I’m Just Confused, So Very, Very Confused

I often write about what a tragic state trans discourse is in. And it is.

But it’s not only because there are so many confused teenagers and lying misogynists around. Plenty of confusion comes from intelligent, reasonable people who are genuinely confused about how to define (or whether we should redefine) some of our societal categories.

What’s the impact of redefining the word “woman” to include males? How should we accommodate the growing category of people who don’t neatly fit existing paradigms? How objective are these categories anyway? That kind of thing.

Abertheim and I have a refreshingly good-faith conversation about these questions. Although, now that I think about it, we do start at the end of a different conversation about lying and misogyny...

[As usual with Twitter conversations, I’ve done some light editing for readability and flow, but I’ve done my best not to remove anything meaningful.]

---

Maxie:

Amen. In my 50 years I never realised how many men secretly hate women. It's an eye opener for sure.

---

Steve QJ:

God, it’s been so alarming for me too. I honestly would never have believed how deep this problem runs until I started paying attention to trans activism.

---

ABertheim:

Do you really think "hating women" is the issue? I tend to see it as a simple matter of conflicting interests. Women worry about sexual assault by trans biological males (Are there studies showing whether this fear is justified?) Transwomen want to be accepted as "just women"

I think the former issue is one place where science could actually be quite helpful. Let's determine the risk. (As opposed to opinion pieces purporting to be research. Science can't answer the question "are transwomen women" because all categories are social constructs)

---

Steve QJ:

I’m not saying hating women is *the* issue, but it’s certainly *an* issue. I’ve seen more than enough of this discourse and various things surrounding it to convince me of that. But I don’t blame you for being skeptical. As I said, I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it.

“Science can't answer the question "are transwomen women" because all categories are social constructs)”

This is such a bizarre take. Do you think there are no meaningful categories? Do you think “female” and “male” are social and not biological (aka, scientific) categories?

---

---

ABertheim:

Supposedly (it could be an online myth, I haven't checked), the Inuit have something like 11 different categories of snow. Apparently there is some underlying differences that those living further south don't worry about. Its all just snow to us.

The underlying differences are real, but we create categories and assign things to those categories depending on what we consider important. Is a Ford Thunderbird a sports car? How would Science decide?

---

Steve QJ:

This isn’t an answer. The fact that some categories are arbitrary doesn’t mean all categories are. I’m asking specifically about the categories of male and female. In humans, also known as man and woman.

---

ABertheim:

I wouldn't say arbitrary. I would say "useful" or "not useful". How would you define a woman?

1. Born with a vagina? A tiny tiny fraction have both a vagina and a penis.

2. XX genotype? What about (again rare) XXY, XYY, etc?

---

Steve QJ:

“How would you define a woman?”

Has a reproductive system designed to produce large gametes. For males, small gametes. We use this classification for every single sexually dimorphic species. It’s how we know, for example, that male seahorses are male even though they carry and bear babies.

Also, just for clarity’s sake, no, nobody has both a vagina and a penis. The tissue that forms these organs becomes one or the other or sometimes a failed version of one or the other. But not both.

---

ABertheim:

I'll concede the point as I have not read up on this recently and its too much trouble to look up. :>) But some people are chimeric. They have some cells that are XX and others that are XY. From fusion with a non-viable twin in utero.

Yes, generally I agree with you that the underlying distribution of characteristics is strongly bimodal. And to me it makes sense to have separate words for the former group and the latter group. Traditionally, "man and woman". What should we call these other folks?

---

Steve QJ:

Trans women and trans men. Or whatever other, not currently in use, word they would prefer. Every other culture that has embraced gender nonconformity or third genders has managed this. The Kathoey in Thailand, for example, are not considered and don’t claim to be women.

---

ABertheim:

I think we are mostly in agreement except that I am less 100% sure of my position.

"Are transwomen women?" isn't quite the same question as "Do transwomen have two X chromosomes?". One is an observable fact, the other is a categorization scheme.

---

Steve QJ:

“Are trans women female?” is also an observable fact. “Woman” is the word that describes human females. It’s the same category of question as, “is a hen a rooster?”

---

ABertheim:

Is this discussion interesting to you or are we just repeating ourselves? I've made my case, you don't seem to accept it, and don't want to be argumentative. you seem like a reasonable person and its fine if we don't agree.

---

Steve QJ:

I’m just confused, so very, very confused, about why this logic isn’t convincing to some people. Trans women are male. This is the only prerequisite for being a trans woman. Males are, by definition, not female. To my mind this is as watertight an argument as you could hope for.

---

ABertheim:

Not to be argumentative, but maybe if I rephrase. Science can tell us whether an object is a mammal, woman, or mineral, provided that there is a pre-existing definition of what a mammal, woman, or mineral is.

But in order to tell us whether a platypus is a mammal, we must have a prior decision as to whether egg laying is exclusionary from the definition of "mammal." Science doesn't tell us if it should be

---

Steve QJ:

I think you’re slipping between chicken and egg here. Science can observe things. It can tell us how things work. And sometimes we give those things names. “Male” is the name we’ve given to the sperm producing members of sexually dimorphic species. Sperm production usually, but not always, lines up with other characteristics like larger average physical size, greater average strength, etc.

There is a great deal of overlap between males and females. But because there is zero overlap when it comes to gamete production, that’s where the line is drawn.

---

ABertheim:

I probably agree with you on "male" vs "female", though we have all those leaky edges like chimeras and people with oddball genotypes like XXY. While the oddball genotypes have been cited as proof "sex is a spectrum", its really rather the opposite.

XXY people are not some middle ground between male and female, they're phenotypically male, as are people with any genotype containing a Y chromosome. what's remarkable is how hard nature works to keep sex binary even in the face of massive genetic errors.

I think what the people who disagree with you about this issue might possibly be arguing is that "gender" and not sex is the key factor that should be used for dividing up the world of people. Some argue "sex is a spectrum", but I think most realize that's nonsense.

---

Steve QJ:

Actually, yes. I think you’re spot on here. The problem is, the people who advocate this can’t define gender in any meaningful way.

What does it mean to “feel like a woman”? If I tell you I feel like woman, do I immediately become one? How do you weed out liars? If the “gender not sex” people could answer these questions, I’d genuinely be all ears. But they can’t.

---

Categories are important. Or, at least, some of them are. But not so important that they should be set in stone.

Gay marriage, de-segregation, women’s suffrage, we can only adapt to new demands and better ideas if we keep our understanding of the world open to review.

But sometimes new ideas and categories aren’t better.

Any categorisation that allows people like Karen White and Isla Bryson easy access to vulnerable women is not better. Any categorisation that compels women to compete against men, despite clear physical disadvantages, is not better. Any categorisation with legal ramifications, but no boundaries beyond “I say so” is not better.

If activists believe gender is a better way of categorising people than sex, it’s up to them to demonstrate how they deal with these problems. Otherwise, we’ll stick with the system that can tell rapists apart from their victims, thanks.