I'd like you to notice that there are no actual arguments in your post supporting your "conclusion". I put "conclusion" in quotes because a sentence is not a conclusion unless it is backed by premises. You're just stating your beliefs. I'd also like you to notice that this is equally true of those who say "trans women are women,period". That's why this "debate" is not really a debate at all it's just a table pounding shouting match. You're entitled to your opinion as are they. But when no argument is possible, the most productive thing to do is to stop pounding the table and agree to disagree. That's the main point of my article. In order to understand that however, you need to see why the traditional concept of category, like everything else Aristotle came up with, is dangerously incomplete despite its plausibility. That's what all the philosophy is for. If you take the trouble to understand it, it will alter your consciousness as profoundly as a drug. And it's legal and free.
I'll check out your links. Almost nobody is reading what I write anyway, so I'm sure your linking to me will do me more good than harm.
(A bit unwieldy to communicate this way, but I strongly prefer not to post anywhere that doesn't have the facility to edit. Not to change substance, but style, at the most. And fix typos.)
Interesting explanation of philosophical styles. I was aware of different rationale between the typical trans women are women crowd and the trans women are not women crowd. (I prefer to avoid the terms pro-trans and anti-trans because they don't accurately represent the concerns and beliefs at hand, IMO.)
The thing is though, that it really doesn't matter to humans or even tomatoes if a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit. We use them in foods based on taste and other properties, not category. Whether they are veggies or fruits is a mental exercise. It makes no difference to apples if tomatoes are fruits or not. Sandwiches don't have sandwich-based needs and protections that the categorization of hotdogs enters into. There is no fist and no nose.
Swimming in the minutiae of what is a singular essential trait that includes all women and excludes all men is a mental exercise that I have seen used to deny that being a woman is anything at all, except for their own purposes, and usually applied by people who are sexually unambiguous.
I have met and conversed with several trans women whose rationalizations as to why they were women are based on similar analyses. Two are based in microbiology, gene expression in the context of hormone treatments, and post-transition phenotype, and one in radical feminist analysis.
My point isn't to discount anyone's internal experience. My point is to pull back in from the trees and consider the forest. Human beings can intellectualize and rationalize absolutely anything, which can work well on paper, but how does it function in practice?
we are basically in agreement. What I’m trying to point out here is that when both sides of this debate usually argue with each other, they try to treat this problem, as if there were a single answer to the question “what is a woman?“ which could exist independently from the issue of how the concept functions in practice. In my next essay, I’m going to try to use practical considerations to come up with answers which will vary from situation to situation.
“Swimming in the minutiae of what is a singular essential trait that includes all women and excludes all men is a mental exercise that I have seen used to deny that being a woman is anything at all”
I have also seen that exercise, and that conclusion is often implied, even if it isn’t explicitly stated. I think this is what leads to the corollary that anyone can be whatever sex they want to be. This is a mistake, however, because Wittgenstein’s point is that essentially all categories have blurry borders. if we conclude that blurry borders meant a category is imaginary, we would have no categories at all. We have legitimate doubts over whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, but that doesn’t give us the right to conclude that an elephant or the number 6 is a vegetable.
I posted my earlier article on this topic on daily Kos. Within 24 hours, it received 32 comments, and then I was banned. I can still access the article, but I don't know whether anybody else can. Most of the commenters clearly didn't read the article. One of the longest commenters admitted that they hadn't read the whole thing. Another commenter said they wouldn't read my article because I said "transwoman" instead of "trans woman". Because the word came at the end of the line the space wasn't visible, which made the whole thing look like a line from Ionesco. (" you said trans woman instead of trans woman"!!!)
With apologies, I will admit right off the bat that I'm in over my head philosophically. To me, the question "What is a woman?" is simplicity itself: adult human female, i.e., a body formed to create large gametes, whether or not it can actually do that. And of course, men bring their small, mobile gametes to the table. Men can't be women. Fortunately our Supreme Court seems to agree with me.
People with DSDs – who should really be kept out of the trans debate, but are invariably dragged in – are all either male or female, though in rare cases, yes, sometimes it's hard to tell. I would recommend developmental biologist Emma Hilton on the subject of biology, because of course I would. (You'll see what I'm talking about if you track her down, assuming you haven't already.)
I know you want compromise, but I honestly don't see how it's possible; in sports or any other arena that comes to mind. You're either a woman or you're not (so-called trans women being far more popular a subject than 'trans men', for what should be obvious reasons).
Considering that you wrote the following, I reckon you would consider me transphobic.*
"None of this, however, justifies banning all transwomen from women’s swimming, or any other women’s sports. This is what a lot of people are asking for, but a total ban is not necessary to give those people what they say they want i.e. to give ciswomen a fair chance to win contests in women’s sports. Those people who insist that this is possible only if all transwomen are banned from women’s sports are IMO legitimately describable by the frequently abused and abusive epithet “transphobic”."
*I honestly don't mind at this point, as I far prefer that to being realityphobic. (Which I'm not calling you.)
I post about gender a lot on my UK-based site, though don't have any essays comparable to yours to offer; mostly I cut and paste from elsewhere, and sometimes comment. My very first post on the subject is here: https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/index.php?topic=2264.0
That begins a thread with many many links, and admittedly a fair amount of snark, which seems to come with the territory. I offer this link not to try to steal any traffic from you – very unlikely in any case – but as possible food for thought. I do, after all, live on TERF Island.
Finally, I would highly recommend Helen Joyce. This video might appeal, given the title 'Is There a Middle Ground?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEH63BVAjv0. I know this, along with my recommendation of Hilton, might come across as an appeal to authority, but these women are so brilliant on this subject, I care not.
Just to add - Teed, you're welcome to crosspost your next piece to my site. You won't get a lot of eyeballs, but it would be an opportunity for you to chat with a transphobe, and me to chat with someone I have serious disagreements with. In other words, a good time. (I'm mainly suggesting this because I can't stand the Substack interface for comments. Oh, to have preview and editing capabilities!)
I fail to see the relevance of Wittgensteinian “fringe cases” to the trans debate because trans activists and the law relating to legal recognition of gender do not limit trans identity to fringe cases. Rather, in places like California where I live, a biologically male person possessing absolutely none of the essential or even accidental qualities of a female is nonetheless deemed to be female if she so self declares. The self declaration is ALL that matters
Wittgensteinian logic simply does not support this approach. Indeed no logic supports it. Rather, it requires the recognition of pure subjectivity and the total invalidation of shared sensory experience and shared reality. Postmodernism to the nth degree.
“Not quite” is an understatement. Even in the sports context. I was permanently kicked off Medium for arguing against this pure subjectivity in the context of swimmer Lia Thomas.
I’m generally in agreement with your other piece. The trans activists by and large take the self declaration approach but thankfully the sports regulators largely have not. But they have been ruthlessly browbeaten for it. The rules should be MUCH stricter, particularly at elite levels where infinitesimal differences can be outcome determining.
I enjoy your writing. I read you often on Medium before I was erased by illiberal woke scolds.
What you are missing is my arguments that this kind of pure subjectivity has to be abandoned at all cost, for precisely the reasons you are giving here. Most trans advocates do almost abandon this position when you start talking about trans women in sports. Almost but not quite. My previous essay dealt with this. https://open.substack.com/pub/teedrockwell/p/the-possiblyinescapable-dilemma-of
With apologies, I will admit right off the bat that I'm in over my head philosophically. To me, the question "What is a woman?" is simplicity itself: adult human female, i.e., a body formed to create large gametes, whether or not it can actually do that. And of course, men bring their small, mobile gametes to the table. Men can't be women. Fortunately our Supreme Court seems to agree with me.
People with DSDs – who should really be kept out of the trans debate, but are invariably dragged in – are all either male or female, though in rare cases, yes, sometimes it's hard to tell. I would recommend developmental biologist Emma Hilton on the subject of biology, because of course I would. (You'll see what I'm talking about if you track her down, assuming you haven't already.)
I know you want compromise, but I honestly don't see how it's possible; in sports or any other arena that comes to mind. You're either a woman or you're not (so-called trans women being far more popular a subject than 'trans men', for what should be obvious reasons).
Considering that you wrote the following, I reckon you would consider me transphobic.*
"None of this, however, justifies banning all transwomen from women’s swimming, or any other women’s sports. This is what a lot of people are asking for, but a total ban is not necessary to give those people what they say they want i.e. to give ciswomen a fair chance to win contests in women’s sports. Those people who insist that this is possible only if all transwomen are banned from women’s sports are IMO legitimately describable by the frequently abused and abusive epithet “transphobic”."
*I honestly don't mind at this point, as I far prefer that to being realityphobic. (Which I'm not calling you.)
I post about gender a lot on my UK-based site, though don't have any essays comparable to yours to offer; mostly I cut and paste from elsewhere, and sometimes comment. My very first post on the subject is here: https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/index.php?topic=2264.0
That begins a thread with many many links, and admittedly a fair amount of snark, which seems to come with the territory. I offer this link not to try to steal any traffic from you – very unlikely in any case – but as possible food for thought. I do, after all, live on TERF Island.
Finally, I would highly recommend Helen Joyce. This video might appeal, given the title 'Is There a Middle Ground?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEH63BVAjv0. I know this, along with my recommendation of Hilton, might come across as an appeal to authority, but these women are so brilliant on this subject, I care not.
I'd like you to notice that there are no actual arguments in your post supporting your "conclusion". I put "conclusion" in quotes because a sentence is not a conclusion unless it is backed by premises. You're just stating your beliefs. I'd also like you to notice that this is equally true of those who say "trans women are women,period". That's why this "debate" is not really a debate at all it's just a table pounding shouting match. You're entitled to your opinion as are they. But when no argument is possible, the most productive thing to do is to stop pounding the table and agree to disagree. That's the main point of my article. In order to understand that however, you need to see why the traditional concept of category, like everything else Aristotle came up with, is dangerously incomplete despite its plausibility. That's what all the philosophy is for. If you take the trouble to understand it, it will alter your consciousness as profoundly as a drug. And it's legal and free.
I'll check out your links. Almost nobody is reading what I write anyway, so I'm sure your linking to me will do me more good than harm.
Sorry, just noticed this. Reply over yonder - https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/index.php?topic=11074.msg21289#msg21289
(A bit unwieldy to communicate this way, but I strongly prefer not to post anywhere that doesn't have the facility to edit. Not to change substance, but style, at the most. And fix typos.)
so is there anyway I can post on your page? I could put my response here, but as you said, that would be rather unwieldy.
Interesting explanation of philosophical styles. I was aware of different rationale between the typical trans women are women crowd and the trans women are not women crowd. (I prefer to avoid the terms pro-trans and anti-trans because they don't accurately represent the concerns and beliefs at hand, IMO.)
The thing is though, that it really doesn't matter to humans or even tomatoes if a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit. We use them in foods based on taste and other properties, not category. Whether they are veggies or fruits is a mental exercise. It makes no difference to apples if tomatoes are fruits or not. Sandwiches don't have sandwich-based needs and protections that the categorization of hotdogs enters into. There is no fist and no nose.
Swimming in the minutiae of what is a singular essential trait that includes all women and excludes all men is a mental exercise that I have seen used to deny that being a woman is anything at all, except for their own purposes, and usually applied by people who are sexually unambiguous.
I have met and conversed with several trans women whose rationalizations as to why they were women are based on similar analyses. Two are based in microbiology, gene expression in the context of hormone treatments, and post-transition phenotype, and one in radical feminist analysis.
My point isn't to discount anyone's internal experience. My point is to pull back in from the trees and consider the forest. Human beings can intellectualize and rationalize absolutely anything, which can work well on paper, but how does it function in practice?
we are basically in agreement. What I’m trying to point out here is that when both sides of this debate usually argue with each other, they try to treat this problem, as if there were a single answer to the question “what is a woman?“ which could exist independently from the issue of how the concept functions in practice. In my next essay, I’m going to try to use practical considerations to come up with answers which will vary from situation to situation.
“Swimming in the minutiae of what is a singular essential trait that includes all women and excludes all men is a mental exercise that I have seen used to deny that being a woman is anything at all”
I have also seen that exercise, and that conclusion is often implied, even if it isn’t explicitly stated. I think this is what leads to the corollary that anyone can be whatever sex they want to be. This is a mistake, however, because Wittgenstein’s point is that essentially all categories have blurry borders. if we conclude that blurry borders meant a category is imaginary, we would have no categories at all. We have legitimate doubts over whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, but that doesn’t give us the right to conclude that an elephant or the number 6 is a vegetable.
I posted my earlier article on this topic on daily Kos. Within 24 hours, it received 32 comments, and then I was banned. I can still access the article, but I don't know whether anybody else can. Most of the commenters clearly didn't read the article. One of the longest commenters admitted that they hadn't read the whole thing. Another commenter said they wouldn't read my article because I said "transwoman" instead of "trans woman". Because the word came at the end of the line the space wasn't visible, which made the whole thing look like a line from Ionesco. (" you said trans woman instead of trans woman"!!!)
With apologies, I will admit right off the bat that I'm in over my head philosophically. To me, the question "What is a woman?" is simplicity itself: adult human female, i.e., a body formed to create large gametes, whether or not it can actually do that. And of course, men bring their small, mobile gametes to the table. Men can't be women. Fortunately our Supreme Court seems to agree with me.
People with DSDs – who should really be kept out of the trans debate, but are invariably dragged in – are all either male or female, though in rare cases, yes, sometimes it's hard to tell. I would recommend developmental biologist Emma Hilton on the subject of biology, because of course I would. (You'll see what I'm talking about if you track her down, assuming you haven't already.)
I know you want compromise, but I honestly don't see how it's possible; in sports or any other arena that comes to mind. You're either a woman or you're not (so-called trans women being far more popular a subject than 'trans men', for what should be obvious reasons).
Considering that you wrote the following, I reckon you would consider me transphobic.*
"None of this, however, justifies banning all transwomen from women’s swimming, or any other women’s sports. This is what a lot of people are asking for, but a total ban is not necessary to give those people what they say they want i.e. to give ciswomen a fair chance to win contests in women’s sports. Those people who insist that this is possible only if all transwomen are banned from women’s sports are IMO legitimately describable by the frequently abused and abusive epithet “transphobic”."
*I honestly don't mind at this point, as I far prefer that to being realityphobic. (Which I'm not calling you.)
I post about gender a lot on my UK-based site, though don't have any essays comparable to yours to offer; mostly I cut and paste from elsewhere, and sometimes comment. My very first post on the subject is here: https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/index.php?topic=2264.0
That begins a thread with many many links, and admittedly a fair amount of snark, which seems to come with the territory. I offer this link not to try to steal any traffic from you – very unlikely in any case – but as possible food for thought. I do, after all, live on TERF Island.
Finally, I would highly recommend Helen Joyce. This video might appeal, given the title 'Is There a Middle Ground?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEH63BVAjv0. I know this, along with my recommendation of Hilton, might come across as an appeal to authority, but these women are so brilliant on this subject, I care not.
Just to add - Teed, you're welcome to crosspost your next piece to my site. You won't get a lot of eyeballs, but it would be an opportunity for you to chat with a transphobe, and me to chat with someone I have serious disagreements with. In other words, a good time. (I'm mainly suggesting this because I can't stand the Substack interface for comments. Oh, to have preview and editing capabilities!)
Ask and you shall receive
https://open.substack.com/pub/teedrockwell/p/aristotle-wittgenstein-and-gender?r=l7a9l&utm_medium=ios
https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/index.php?topic=11074.0
No RSVP necessary
I fail to see the relevance of Wittgensteinian “fringe cases” to the trans debate because trans activists and the law relating to legal recognition of gender do not limit trans identity to fringe cases. Rather, in places like California where I live, a biologically male person possessing absolutely none of the essential or even accidental qualities of a female is nonetheless deemed to be female if she so self declares. The self declaration is ALL that matters
Wittgensteinian logic simply does not support this approach. Indeed no logic supports it. Rather, it requires the recognition of pure subjectivity and the total invalidation of shared sensory experience and shared reality. Postmodernism to the nth degree.
Yes, it’s that radical. What am I missing?
“Not quite” is an understatement. Even in the sports context. I was permanently kicked off Medium for arguing against this pure subjectivity in the context of swimmer Lia Thomas.
I’m generally in agreement with your other piece. The trans activists by and large take the self declaration approach but thankfully the sports regulators largely have not. But they have been ruthlessly browbeaten for it. The rules should be MUCH stricter, particularly at elite levels where infinitesimal differences can be outcome determining.
I enjoy your writing. I read you often on Medium before I was erased by illiberal woke scolds.
What you are missing is my arguments that this kind of pure subjectivity has to be abandoned at all cost, for precisely the reasons you are giving here. Most trans advocates do almost abandon this position when you start talking about trans women in sports. Almost but not quite. My previous essay dealt with this. https://open.substack.com/pub/teedrockwell/p/the-possiblyinescapable-dilemma-of
With apologies, I will admit right off the bat that I'm in over my head philosophically. To me, the question "What is a woman?" is simplicity itself: adult human female, i.e., a body formed to create large gametes, whether or not it can actually do that. And of course, men bring their small, mobile gametes to the table. Men can't be women. Fortunately our Supreme Court seems to agree with me.
People with DSDs – who should really be kept out of the trans debate, but are invariably dragged in – are all either male or female, though in rare cases, yes, sometimes it's hard to tell. I would recommend developmental biologist Emma Hilton on the subject of biology, because of course I would. (You'll see what I'm talking about if you track her down, assuming you haven't already.)
I know you want compromise, but I honestly don't see how it's possible; in sports or any other arena that comes to mind. You're either a woman or you're not (so-called trans women being far more popular a subject than 'trans men', for what should be obvious reasons).
Considering that you wrote the following, I reckon you would consider me transphobic.*
"None of this, however, justifies banning all transwomen from women’s swimming, or any other women’s sports. This is what a lot of people are asking for, but a total ban is not necessary to give those people what they say they want i.e. to give ciswomen a fair chance to win contests in women’s sports. Those people who insist that this is possible only if all transwomen are banned from women’s sports are IMO legitimately describable by the frequently abused and abusive epithet “transphobic”."
*I honestly don't mind at this point, as I far prefer that to being realityphobic. (Which I'm not calling you.)
I post about gender a lot on my UK-based site, though don't have any essays comparable to yours to offer; mostly I cut and paste from elsewhere, and sometimes comment. My very first post on the subject is here: https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/index.php?topic=2264.0
That begins a thread with many many links, and admittedly a fair amount of snark, which seems to come with the territory. I offer this link not to try to steal any traffic from you – very unlikely in any case – but as possible food for thought. I do, after all, live on TERF Island.
Finally, I would highly recommend Helen Joyce. This video might appeal, given the title 'Is There a Middle Ground?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEH63BVAjv0. I know this, along with my recommendation of Hilton, might come across as an appeal to authority, but these women are so brilliant on this subject, I care not.
Sorry for the duplicate post. This was my first comment on a substack, and the interface was a bit confusing.