The declaration, "trans-women are women" is self contradictory. If trans-women were women, you wouldn't be able to identify them as something different. You would just say "women are women."
But the fact that you can differentiate them in such a way as to say "trans-women are women" in itself shows they are different from biological women.
Women are women and trans-women are trans-women.
This is so obvious as to be painful to type. Biological women were born women. Trans-women were born men and transitioned into a woman.
There's a clear, identifiable difference between the two. How the hell is this controversial?
Just because you can identify them as something different doesn't mean they are not women. You could say "gay men are men" and that is a factual statement. Gay men are gay, but are also men. You could also say "fat women are women." This would also be true. People can be identified under multiple categories. Women are women, but there are cis women and trans women. Both are women.
If you have a fat woman that became a skinny woman, she was always and still is a woman. The descriptor doesn't change the "woman" part of her identity. Fat or skinny, a woman is a woman.
If you have a gay man that became straight, he was always and still is a man. The descriptor doesn't change the "man" part of his identity. Gay or straight, a man is a man.
But if a biological man becomes a trans-woman, it is still a man that became a woman, which is clear and distinct from a woman who was born a woman. If you put them side by side, the trans-woman is still a trans-woman and the woman is still a woman.
A fat woman that became a skinny woman is not clear and distinct from a woman that has always been skinny. If you put them side by side, they're both just women.
Depends on how you define "woman." Trans-women might be women by certain definitions of "woman," but they certainly are not female. Every single cell of their bodies mark them as male.
The most reasonable way to define a woman is someone with XX chromosomes. If you have XY then it doesn't matter whether you had your cock and balls lopped off or were injected with hormones for 10 years, you are still a man. At best you are make-believe woman, or a fraudulent female... but you are not nor will you ever be a real woman. The whole mess is caused by idiots trying to enable delusional people that want to be something they can never be.
The feminists I’ve spoken to about this all maintain that biology is what defines woman from man.
They actually reject the gender aspects of sex that are behavioral; I.e.: women are passive, compassionate and domestic; men are active, ambitious and worldly, etc.
Seems the feminists who are getting silenced and smeared as conservative bigots are actually the true progressives. None of them who I know, btw are bigoted at all. These are modern women who believe in live and let live, just don’t tread on me types who stand up for their rights.
You're right here. I've often seen feminism described in generations or waves. i.e. First generation or first wave feminism, second wave, third wave etc...
The overall movement has evolved from equal opportunity and equal rights, such as voting, to empowerment of women and autonomy in society, to recognizing the value of women as women and their feminine traits.
Then it has gotten to the point that it has become counter-productive to the feminist ideals. The idea that anyone can declare themselves a woman, even if they are not, limits opportunity. Look at what is happening in sports, for example.
This drives Rowling's original point that a person born a man and transitioned to a woman can't really know a woman's plight, since they did not have to grow up female. It invalidates the struggle of the true feminist and everything she (they) have fought for.
If you can no longer distinguish between men and women based on the whims of the person, how is it even possible to have "feminism" at all?
I watched an interview of a trans woman where she was saying all of this outrage and fighting for recognition is not something transgender people really want. As usual, it is a small minority with loud voices that are causing all of this commotion. From my understanding, the majority of trans people don't want special treatment or a fight, they'd rather just blend into society. I have no problem with that.
A similar thing happens among gay people. Of course there is the flamboyant gay stereotype, but gay people that don't behave that way get pissed at how they get represented by the more outspoken crowd.
The irony is that the way it's going, in a few years time, pretty much all women's sports will be made up of all trans women and natural-born women will have been cancelled by them.
I´d be curious to know how many people who think trans-women are actually women, think its morally ethical for a transwoman to conceal his previous identity as a man with current or future lovers.
I don't think it's unethical for a trans woman to conceal her identity from current or future lovers
Firstly, the scenario itself is ludicrous. Trans women dating straight men are generally afraid of the possibility of the men they are romantically interested in reacting violently to finding out that they're "men". It's not like straight men have never murdered trans women in these scenarios
Secondly, what are you even talking about? "Lovers" as in someone you go on a date with? Before a first kiss? Before sex? A relationship?
The only way you could possibly be fooled into having sex with a trans woman is if she has gotten gender reassignment surgery. Even then it would be highly improbable. I think even a complete moron would be able to distinguish between a cis woman's vagina and a trans woman's surgically-constructed vagina
If you're talking about meeting a trans woman at a bar and making out with her or something, I'd say take some personal responsibility for choosing to make out with complete strangers if you're so scared of kissing a trans person
So its ethical but your reasons why its ethical doesn´t seem to have any relevance to whether it is or isn´t. The probability of it happening is neither here nor there.
You provided no context for what you meant by "lover". I posed every hypothetical that I could think of and gave my opinion of how I thought it would play out ethically
Anyway, to give you a more direct answer, I do not think a trans person has an ethical responsibility to divulge that piece of information
I think active deception in sexual scenarios is always unethical, whether it be about being trans or anything else. But I don't think they have a "duty" or obligation to give their partners a disclaimer if it isn't warranted
That's your right, but then it's just as much on you to express to this stranger your preference as it is on them. There is no social or moral law that says that it's on a trans person to reveal that they are trans and not on you to reveal that you aren't ok with that. It's that simple
And if you're regularly having drunken sex with strangers it's probably doubly important to be asking more questions for your own health
Not quite, if the person is a posing as a she then is on her to set the things straight.
If I go to the store to buy some beer I don't have to ask the clerk for each bottle "Are you sure this is beer? I know it's says so on the label but maybe it's water that identifies as beer - trans-beer".
To borrow your example, let's say you go to the store to buy beer. Is it on you to proclaim that you are 21? No, it's on the clerk to ask you for some ID. If you want to volunteer to whip out your ID before it's asked, you're more than welcome to
But no clerk in any store ever has gotten angry that they had to ask you. Nor is it a crime on your part to leave the store with the beer if the clerk didn't ask you for your ID
As long as you aren't a minor misrepresenting your age with a fake ID, there are no moral implications in not volunteering to reveal your age
A trans person is not misrepresenting the fact that they are trans just by how they dress or appear in public. If that were the case, you could extrapolate this its logical extreme and say that any man with long hair or woman with short hair is implicitly lying to everybody about what they have inside their pants. It's silly
"As long as you aren't a minor misrepresenting your age with a fake ID" exactly that's the problem: a man misrepresenting his sex/gender. Period.
"A trans person is not misrepresenting the fact that they are trans just by how they dress or appear in public." - but that's the problem, the DO. They are like "look at me, I'm a woman", well buddy, you're NOT.
"say that any man with long hair or woman with short hair is implicitly lying to everybody about what they have inside their pants. It's silly"
You're right, it's silly. I had long hair and I never pretended to be a woman.
Nobody is stopping you from putting on a dress. And if you chose to that wouldn't mean you are implicitly claiming to have a vagina
They are not misrepresenting their sex, that is YOUR assumption about what they are doing. Changing their appearance to a form that they prefer does not mean that they are lying to you, they are exercising their personal autonomy and freedom, same as anybody else who does anything to alter their appearance
If you shave your pubes are you misrepresenting the fact that you grow pubic hair? If you wear hair-dye are you being dishonest about your natural hair color? If you wear make-up to hide a blemish are you LYING to strangers who happen to find you attractive?
If your answer to these questions is yes, then fine. But I'll say that if these count as lies, then they are lies which are not, in any meaningful sense, immoral
Somebody calling themselves a woman is not equivalent to denying that they are transgender. If you were to ask a transgender woman if she is transgender, and she says no, THAT would be lying. But labeling yourself something (woman, or man for a trans man) is not lying because they are not using the term to mean what YOU associate with the term
You can disagree that gender and sex are two different things, but that's a semantic disagreement, not a scientific disagreement. When a transgender woman calls themselves a woman they mean it in a sociocultural sense, not in a biological sense which denotes a specific set of genitals and two X chromosomes
If you disagree with this definition of gender or find it off-putting then you're entitled to your own beliefs and values, but that doesn't mean a trans person is morally obligated to warn you about their dick when you drunkenly come up to them
"They are not misrepresenting their sex, that is YOUR assumption about what they are doing. Changing their appearance to a form that they prefer does not imply that they are lying to you, they are exercising their personal autonomy and freedom, same as anybody else who does anything to alter their appearance"
They do lie when they present themselves as women not as men. Period.
When I shave my pubic hair I'm not saying "hey, look at me, my pubic hair is not growing anymore".
"Somebody calling themselves a woman is not equivalent to denying that they are transgender." - yes, it is, they are lying. They are NOT women.
"but that doesn't mean a trans person is morally obligated to warn you about their dick" actually yes, it should.
And it should be a norm from their safety perspective, you don't know how a drunk individual might react when presented with a dick.
Plus, what's the point? At best the individual will say "fuck off" and leave while at worst it might lead to injuries or even murder. And it's nothing but lost time for both ...
'"They do lie when they present themselves as women not as men. Period.
When I shave my pubic hair I'm not saying "hey, look at me, my pubic hair is not growing anymore".'
I can see that this discussion of gender is going nowhere so no point in continuing this line of conversation
---
"And it should be a norm from their safety perspective, you don't know how a drunk individual might react when presented with a dick."
The OP was whether it is immoral for them to not announce that they are trans. From a safety perspective, sure it's advisable that they let the other party know. I completely agree with you on this point. But that is a matter of what they ought to do for their own personal interests, not what they ought to do out of moral duty.
---
'"Plus, what's the point? At best the individual will say "fuck off" and leave while at worst it might lead to injuries or even murder. And it's nothing but lost time for both ..."
Again, I agree with this. But now you are discussing the practical benefits of them announcing they are trans, not the ethical implications
---
What you oughta realize is that for your last two points, the exact same results could be achieved if instead you (or any man) would ask every woman you speak to in a drunken, horny state if she is trans. If this sounds ridiculous or embarrassing, that's because it is. It is your opinion that the burden ought to be on them, but your arguments for this are not convincing
---
I know men and women who are trans and as far as I know they don't claim to not be transgender. They don't announce it to everybody that they meet, but they also don't lie about it to potential sexual partners. Both for their own safety and because there would be no sense in it. They are fairly normal people and not depraved perverts trying to trick others into betraying their own sexuality
Yes they are lol. I dunno how old you are or how much of a shut-in you are, but no socially-adjusted adult would try to pass off that lie that you just attempted
By my group you mean a man who doesn't casually use slurs in conversation and can actually have sex with a woman?
It is completely unethical. A main part of people seeking mates is for the creation of a family. If you are some fraudulent female that is really a man then you are never going to be able to reproduce with the male you are scamming. So to fail to admit your are not really a woman is very unethical.
That's fucking stupid. I fail to see a scenario where this would ever play out. Is the guy cumming inside an artificial vagina and wondering why his wife doesn't get pregnant? lol
Cheap fearmongering. The same type of nonsensical scenarios that propagandists would create decades ago against gays, and prior to that against miscegenation
Well I haven't fucked any trannies so I have no clue how good the surgeons are today, but surely have to admit that if the surgeon is good enough the guy might not realize he was fucking a dude and wasting any chance of having a family.
No surgery could make an artificial orifice self-lubricate. A guy would have to be extremely ignorant about vaginas to be fooled. I've never seen an artificial vagina in person, but I'd assume they probably need to apply lubricant in order to have comfortable sex
You separate gender "roles" and traits from ... gender.
A boy that likes pink or to play with dolls it's still a boy. A man, from the sex and gender point view.
His gender doesn't change because he likes to play with dolls.
A tomboy is still a girl, as gender, although she is act masculine.
Just think about this: if gender is not "male and female" then what's the point of the terms "trans-gender", "trans-woman"??? You guys are not even consequent, either gender IS dissociated from sex and then "trans-gender" has no meaning or is not.
Sex - biological.
Gender: was defined as a grammar abstraction for sex. For most of the history gender and sex had been synonymous. It's only a recent development that the extreme progressives are changing the definition and make it "socially driven". And it's wrong and confusing.
What, now we have to invent a new gender for every deviation from the gender roles?
Oh, a gender for guys with long hair, a gender for guys that like pink, a gender for girls that like sports.
Do you see how insane that is??
Specially when none of that actually changes the gender of the individual. A man with long hair is still a man.
without getting into the trans biology identity debate the OPs proposition is grammatically wrong
and the grammar seems to be his "proof"
"The declaration, "trans-women are women" is self contradictory. If trans-women were women, you wouldn't be able to identify them as something different. You would just say "women are women."
But the fact that you can differentiate them in such a way as to say "trans-women are women" in itself shows they are different from biological women."
Things have sub sets and
Things can become other things
"trans-women are women" is self contradictory."
putting an adjective in front of a noun is not contradictory
then again if you have "changed the noun" then that totally invalidates the OP's point as well
Nope, that's exactly my point.
If you change the noun, then the statement contradicts itself. If you change "man" to "woman" and put "trans" in front of it, then saying "trans-women are women" is self contradictory.
Trans-women are not women - they are trans-women. A separate and distinctly identifiable group of people.
If they weren't separate and distinct, you wouldn't be able to even make the statement "trans-women are women."
reply share
You are correct that this is the crux of the issue. JKR was clear that she supports trans-women and their right to live how they please. It's when they try to claim they are actual women that things fall apart.
Her whole point was that it's fine to be trans. Be trans, be happy. But as a trans-woman, that's what you are, a trans-woman.