Are Transwomen Women?

[Name Is Unnecessary]

Consul wrote:

do you regard anatomically and hormonally feminized transwoman as a woman

I think I answered - "not definite and absolute women".

[Consul]

do you regard anatomically and hormonally feminized transwoman as a woman

I think I answered - "not definite and absolute women".

Well, is "non-definite/non-absolute womanhood" a kind of womanhood?
Intersexuals are neither definitely/determinately female nor definitely/determinately male; but, as I already said several times, transsexuals aren't intersexuals.

[Consul]

No, transwomen are transwomen. They are different. Different upbringing, different genetics, different skeleton. But they are not their original gender either.

So you think transwomen are members of the class of women? This would mean that there are genetically male women who were born as boys; and this would mean that there are two essentially different kinds of women: these ones and genetically female ones who were born as girls.
Moreover, most transgenderist theorists think that neither being genetically female nor being anatomically or/and hormonally female/feminized is a necessary condition of being a woman. If they are right, then there are women who are (unambiguously) both genetically, anatomically (penis, testicles, no female breast [well, some men suffer from gynecomastia]), and hormonally male. Doesn't it sound absurd to you to count such a person among the women?

The current terms are fine. The suggested "transman" is a wildly inappropriate and insensitive term for a transsexual woman (male changed to woman), and vice versa.

I know that "transwoman" is used to refer to a male-to-female transsexual; but, strictly speaking, a transsexual woman isn't a male-to-female transsexual (born as a boy) but a female-to-male transsexual (born as a girl).

By the way, the very terms "male-to-female TS" and "female-to-male TS" are problematic, because they imply that a man can literally become a woman, and vice versa.

If a person feels intensely enough to change their gender then continuing to refer to that person as per the old gender will cause harm. Do you think people have their boobs and wombs removed, and undergo multiple surgeries to construct a rudimentary neo-phallus so as to still be referred to as a type of woman? How undermining would that be to go through all of that and still be called a type of woman?
Much of this comes down to simply allowing outsiders to assimilate into society. So you don't want transpeople who are ostensibly one gender being exposed as trans by the careless use of labels; outing cannot be undone.

My question isn't an ethical or political one, but a metaphysical or ontological one. (This is not to say that an answer to the metaphysical/ontological question doesn't have any ethical, political, or legal implications.)

I reject the transgenderist concepts of femaleness/womanhood and maleness/manhood as very inadequate, according to which biology is totally irrelevant, with sex being nothing but a "social construction" and thus being identical to "gender".

[Consul]

The question we're discussing here is a matter of truth; and "subjective truth" is just belief (or opinion). The question is precisely whether the belief that transwoman are woman/transmen are men is true!

In my opinion - which, after all, is what we're all here to express - yes, subjective truth is the only legitimate truth regarding identity.

Again, "subjective truth" is just belief, with "p is true for me" simply meaning "I believe that p". Beliefs can be false, including beliefs about oneself and one's identity. Believing to be a woman doesn't entail being a woman, such that this belief isn't self-justifying and necessarily true. So what's the epistemic justication for a transwoman's belief that she (really) is a woman? She might answer "I know I'm a woman, because I feel like a woman". But how does she know what being a woman feels like? Anyway, feeling "like a woman" in the sense of feeling feminine is not the same as being a woman, since a man can feel feminine as well. Moreover, if a transwoman replies "I know what being a woman feels like, because I am a woman", she's caught in circularity.

[Alias]

Again, "subjective truth" is just belief, with "p is true for me" simply meaning "I believe that p". Beliefs can be false, including beliefs about oneself and one's identity.

Again, yes, self-identification can be inaccurate.
Identification by an external observer with no access to internal information can be inaccurate.
In the absence of objective, unbiased, comprehensive information,
the former is a more authoritative - and to me, more acceptable - conclusion.
Thus, I have exited the loop in which you seem to have trapped yourself.

[Consul]

Again, yes, self-identification can be inaccurate.
Identification by an external observer with no access to internal information can be inaccurate.
In the absence of objective, unbiased, comprehensive information,
the former is a more authoritative - and to me, more acceptable - conclusion.
Thus, I have exited the loop in which you seem to have trapped yourself.

No, I'm not "trapped in a loop". There are objective biological criteria for (wo)manhood. First and foremost, sex is a biological category.

[Eduk]

By the way Consul you haven't quite cleared up a couple of things.
Let's start with things we agree with.
1. Saying you are a women doesn't mean you are a women.
2. A man who says they are a woman is a man who says they are a woman.
I think that's reasonable. But now for the slightly more complex questions.
3. Can an individual with an unambiguously male physique have a female brain. Can there be such a thing as a female brain? I am wondering what your take on this is?
4. Can a man who says they are female be a female gender?

[Consul]

I'm still waiting for a logically valid and rationally plausible argument for the view that a transsexual man (born as a boy) who self-identifies as female but is genetically, hormonally, and anatomically (determinately) male is a woman.

[Consul]

3. Can an individual with an unambiguously male physique have a female brain. Can there be such a thing as a female brain? I am wondering what your take on this is?

It needs to be clarified first what a (fe)male brain is, i.e. what neurophysiological criteria there are for attributing (fe)maleness to a brain (rather than to a whole organism).

4. Can a man who says they are female be a female gender?

"According to Ann Oakley, who introduced the term to sociology, "'Sex' refers to the biological division into male and female; 'gender' to the parallel and socially unequal division into femininity and masculinity' (see Sex, Gender and Society, 1972)."

(Scott, John, and Gordon Marshall. Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 276)

Given these distinctions, "female gender" is a contradiction in terms, because gender concerns (psychological/sociological) femininity rather than (biological/physiological) femaleness. So you may speak of "feminine gender" but not of "female gender" (unless, of course, this phrase is used synonymously with "female sex").

[Eduk]

It needs to be clarified first what a (fe)male brain is, i.e. what neurophysiological criteria there are for attributing (fe)maleness to a brain (rather than to a whole organism).

Why does it need to be clarified first? If you can't clarify it does that mean you shouldn't consider it? Is it a possibility? For me I'm agnostic, which means I can't simply say it can't be the case.

Given these distinctions, "female gender" is a contradiction in terms, because gender concerns (psychological/sociological) femininity rather than (biological/physiological) femaleness. So you may speak of "feminine gender" but not of "female gender" (unless, of course, this phrase is used synonymously with "female sex").

These are just word games. If someone says they are a woman and they are thinking in terms of gender and not physical attributes then you aren't changing any of their meaning by insisting they say feminine.

[Consul]

It needs to be clarified first what a (fe)male brain is, i.e. what neurophysiological criteria there are for attributing (fe)maleness to a brain (rather than to a whole organism).

Why does it need to be clarified first? If you can't clarify it does that mean you shouldn't consider it? Is it a possibility? For me I'm agnostic, which means I can't simply say it can't be the case.

Even if you're agnostic(ally neutral), you need to know what you're agnostic about; and you don't know that unless there is a sufficiently precise definition of "cerebral (fe)maleness".

Given these distinctions, "female gender" is a contradiction in terms, because gender concerns (psychological/sociological) femininity rather than (biological/physiological) femaleness. So you may speak of "feminine gender" but not of "female gender" (unless, of course, this phrase is used synonymously with "female sex").

These are just word games. If someone says they are a woman and they are thinking in terms of gender and not physical attributes then you aren't changing any of their meaning by insisting they say feminine.

Semantics matters! Of course, if "(wo)man" is defined as "person who self-identifies as (fe)male", then trans(wo)men are (wo)men. But there are good reasons to reject this definition as very inadequate, because it totally neglects the biology of sex (differences).

[Alias]

No, I'm not "trapped in a loop". There are objective biological criteria for (wo)manhood. First and foremost, sex is a biological category.

In which case, you have already answered the question to your own satisfaction.
Why continue discussing it?

[Eduk]

If you like. As I said I think the single best thing you could do is spend quality time with transsexuals. Then you might learn exactly what they do or don't believe and why and for what purpose. You wouldn't have to guess anymore.
Personally I only see it is as a genuine issue in very narrow circumstances such as cheating in Olympic sports.

[Consul]

Semantics matters! Of course, if "(wo)man" is defined as "person who self-identifies as (fe)male", then trans(wo)men are (wo)men. But there are good reasons to reject this definition as very inadequate, because it totally neglects the biology of sex (differences).

Moreover, the definition "x is (fe)male/a (wo)man =_def x self-identifies as (fe)male/a (wo)man" is formally improper, because the definiendum is part of the definiens.

[Consul]

If you like. As I said I think the single best thing you could do is spend quality time with transsexuals. Then you might learn exactly what they do or don't believe and why and for what purpose. You wouldn't have to guess anymore.
Personally I only see it is as a genuine issue in very narrow circumstances such as cheating in Olympic sports.

The metaphysics/ontology of (wo)manhood is one thing, and the psychology or sociology of transsexuality is another.