ruling and its implications as it's consistent with my own stated position here ...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo

Sex is factually binary and gender doesn't need to be, but clearly does not vary independently. That seems to be what actually happens, and the 'theoretical' case.

The UK has got it right, I think. And they've been very clear about the fact that this doesn't pose any risk to trans people. But it does remove the risk from biological females (i prefer the term women, ftr, but that's nto important here).

Nice post - I think its possible you're still perhaps uneasy with some of hte more confronting issues. One might be that junk is not relevant to whether one is one sex or not. Klinefelters shows us that males can have "female" breast development to a certain degree. Or Swyer syndrome giving (some) males a vulva. Unfortuantely, even the literature that gets published makes this mistake
Under the heading "Sex Determination" we get the following:

"The pioneering experiments of fetal sexual differentiation carried out by Alfred Jost in the 1940’s clearly established that the existence of the testes determines the sexually dimorphic fate of the internal and external genitalia (Fig. 2) (58, 59). Irrespective of their chromosomal constitution, when the gonadal primordia differentiate into testes, all internal and external genitalia develop following the male pathway. When no testes are present, the genitalia develop along the female pathway. The existence of ovaries has no effect on fetal differentiation of the genitalia. The paramount importance of testicular differentiation for fetal sex development has prompted the use of the expression “sex determination” to refer to the differentiation of the bipotential or primitive gonads into testes."

These are phenotypic considerations and are about Sex Differentiation, not determination (not to mention that's also misleading - the sexually dimorphic 'fate' is tied to fertility). The activation (or not) of the SRY gene is what determines the above set of possible carry-throughs. The above pathways overlap/go awry when there is a genetic aberration after sex has been determined, in terms of form and function. SRY is the determinate of sex. It is misleading to claim that odd chromosomal situations, or ambiguous/unexpected phenotypes are determinative of sex (I do not think this is what you were saying, but this is my first post in the thread so making more of it than you need care about).

What "woman" and "man" mean, socially, has not determinate imo. Use them how you see fit. Just don't pretend you're talking about sex, and everything is generally a-ok.

It was a very silly ruling. I'm sure the lobby groups intended it to work like this: trans bodybuilder who practices MMA attends domestic abuse counselling group, can't be removed due to legal protections. Terrifies people who are terrified of men, because in their hearts, guts and eyes he counts as a man.

- :up:

You do have to be either male or female though. Sex is a fact, and one which is only ambiguous to the eyes, as much of hte world is. Sex is not an identity. You cannot identify into being female. That is utterly absurd and even the more incoherent pockets of the TRA world have dropped this, given it's factually wrong, misleads dysmorphic children and is literally impossible to achieve (thereby ensuring any person suffering dysmorphia is given a false promise of resolution). It is a dangerous and disrespectful lie that sex is mutable, or a spectrum.

The prominent trans woman of imagination would just be a woman, with a penis and dysphoria about her body. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This would mean a world where trans people literally did not exist. That is both counter to the physical facts at hand, and the concept of a trans identity. It also violates the majority of what I know to be the motivation for transitioning. Otherwise, you'd have to do literally nothing whatsoever to ameliorate the suffering - which leads to the conclusion that transgenderism (or whatever term) doesn't actually exist. That may be the case, in some sense (meaning, I can almost agree with the contention - it's just that there is no coherent way to call that person a woman and have that mean anything)

100%.

A very important, and meaningful ruling as the response has made quite clear.

Also, wtf are you talking about in your example? What direct of trans would have anyone giving a fuck about any of that?

What direct of trans would have anyone giving a fuck about any of that? — AmadeusD

The lobbyists that forced this issue in the UK courts were principally concerned with not allowing rapists in vulnerable women's spaces. If that sounds like it's totally irrelevant to anything regarding the social construction of gender or whether it's biologically essential, it is. But them's the breaks. The decision was made by and for fuckwits.

Hence, David Smashfucker the Iron Pussy attending the domestic abuse survivors group using their womanhood protections being quite funny.

Jesus dude, cannot imagine being as totally out of touch with reality as you seem to be. Ah well.

Jesus dude, cannot imagine being as totally out of touch with reality as you seem to be. Ah well. — AmadeusD

Eh. I'd trust your opinion if you'd've talked with the lobbyists as much I have in the streets. They were everywhere here.

I have. I've been across this particular issue for about a decade, quite deeply. It may seem wild that someone with as much, or more experience than you in an area might have a differing opinion, but there we are... I do :) And that's fine!

I have. I've been across this particular issue for about a decade, quite deeply. It may seem wild that someone with as much, or more experience than you in an area might have a differing opinion, but there we are... I do :) And that's fine! — AmadeusD

Don't you live in New Zealand?

I am Irish, I travel and hte internet exists :)

For real though. The lobbyists' position has resulted in the following:

1 ) Natal sex determines whether someone can receive the "woman" protected characteristic.
2 ) Trans men have female natal sex.
3 ) Trans men have the "woman" protected characteristic.
4 ) David Smashfucker is a trans man.
5 ) David Smashfucker has the "woman" protected characteristic.
6 ) If you have the "woman" protected characteristic, you are entitled to attend women's spaces.
7 ) Domestic abuse survivors groups are women's spaces.
8 ) David Smashfucker is entitled to attend domestic abuse survivors groups.

I mean David Smashfucker is in all likelihood a normal trans man, because it's not like trans men are criminals or risks or whatever, it's just that a group of people who are nervous around men are then going to be in a group therapy session with a slab of MMA practicing beef with a beard.

Which is absolutely not what they wanted. They totally forgot trans men existed.

Yeah, I don't see the issue. That is not what they wanted but it is socially acceptable concession to prevent males from being in females spaces. Again, don't see the issue. If you're female, use female spaces. You're protected on the basis of being female - meaning, it expressly applies to you! This is why (as best I can tell) most don't actually give a toss how you identify and require others to refer to you. We just wont refer to you by aught but your name, and don't come into female spaces. Females (which the majority of activists are) are not "fuckwits". They are concerned for their well-being based on millennia of oppression from almost solely males, no matter their 'identity'.

David Smashfucker is a female. No one is afraid of David Smashfucker. Buck Angel is a good example of why that doesn't hit home for me. I very much like your style though LOL

Yeah, I don't see the issue. That is not what they wanted but it is socially acceptable concesssion. — AmadeusD

Well if you're willing to bite the bullet of allowing the buffet of masculinity that is Buck Angel into a space where people are terrified of men there isn't much I can say.

No one is afraid of David Smashfucker. — AmadeusD

I imagine that's where we disagree. Every single lobbyist I spoke with in the street - on their stalls - is principally concerned about women's perceived safety. They don't want trans women in women's prisons because they see trans women as latent rapists and predators - and so they'll put trans men in women's prisons, despite the fact they're putting someone they allegedly see as a woman in with a bunch of criminals and predators. They don't want trans women in women's toilets - so David Smashfucker will emerge from the ladies toilets cubicles.

The only sensible explanation is that they'd be afraid of David Smashfucker for the same reason as they'd be afraid of any man in these spaces. Because they count socially as a man, and appear as one.

There was a world where "trans woman" was a distinct protected characteristic from "woman" and the original equalities legislation was rewritten sensibly with this in mind. We don't live in that world.

The GRC perspective that Scottish courts advocated was an excellent middle ground - it isn't a subjective gender identity, you really need to put in work to get that GRC. The lobbyists had no idea how tough it was to get a GRC and also forgot trans men existed.

I don't really think it's a bullet but yes, I can't imagine we're getting anywhere on that LOL, fair enough.
That is likely where we disagree..

They don't want trans women in women's prisons because they see trans women as latent rapists and predators - and so they'll put trans men in women's prisons, despite the fact they're putting someone they allegedly see as a woman in with a bunch of criminals and predators — fdrake

I can't quite make sense of this?

They see trans women as male (which they are). All males are seen as latent predators by most females, because of the behaviour of males in aggregate.

Trans men in women's prisons means there are no predators there (in terms of the 'perception'). They are all female??? The relevant factor for danger, is being male. Nothing else. If you're male, your potential danger is magnitudes higher than if you're female and that goes for any identity you like.

So Maybe i'm missing what your complaint there is?

he only sensible explanation is that they'd be afraid of David Smashfucker for the same reason as they'd be afraid of any man in these spaces. Because they count socially as a man, and appear as one. — fdrake

This again just makes no sense. Nothing in the above leads to this (either of our versions). I would also suggest something like "the only sensible explanation" is not hte way to go on this.

rewritten sensibly with this in mind. — fdrake

Disagree, but that's now getting into legal argument territory and I left work three hours ago lol.

The lobbyists had no idea how tough it was to get a GRC and also forgot trans men existed. — fdrake

No, they knew all of this, and took it all into account. Females aren't hte problem, so trans men are relevant to protections for women(in their terms, that is). Its tough to get a GRC, but that doesn't do anything for the arguments.

One note for full disclosure: In New Zealand you can apply to have you birth certificate changed to reflect your 'chosen sex'. This is so far beyond reasonable it is the kind of thing I wouldn't mind females rising up and causing a ruckus about in such a way that it makes it impossible to actually do safely.
It is a lie. That this is the case has somewhat coloured my views on the legal aspects of trans/non-binary. I do not think either category should be considered a legal category. They are social categories that you are free to ask politely for people to adhere to, for your benefit. I usually do/would.

Trans men in women's prisons means there are no predators there (in terms of the 'perception'). — AmadeusD

You believe that these lobbyists see Buck Angel as a woman?

Imagine you're in a woman's prison and Buck Angel walks into the showers. A musclebound, steroid using, bodybuilder with a sixpack and thick bodyfur walks into womens' collective showers... The lobbyists absolutely short circuit when you ask them about trans men. They just haven't thought about it.

Similarly imagine you're in a bloke's prison and Remy Lacroix walks into the showers. Someone with tits walks into the bloke's showers.

The lobbyists that forced this issue in the UK courts were principally concerned with not allowing rapists in vulnerable women's spaces. — fdrake

Are you concerned that trans men are going to rape women? Do you think someone without a natural penis can rape a woman? Unaided penetrative intercourse doesn't work so well with a phalloplasty, and I'm not sure why erectile prosthetics would be allowed in a women's prison.

Imagine you're in a woman's prison and Buck Angel walks into the showers. A musclebound, steroid using, bodybuilder with a sixpack and thick bodyfur walks into womens' collective showers... — fdrake

You're equivocating between rape and abuse. If we are concerned about rape, then the ruling is quite logical. If we are concerned about abuse (i.e. strength differentials), then the ruling is beneficial but imperfect (as all law is, by the way).

Logically, the abuse matter is tricky because a trans man or trans woman who has received hormone treatment will possess a strength somewhere between that of the average man and woman, and therefore they introduce a new (and varied) strength differential. For example, the trans man will be stronger than women but weaker than men, and therefore there is a potential for abuse in both women's and men's prisons.

On balance, though, the ruling is great. That you've found an exception to the rule in no way proves that the ruling is flawed. All rules and law have exceptions.

(And if we are concerned with neither rape nor abuse, but merely "perceptions," then we have created a world with infinite potential complaints where realism and pragmatism do not even exist.)