then I ought to accept an unexpected man or two deep inside the conceptual boundaries of what would normally be considered female if it’ll save someone’s life.
I think the confusion (in my case) is that even though I think male and female are well-defined concepts based on biology, this fact does not preclude doing something special for the benefit of the remaining 1% who don’t fit the definition. And it also doesn’t preclude having a sexual identity that differs from the biological ones.
So I don’t understand the leap from what I’m saying to accusing me of being transphobic, and by extension, evil in a somewhat religious sense. This is where it seems to me that the discussion is fucked.
And the accusation of being anti-scientific I thought was just wrong, but that’s fine.
What do you mean by “doing something special” if not treating the trans man as a man and trans woman as a woman? If you are more specific maybe I can try to clarify why people might have thought it was transphobic.
And for the record I tend to agree with flyingsquid from the linked thread- definitions should be rigorous and accurately/comprehensively describe reality. You can’t just declare “we’re going to categorize by gametes” and sweep any incogruities under the rug, that’s not how it should work, idk unless you’re talking to literal 5 year old children. They were needlessly abrasive but essentially correct :|
What do you mean by “doing something special” if not treating the trans man as a man and trans woman as a woman? If you are more specific maybe I can try to clarify why people might have thought it was transphobic.
I mean pretty much just that in the general sense. I’m not sure where the confusion about this rose from. Perhaps from the context of some sports, where drawing the line is not this easy?
And for the record I tend to agree with flyingsquid from the linked thread- definitions should be rigorous and accurately/comprehensively describe reality.
Agreed. Difference is that I think the biological definition describes reality very well, even if not perfectly. It doesn’t seem to me that any competing definition is doing a better job.
But it’s perfectly fine not to 100% agree about this. It’s the insinuation (that I might be imagining) of being evil that’s disturbing.
Yeah for sports idk what to do, none of the solutions I think of seem to fit. Sports are designed to be unfair it’s a competition after all. And apparently in women’s sports accusing competitors you dislike of being a man is just a thing we do (if not the athletes themselves then the general public). Biology is weird and biology of Olympic level athletes is going to be even more weird and deviant.
As for definitions, the competing definition being argued for in the article is self id, with several anecdotes detailing why this is a better idea than gamete size or chromosomes or whatever.
![[Transphobia Warning] Nutomic’s Stance on Transgender People](https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/e65d59a4-e335-42e1-88e3-f30708116c5b.jpeg){kind=link}
Yeah that thread is pretty embarrassing. If you like, here’s a post on the subject of definitions and category boundaries from a rationalist perspective. It’s arguing p much same thing as @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world was talking about, but imo in a more compelling way https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/
Great article, thanks for that.
Quote from its 4th section:
I think the confusion (in my case) is that even though I think male and female are well-defined concepts based on biology, this fact does not preclude doing something special for the benefit of the remaining 1% who don’t fit the definition. And it also doesn’t preclude having a sexual identity that differs from the biological ones.
So I don’t understand the leap from what I’m saying to accusing me of being transphobic, and by extension, evil in a somewhat religious sense. This is where it seems to me that the discussion is fucked.
And the accusation of being anti-scientific I thought was just wrong, but that’s fine.
What do you mean by “doing something special” if not treating the trans man as a man and trans woman as a woman? If you are more specific maybe I can try to clarify why people might have thought it was transphobic.
And for the record I tend to agree with flyingsquid from the linked thread- definitions should be rigorous and accurately/comprehensively describe reality. You can’t just declare “we’re going to categorize by gametes” and sweep any incogruities under the rug, that’s not how it should work, idk unless you’re talking to literal 5 year old children. They were needlessly abrasive but essentially correct :|
I mean pretty much just that in the general sense. I’m not sure where the confusion about this rose from. Perhaps from the context of some sports, where drawing the line is not this easy?
Agreed. Difference is that I think the biological definition describes reality very well, even if not perfectly. It doesn’t seem to me that any competing definition is doing a better job.
But it’s perfectly fine not to 100% agree about this. It’s the insinuation (that I might be imagining) of being evil that’s disturbing.
Yeah for sports idk what to do, none of the solutions I think of seem to fit. Sports are designed to be unfair it’s a competition after all. And apparently in women’s sports accusing competitors you dislike of being a man is just a thing we do (if not the athletes themselves then the general public). Biology is weird and biology of Olympic level athletes is going to be even more weird and deviant.
As for definitions, the competing definition being argued for in the article is self id, with several anecdotes detailing why this is a better idea than gamete size or chromosomes or whatever.