The core question is when sanity will return and men will no longer be allowed to compete against women.
Hopefully the wave of opposition to this travesty will be strong enough to change the regulations.
Boycott the Olympics.
Hopefully the wave of opposition to this travesty will be strong enough to change the regulations.
Boycott the Olympics.
Genuine question, one about which I haven't seen much in the way of conversation—although my experience is relatively limited.
Why is the subjective experience of gender privileged over the objective biology of sex?
I can anticipate a couple possible responses for which I'm not sure I have very clear thoughts, either—maybe someone can contribute more light than heat here?
1. Biology isn't actually all that objective: one's subjective experience is at least partially determined by biology, too.
2. We can turn the question on its head: why should objective biology be privileged over subjective experience?
It's less about one term being "privileged" (I must confess that word seems slightly unclear to me in this context) over another and more about the ease of treating people the way they would like, with no real downsides that I can see.
Anecdotally, refusing to use a trans person's pronouns seems typically to be a dogwhistle for not respecting the existence/legitimacy of transgender people.
So I think a natural conservative argument there would be that the primary reason why we have sex-based (not gender-based!) pronouns in the first place is so that we can talk about biological categories that are important for the continuation of our species: while some men cannot father offspring, certainly no transman can. So why should we call them men, if it is in fact the reproductive function because of which we use these terms in the first place?
Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly.
Even as somebody who is non-conservative on most issues, the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing rubs me slightly the wrong way.
> Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly.
I disagree with this. Unsurprisingly so, given that I am non-conservative. I believe in personal choice over reproduction and I believe that this choice simply is more important than any tiny effect on societies survival - something that in fact means very little to me other than the 'coincidental' lack of suffering in people I care about/humanity in general. I'm not sure there's any objective value in the human race surviving, in fact if I could push a button that meant all humans would be incredibly fulfilled and lead happy lives and then naturally (peacefully, painlessly, etc) die out in 3 generations time I would certainly strongly consider doing so... I'm rambling now, though.
> the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing
I think that's because it's largely incidental - indeed, it doesn't stop them from becoming adoptive parents. It doesn't stop them from freezing sperm/eggs and creating children through more modern means. It may not even lead to infertility in many cases - I'll admit I don't know any detailed knowledge on that.
But most importantly their right to lead their life in whichever way they want, and to choose not to have children, is not especially relevant to anyone else. Nobody should be forced (or be guilted into) to have(ing) children.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. The argument is less about individual cases and more about keeping the overall categories intact as traditionally perceived, which isn't really endangered in that case.
By the same argument, calling transmen men if they are passing perfectly would probably be fine. And that's likely what's been happening forever anyway, and is the point of "passing": those individuals don't threaten the general categories. It's a kind of "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.
[...]
> > the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing
> I think that's because it's largely incidental
Is it? What you write about personal choice is all(?) true and does not contradict the argument.
My impression is that while transphobia is definitely a thing, a lot of the backlash against trans activism isn't about trans people's individual rights and choices but about trans activists wanting to impose certain beliefs that they have on others. For example, for the purpose of this discussion, the belief that the categories of "man" and "woman" must be defined differently than many (most?) people intuitively define them based on some of the most deeply rooted perception and pattern recognition of the brain.
So it may feel incidental to trans activists, but the people who react likely don't feel the same because it's the aspect (or one of the aspects) of trans activism that affects them the most personally.
Sorry for any confusion.
By privileged, I simply mean that one's gender identity instead of biological sex should govern pronoun usage.
> 2. Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm? If nothing else it seems to me to come down to basic decency and respect for others.
I mean I guess that is part of the reason that pronoun usage is a controversial topic, right? Why are people uncomfortable with using others' desired pronouns? It may be deeply rooted beliefs or other identitarian characteristics (religious or political convictions for example) that could cause someone psychological harm if they use preferred pronouns instead of biological sex.
In areas where legal agency is at issue—in children, for example—use of pronouns could potentially elide complex challenges and lead to irreversible physical changes that don't correspond with later preference (i.e., sex reassignment surgery or puberty blockers may have permanent effects even if the child decides later that it was a bad idea).
Now I don't know that these are particularly good arguments, but they are two ideas that I've seen online or that arise from applying a subjective-experience argument to other identity characteristics.
Sorry for the delay. HN is not a great forum for long discussions (on purpose, I guess). I've been noodling on this for awhile, and so maybe just blathering into the ether.
I'm not sure that subjective and irrelevant necessarily go together.
I guess the argument I'm thinking of is more this: my pronoun preference is biological, so if my chromosomes disagree with my pronoun preference why should my chromosomes govern communication protocols instead of the rest of my biology?
If these things are truly irrelevant, then the notion of gender identity is itself irrelevant and so, too, are pronouns, aren't they? (I mean, maybe not, but I don't see how one could say chromosomes don't matter but preferences do.)
One of the real challenges gender identity raises is that it acknowledges that the body actually means something. It also implies that language means something. Mind and body go together, and when they disagree some kind of resolution is needed. Language shapes reality, so when language contradicts that resolution the reality of my existence, my very identity, is threatened or negated.
If we stipulate that, I think we have to admit pronoun use really isn't neutral. It's not merely a matter of common decency and respect (although it certainly is part of that), but about what we think it means to be human and how we attempt to shape and react to reality.
My own thoughts here aren't super well formed, hence my line of questioning and (perhaps poorly worded and thought out) reasoning...but I do think it bears some critical examination.
> Language shapes reality, Sorry I have disagree on this one. I don't think language shapes reality. It definitely shapes our perception, filters, and biases but shapes reality only in a very Probabilistic graphical model sense. And even then it shapes(as in cavemen---> civilization) reality as much as say, air shapes reality, mathematical formulae and theories shape reality . My usual stance on the gender identity debate comes along with the "freedom to swing your arm but not hit my nose" sense. In this case of weightlifting for ex: I recently saw a twitter mention comparing the same athlete before starting HRT therapy and now.(along with a co-competitor in the male category she used to compete with) It pointed out how much the gap between both the lifters progress has been because of the Hormones.
Anyway, I don't have a clear stance on trans-people competing in their gender category .. I think the gender based categorization in sports has to move further, but I'm ambiguous even about how the sports laws work on even doping. So since I don't have skin-in-the-game I only try to add clarity to the discussion without taking either stance strongly.
> Sorry I have disagree on this one. I don't think language shapes reality. It definitely shapes our perception, filters, and biases but shapes reality only in a very Probabilistic graphical model sense. And even then it shapes(as in cavemen---> civilization) reality as much as say, air shapes reality, mathematical formulae and theories shape reality .
Sorry if it's not clear: I'm not trying to say what's true, despite having opinions on the subject; I'm interested in best arguments.
What I think the implications are in assuming that gender is as much state-of-mind as state-of-body (if not more) is two-fold:
1. The body really does matter. It's inconsistent to say that the body has to align with the mind if the body doesn't matter. Surgical and hormonal intervention make no sense if the mind and the body aren't somehow connected in a very deep way.
2. The desire for pronoun usage is more, too, than mere courtesy, but the desire for consensus on reality. If I'm a woman trapped in a man's body or have no particular gender, when I ask someone to use pronouns of my preference I am actually asking them to make a statement about what is real and true. This implies in no small way that language shapes and makes reality in some nontrivial way.
Take Hanne Gaby Odiele (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanne_Gaby_Odiele). They (their preferred pronoun) have an XY chromosome but due to an androgen insensitivity looks traditionally female - to the point of being a fairly successful model for woman's fashion. They'd certainly be very out of place in a mens bathroom if forced there due to their chromosome.
This is another assertion that I also don't quite understand. (I want to emphasize I'm not trolling here—I'm genuinely interested. Topics like this are obviously highly charged and challenging to discuss in a fruitful way.)
Vocabulary exists for discussing intersex characteristics, so the existence of intersex people is known and acknowledged. Is there something special about pronouns?
My default is to use appearance in the absence of other factors; I understand there are cases in which this is challenging at best.
Even so, I'm still not quite sure how this addresses my question about how using biological pronouns instead of preferred pronouns somehow "ignores the existence of the intersex" as you earlier asserted. (Indeed, it seems as though the question of pronouns actually rather highlights the existence of the person, if in an uncomfortable and potentially discriminatory way.)
My point, perhaps poorly delivered, was that not every person has a “biological pronoun”. How do you even define it?
There are people with XY chromosomes and female genitalia (and usually female identity): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis
There are also people with male characteristics and two X chromosomes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
Addressing these folks by their “biological sex” (of you mean chromosomes) would be hugely insulting, besides the fact it’s not like we got our chromosomes written on our forehead.
Lastly, there are people with ambiguous physical characteristics. Often gender assignment surgeries are performed shortly after birth. Those folks usually get addressed by the gender a doctor chose for them when they were infants - and sometimes this turns out to be the wrong choice and doesn’t actually match their identity. They also don’t have a “biological sex” that neatly fits into the male/female schema.
My understanding is that historically the presence of the Y chromosome was considered determinative. One was male (therefore "he") if the karotype was 46,XY or 47,XXY or 48,XXXY, etc. Indeed, in discussions of the more common abnormal karotypes (e.g., Klinefelter), most of the literature I've seen uses the word "male."
> Addressing these folks by their “biological sex” (of you mean chromosomes) would be hugely insulting, besides the fact it’s not like we got our chromosomes written on our forehead.
With respect to chromosomes and forehead, that's not exactly true. There's sufficient divergence between male and female skulls that some gender expression surgeries target them.[1] I do understand what you mean, and I'm not trying to be snarky. Sexual differentiation is more than just genitalia, and we're well adapted to noticing those differences.
It seems like you're making two points:
1. Those with abnormal karotypes can have an experience similar to the normally karotyped: their self-perception and their anatomy might not line up, and they may prefer to be called by a pronoun that doesn't correspond with karotype or anatomy.
2. The experience of those with abnormal karotypes can and should be generalized to those with normal karotypes.
(I'm a bit fuzzy on (2) but I think I'm representing you correctly on (1). By all means correct me if I'm wrong.)
I could pretty easily see someone relatively conservative on the issue of pronouns (for, e.g., medical or religious reasons) agreeing that those with abnormal karotypes should be allowed pronoun preference but disagreeing with the second because chromosomal abnormalities are the exception that proves the rule.
I'm not sure how it helps resolve the initial question because it requires generalizing from a small set to a substantially larger one. It also offers a more clear reason why one's subjective experience doesn't quite line up with one's body (i.e., a clear abnormality on the chromosomes).
> Why is the subjective experience of gender privileged over the objective biology of sex?
My point was that biology is not all that objective and if we were to use pronouns in accordance with your thesis, we‘d eliminate the identity of many intersex people.
Whether gender-identity can be out of sync with your body in the absence of conditions described as intersex (which, for the record, I do believe in) and whether it should be respected is somewhat orthogonal to that. I believe the examples I’ve given of conditions where biology is either ambiguous or actively out of sync are sufficient to illustrate that using “ objective biology” would eliminate the identity of many intersex people. It’s my opinion, that that alone is reason enough to privilege gender over sex.
"You."
HTH!