It wasn't so much the bikinis I was commenting about, more the overobjectification of women as sex objects, and awards based on that metric.
1940s: Women were perceived as being chaste, and the Miss Universe pageant scandalous because it caused women to be perceived as sexual beings.
1970s: Women rebel against conservative ideas of sexuality and the chaste portrayal of women.
2012: Woman in a bikini is bad because it portrays women as sexual beings.
This is stupid.
If I were to walk up to a woman on the street and say "I'll give you a hundred dollars to dress up in a bikini," it's not the bikini part that's creepy.
Yes it is, actually.
And it depends on who you are. If you're part of the multi-billion dollar industry of women's fashion, then there's nothing wrong with the scenario you just talked about, now, is there?
But that's not the whole point. The whole point of the brand, the whole point of any television brand, is to make money, in this case by providing a show that the audience finds entertaining (and also on several secondary venues). In this case, that's very clearly targeting the lowest common denominator; I'm quite certain that if there were a viable way to do so, they'd have introduced a "kiss each other" portion by now. How is it possible to damage that brand any further?
You don't get the idea behind this, do you?
The whole point of Miss Universe is she's presented as an ideal. She's the most beautiful woman in the world. She's sexy (swimsuit competition); she's smart, has personality, and is a humanitarian (Q&A portion); she's patriotic (national costume portion); and she's elegant (evening wear). That's the selling point.
The whole appeal is that men want her, young girls want to be her, and women who compete in beauty pageants compete to be her.
So what, exactly, are they trying to do by changing their rule on naturally born females competing? What's being achieved here aside from shooting themselves in the foot? I don't get it.
1940s: Women were perceived as being chaste, and the Miss Universe pageant scandalous because it caused women to be perceived as sexual beings.
1970s: Women rebel against conservative ideas of sexuality and the chaste portrayal of women.
2012: Woman in a bikini is bad because it portrays women as sexual beings.
THIS IS STUPID.
Yes it is. That's my point. The Miss Universe pageant is a dinosaur that somehow avoided the meteor strike.
I gotta admit, that is an expert goalpost shift you've done there, turning my point about the questionable ethics of people viewing or hosting the pageant into a cute little defense of women's rights because women are in the pageant.
Depends on who you are. If you're some perv on the street, yes that's creepy.
If you're part of the multi-billion dollar industry of women's fashion, then there's nothing wrong with the scenario you just talked about, now, is there?
Well, I'd assume there is because the Miss Universe pageant doesn't actually go down the street and sign people up, do they? Last I checked, the pageant has an impossibly long list of people all trying to get into it, that was the whole point here wasn't it? Ms. Talackova applied to be in the pageant. she wasn't approached.
You don't get the idea behind this, do you?
I am quite thick, I'll admit. So will this be an education for me, or are you content to ask questions with self-evident answers?
The whole point of Miss Universe is she's presented as an ideal. She's the most beautiful woman in the world. She's sexy (swimsuit competition); she's smart, has personality, and is a humanitarian (Q&A portion); she's patriotic (national costume portion); and she's elegant (evening wear). That's the selling point.
And that selling point is a big ol' lie. You say it yourself, the winner is presented as an ideal: it is ideal to have tape on your nipples and a swimsuit that fits your curves so well you have to apply a gel to get into it; it is ideal to have a pre-written speech about your patriotism and a stunning yet ridiculously expensive costume designed for you; it is ideal to put on a different gown for each portion of the event.. but it will never be reality. It's a fantasy, nothing more.
The whole appeal is that men want her, young girls want to be her, and women who compete in beauty pageants compete to be her.
So what, exactly, are they trying to do by changing their rule on naturally born females competing? What's being achieved here aside from shooting themselves in the foot? I don't get it.
You're implying that there were no downsides to maintaining the status quo? That it somehow wouldn't be shooting themselves in the foot to fight a battle for an outdated ruling and facing harsh criticism from social groups the whole way? Seems to me that getting rid of this minor trifling rule is the easy route.
And then, of course, this only broadens their audience: not all men find trans women unappealing, not all girls are born with vaginas, and not all women care about their competitors genitals. Until you can show me evidence of some kind of "trans radius" that turns off viewers to the other contestants because of the removal of this rule, or even some evidence that most of the viewers care so much about every rule of the event that they're goign to stop watching, there's no reason to forbid Ms. Talackova from competing.
Could you be more specific as to what you're arguing? And then, y'know, try to stick to it? Because from where I'm standing, it looks like this is developing into your typical unfocused ramble, in spite of your assurances that you didn't want that.
Despite appearances, I really am trying to keep myself to as few subtopics as I can and trying to keep those at least somewhat related to the whole pageant thing (while also responding to arguments others make). Offhand there's the "what constitutes womanhood?" thing (since Jenna being a woman is relevant in the context of a women's event), plus the related "trans women aren't any less 'women' than cis women" thing (where even if Jenna is classified as female, people still see her as being "less" female than cis women and thus ineligible for the event), and the "discriminating based on gender identity is no different from discriminating based on race/etc" thing (plus the obvious "the policy was bigoted/wrong/other negative judgement" stuff), at least in terms of arguments I'm proactively advancing. It just bounces around a lot between them and probably seems more chaotic than it really is.
There's no such thing as "not female enough". Either the definition of female applies to a person or it doesn't.
Well, that's just the thing. There is such a thing as "not female enough." Again, take a look at how people talk about Jenna, or about me, or about any trans woman when you get right down to it. There's a fair deal of "we respect your identity" lip service (for instance, it's very rare on here that I'm referred to with male pronouns, even by people who don't respect trans identities) that's met with insinuations that we're either "really" men or were at one time men—and yet we also aren't fully treated as men at the same time. It's a kind of subconscious third-gendering that goes on, where people are so used to the concept of there being only two genders that there's noticeable cognitive dissonance regarding people's approaches to those who they see, on some level, as being outside the two basic categories. Which is why you can get statements like the "trans women and women are two different categories" thing someone told me earlier, or the "they're two separate types of women and there's no reason not to segregate them in beauty pageants" thing.
The tl;dr of this is that trans women are seen as being too feminine to be men but not "really" women, so people shuffle back and forth as to which box they put trans women in.
Whether or not someone is "socially female" and/or "legally female" doesn't factor in whether or not someone is a woman.
Sure they do. What you're doing is mixing around terms to mean things they don't—in this case, you're acting as if "woman" and "morphologically female human being" must be necessarily the same thing, whereas "woman" is more of a social label than a biological one.
Among the things that peer-reviewed science is not an authority on is what a given word means.
No, it's not the absolute authority over linguistics, but in terms of things like brain structure, it can say what set of norms trans people's biology falls into. And if the conclusion is "trans women have female brain structure," then that's the conclusion.
And what's the definition of "the right brain" then? A brain that fits your brain?
I only said "the right brain" when I was using your own words to make a point.
This is another categorical error. Defining something (the act of assigning a sequence of letters to a given content) is not the type of things that can be "bigoted".
It absolutely can be if the purpose is to keep something excluded from a definition, such as keeping trans women excluded from being considered "women." At that point the definition becomes mostly self-serving for the privileged ones who influence that definition.
Because the evidence (Jenna's looks) doesn't line up with what the speaker is saying. If I would show someone the right half of this picture and say "that's a man", they might call me delusional as well, but I would be right.
When I say "point at someone," I don't mean literally as in point at a picture of them, but figuratively at the person as a whole.
The gender role assigned at birth is not what matters (gender roles aren't even assigned at birth and not to individuals - they are what a given group of people primarily associates with people belonging to a sex).
Gender roles are absolutely assigned at birth. Right from the get-go, you hear stuff like "it's a boy" and now everything involving the child is gendered in some form. You break out the blue stuff (ignoring that until relatively recently, blue was considered a girl's colour and pink a boy's colour), you encourage strength and independence, and basically get the kid in line with a male gender role as fast as humanly possible.
So what do you have to offer besides your own ideology that the sequence of letters F-E-M-A-L-E magically applies not to what we assign it to mean and instead means something that goes completely against its intended usage?
The fact that the "intended" usage only has the XX requirement as a background thing not applied to common usage of the term, for one. No one really cares that much in actual conversation, nor are people likely to care if someone who is (in their eyes) well-established in their minds as being a woman turns out to have unexpected traits.
My point was that with a naturally born woman, I would seek a potential romantic relationship whereas I would not do the same with a transgendered woman.
I have to wonder why that tangent would even matter. It seems to me you're just so uncomfortable with the prospect that you're obsessing over it even when no one else is.
Then you're not reading what I'm saying at all. Remember your metaphor? You were arguing that a ps3 with the case of an Xbox 360, is an xbox 360?
That manages to be the exact opposite of what I argued. A system with PS3 internals and a 360 case is obviously a PS3, but the same logic that says trans women are men (or even just somehow "less" female than cis women) would say that the system in question is a 360.
Basically, it's the same thing here. I'm arguing that people are the 'sex' they are born with and that doesn't change with surgery and taking hormone shots.
I agree with the wording albeit not the intended meaning. I was born female (trans female, but still, that doesn't diminish anything), and hormones, surgery, etc don't change that. I don't "become" a woman or anything with them—I was always one.
From what I understand, sex is determined at conception and not at birth. Once again, as I have explained already - it's in your genes.
Your chromosomes might be set at conception, but it's a little while into the pregnancy before your body and brain get the chemical signal to masculinize or not (and this happens in two stages).
Okay, but what if we have doctors (who don't know anything about you) take a sample of your blood and have it tested to find out what sex you are - what results do you think they'll come up with?
This question is utterly meaningless. You're basically asking, "What if we give someone misleading and incomplete information and see what kind of wrong conclusions they draw?"
Then you're rambling and creating an argument that's looking for an argument to address.
I think that, in the face of people making such a big deal out of XY chromosomes, it's interesting to point out a category of XY women which would not be barred from entry.
The 'hard sciences' you are presenting do not address the argument that is being made, they do however, address the strawman you've made.
What they address is that, on very real levels, the "trans women are strictly men, end of story" view is scientifically inaccurate.
Secondly, even though you are a 'member of the affected group' doesn't give your arguments credibility.
Arguments stand and fall on their own, it doesn't matter who says them.
Depends. When we're talking about identity and lived experience, it's impossible for a cis person to know how trans identities work on the same level that we do.
Trying to create a strawman again are we? Being 'trans gendered' isn't a physical trait in the same sense as being a certain 'sex' or a certain 'race' is, now is it?
Ignoring the biological cause of it that you really are born with...
Is this a joke? No seriously, this argument has to be a joke. I don't think I have to give a response, your argument just falls flat on its face on its own.
Why dismiss this out of hand? Is the thought of accepting others' identities when they run against your preconceptions really worth that kind of dismissal?
Sorry, but transgendered women were born a man (While you might find that offensive, it's nonetheless true.). Again, I don't feel that having surgery, what you feel, or taking estrogen shots changes what you are.
Inasmuch as you throw out statements and claim they're "nonetheless true," you really don't go about backing up your statements that well. Even I've supplied actual sources in this thread—you're just arguing that your opinions should outweigh trans identities.
Since Jenna, a transgender XY, is being allowed to compete in a competition where all other contestents are XX - should transgender/transsexual pageants allow a natural-born XX to compete in a competition where all other contestents are XY?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: There's a fundamental difference between a generalized women's event and a trans women's event. Trans women, being a highly marginalized and oppressed group in general, create our own spaces to be free from all the cissexism and transphobia that run rampant in society. Excluding cis women isn't oppressive. For an event like Miss Universe to exclude Jenna is oppressive on the grounds that it's basically a way for them to say trans women either aren't "really" women, or that our womanhood is significantly inferior to cis women's. The dynamics involved are totally different.
This has always been very confusing to me. If cis is the majority and even the baseline that trans* individuals were born "crosswired"(maybe a bad term, but the best shorthand I can think of) away from, then shouldn't it just be normal/normative? Cis to me was a term invented out of spite; they label us trans, we'll label them cis. And it seems like a waste.
It's not something created out of spite at all. If the distinction were solely between, say, "trans" and "normal," then the implication is that trans people are somehow abnormal (with all the inescapable negative social connotations therewith), as if being trans is some kind of perversion of the natural order of things. When it's between "trans" and "cis," then the implication is that each is just as valid a state of being as the other, with the implication that it's normal for a certain percent of the population to be trans.
2012: Woman in a bikini is bad because it portrays women as sexual beings.
This is stupid.
I fully agree, but not for the reasons one might expect. Ultimately it comes down to two factors: Prescriptivism and victim-blaming. Prescriptive "don't do this" attitudes in ideologies centred around the concept of freedom have always annoyed me, because the message there is that you're free to do whatever you're told you can do, rather than to make your own choices. Similarly, to put wearing a bikini (or whatever other revealing attire) as being inherently objectifying is blaming the women for being sex objects, rather than blaming the men actually doing the objectifying.
So what, exactly, are they trying to do by changing their rule on naturally born females competing? What's being achieved here aside from shooting themselves in the foot? I don't get it.
They're basically saying (whether on their own or because of pressure to) that any woman can be Miss Universe, not just a member of a specific privileged group.
Yes it is. That's my point. The Miss Universe pageant is a dinosaur that somehow avoided the meteor strike.
How can you say, "That's my point" when I'm ridiculing what you're saying?
I gotta admit, that is an expert goalpost shift you've done there, turning my point about the questionable ethics of people viewing or hosting the pageant
I'm saying the idea of people viewing or hosting a pageant having questionable ethics is ridiculous.
Well, I'd assume there is because the Miss Universe pageant doesn't actually go down the street and sign people up, do they? Last I checked, the pageant has an impossibly long list of people all trying to get into it, that was the whole point here wasn't it? Ms. Talackova applied to be in the pageant. she wasn't approached.
Why is this relevant?
This seems like a non sequitur. Yes, she applied to be in the pageant. She also lied on her application from the sound of it, or else never qualified under the rules, although I'm not sure ignorance is entirely believable as the "natural born female" rule has come up before. So what are you trying to say here?
And that selling point is a big ol' lie. You say it yourself, the winner is presented as an ideal: it is ideal to have tape on your nipples and a swimsuit that fits your curves so well you have to apply a gel to get into it; it is ideal to have a pre-written speech about your patriotism and a stunning yet ridiculously expensive costume designed for you; it is ideal to put on a different gown for each portion of the event.. but it will never be reality. It's a fantasy, nothing more.
So?
I'm not saying that beauty pageants are intellectual and artistic triumphs of man. They are silly. However, you're trying to say they're immoral and exploitive, which I don't buy.
You're implying that there were no downsides to maintaining the status quo? That it somehow wouldn't be shooting themselves in the foot to fight a battle for an outdated ruling and facing harsh criticism from social groups the whole way?
No. I don't believe there would. The natural born female rule was there before and has a purpose.
The idea that showing women in bikinis is evil and bad because real women would never portray their bodies in a sexual fashion but instead it is the work of malevolent forces threatening to confuse and corrupt innocent young virgins is something that was believed in the forties with its attitudes towards sex and female modesty, which are also considered to be sexist and harmful.
The fact that people who call themselves feminists are trying to pull the same argument now is ironic, farcical, and pathetic.
I fully agree, but not for the reasons one might expect. Ultimately it comes down to two factors: Prescriptivism and victim-blaming. Prescriptive "don't do this" attitudes in ideologies centred around the concept of freedom have always annoyed me, because the message there is that you're free to do whatever you're told you can do, rather than to make your own choices. Similarly, to put wearing a bikini (or whatever other revealing attire) as being inherently objectifying is blaming the women for being sex objects, rather than blaming the men actually doing the objectifying.
Again, the idea that men are evil forces corrupting young, innocent virgins to make them do unnatural things like wear bikinis on television is a ****ing ridiculous view.
What do you all think a bikini is for?
They're basically saying (whether on their own or because of pressure to) that any woman can be Miss Universe, not just a member of a specific privileged group.
By specific, privileged group, you mean women?
What about the aforementioned transsexual beauty pageant? You want to tell me the same criticism doesn't apply there? See to me, the idea of an authentic woman participating in such a pageant entirely defeats the purpose of a trans-beauty pageant. Evidently the people in charge of the event agree, because they don't allow anyone non-trans in the event.
So why does the natural born female rule come under fire in Miss Universe? Misapplied political correctness.
Again, the idea that men are evil forces corrupting young, innocent virgins to make them do unnatural things like wear bikinis on television is a ****ing ridiculous view.
What do you all think a bikini is for?
Honestly? A bikini is for displaying the female form in a sexually enticing manner. Most Bikini's are completely impractical as a piece of actual swimwear, especially relative to non-bikini swimwear.
But then, I don't speak for others -- thats just my opinion.
You realize karyotype testing is a real thing, right?
You realize deliberately taking what he said out of its explicit context and making it sound like he meant the opposite of what he said is a thing, right? (Also, it's a dick move).
What he ACTUALLY said, instead of what you lied about him saying:
Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu
"Well, if someone says I'm XY, it's responsible to point out that there's no way of knowing that to be true."
Taking a blood sample and looking for X and Y chromosomes under a microscope = impossible.
Reading a person's mind to figure out whether or not that person identifies as a man or woman = no problem.
How can you say, "That's my point" when I'm ridiculing what you're saying?
We can both say something is ridiculous without agreeing as to why it's ridiculous.
I'm saying the idea of people viewing or hosting a pageant having questionable ethics is ridiculous.
Care to elaborate? As I'm reading it now it doesn't make any realistic sense, like people can't make ethically unsound viewing/job decisions. That's clearly not the case, so it's obviously my error and I need to get schooled.
Why is this relevant?
Because your earlier claim was based on the idea that corporate entities adhere to different ethical standards than a single person. As the two entities in this case do not share a common action, this is apples and oranges.
This seems like a non sequitur. Yes, she applied to be in the pageant. She also lied on her application from the sound of it, or else never qualified under the rules, although I'm not sure ignorance is entirely believable as the "natural born female" rule has come up before. So what are you trying to say here?
What I'm saying is that you can't remove the viewer-as-participant from the equation. Your original question was whether or not removing the "born as a female" rule would hurt the brand; my response is that you have to show that the viewer is going to care enough about that change to stop watching before you can make an assumption that it would hurt the brand. If the pageant actually directly sought out participants, that would lend weight to your argument, as they would have made a "bad pick" and changing the rules would look like backpedaling to appease a minority; but since they changed the rules specifically so that Ms. Talackova could participate (even after she lied), it's pretty clear how seriously the competition itself takes the seriousness of that rule.
So?
I'm not saying that beauty pageants are intellectual and artistic triumphs of man. They are silly. However, you're trying to say they're immoral and exploitive, which I don't buy.
Well, first off, I never said they were immoral.
Secondly, exploiting the fantastic elements of the competition are of importance when discussing the integrity of that competition: if people are willing to suspend their disbelief that these contestants are acting like their usual selves instead of trumped-up version of their ideal selves, they'd probably also be willing to temporarily disbelieve that the integrity of the contest hasn't been compromised.
No. I don't believe there would. The natural born female rule was there before and has a purpose.
Then you've got your work cut out for you: social pressure was on the pageant as soon as this story broke, and I'd bet this isn't the only site on the internet that's having this discussion. On top of that, the pageant revoked the rule, so can you give me another reason they'd do that if it isn't an attempt at palliation to these social pressures? 'Cuz I'm having no problem connecting the dots between "oh a lot of people are mad" and "better change the rules so that Ms. Talackova can participate."
Evidently the people in charge of the event agree, because they don't allow anyone non-trans in the event.
So why does the natural born female rule come under fire in Miss Universe? Misapplied political correctness.
Well, no, it's more for the reasons I explained in my previous post than anything else. I'll repost it:
Quote from Teia the Rabbit"s Shoe »
There's a fundamental difference between a generalized women's event and a trans women's event. Trans women, being a highly marginalized and oppressed group in general, create our own spaces to be free from all the cissexism and transphobia that run rampant in society. Excluding cis women isn't oppressive. For an event like Miss Universe to exclude Jenna is oppressive on the grounds that it's basically a way for them to say trans women either aren't "really" women, or that our womanhood is significantly inferior to cis women's. The dynamics involved are totally different.
You realize deliberately taking what he said out of its explicit context and making it sound like he meant the opposite of what he said is a thing, right? (Also, it's a dick move).
Karyotype testing is a thing. I've never had it. I don't know how one could reasonably get a facetious "it's impossible" out of that—his leap from one to the other was highly disingenuous. And as for going by identity, I don't see anything wrong with it. It doesn't involve mind-reading in the slightest, unless the point is that one would have to read my mind in order to verify that I truly identify as female, which is decidedly unnecessary.
And because I said it earlier in the thread, I'll paste this again because it's relevant:
Quote from Teia the Rabbit"s Shoe »
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that definition. The natural response from its detractors is that then you have men who "identify" as female for whatever reason, or like the etymology of LogicX's title they might "identify" as something non-human. The problem with the former is that it falls into the fallacy of saying "well, I'm not a mind-reader so I can't tell the difference between someone who's sincere and who isn't." Which kind of falls apart when you take a look at the conviction between the two—I identify as female and am in the process of a rather lengthy medical and social transition. I have a "gender identity disorder" diagnosis on medical file. I'm willing to live openly as a member of one of the most marginalized and oppressed minorities in the Western world. A man who facetiously "identifies" as female isn't going to be willing to do that (note this is not to delegitimize the identities of trans people who can't or don't want to pursue medical transition). The other common counter, to "identify" as something nonhuman (such as a truffle, or the South Park "identify as an animal" thing that sometimes gets thrown around), clearly doesn't work because, to put it simply, you can be born with a specific brain structure or another, but you can't be born with truffle genes.
In short, detractors of definitions of gender that centre around identity try to reduce it to statement rather than feeling and experiences. I can say I'm a palm tree, but that doesn't make me one any more than me saying that I'm a man would make me one. In fact, I'm not a woman solely because I say so, but because my saying so is an expression of fundamental identity.
The "fundamental identity" there being the underlying biological causes of transsexuality resulting in a specific hardcoded encephalic sex.
And as for going by identity, I don't see anything wrong with it. It doesn't involve mind-reading in the slightest, unless the point is that one would have to read my mind in order to verify that I truly identify as female, which is decidedly unnecessary.
I'm pretty sure that was the point. He was arguing that one test (genetic testing) is a real, doable, test that provides concrete results. The other test (what do you identify as) is a pseudo test that relies on getting correct honest answers and/or mind reading and is nebulous at best.
but of course you don't want to interpret it that way. It wouldn't help your stupid agenda.
I will apply Hanlon's razor and guide you through this step for step:
You said that there is no way of knowing whether or not someone is XY or not.
But, if we were to take a blood sample, look at it under a microscope and find X and Y chromosomes, then we would come to know that this person was in fact XY.
So what you said implies that this procedure is impossible.
If you now understand what I wrote, please explain to me that what you meant when you wrote that there is no way of knowing whether or not a person's claim about being XY is true.
Must a person be XX to be female? Must they have a typical female body with working parts? Must they identify as female? Must all three of these be true? Two of them?
There are XY individuals where every part of them is female, and functional.
There are XY individuals who are transexual women and have a male body with working parts.
There are XY individuals who are transexual women and have a female body without working parts.
There are XX individuals who have a female body without working parts.
etc.
I don't get how this "woman/female" argument keeps going. But I throw in my two copper.
Teia, I'm sorry but you are wrong here, not in a major way, I support your intent, just not your argument. I mean, sure I agree that I don't spend my time checking people's chromosomes walking down the street before I greet them. So I am positive I have said "Hey lady, how are ya?" to a couple transwomen. Therefore, I have to agree that "usage" of the term woman/female generally just applies to someone with pretty hair, boobs, no junk up front, hips, lipstick on, etc. So be it. I don't play biologist when interacting with people on a casual social basis. So you do have a point, it just isn't a very strong one Teia. As far as transwomen/transmen go, I have no personal issue at all with transpeople.
My issue here is your argument about the definition of words vs. the usages of those words falls flat once you actually discuss assignment.
There may be social usages of the terms Female and Woman.
However, speaking for myself, when I call someone a WOMAN, I am assuming (and if they are trans, I am wrong) that the person obeys the natural biological category definitions of WOMAN.
Thus, as a Scientific Biological term, Female and Woman and Girl all mean that the organism was born with birthing equipment and genes. Ovaries, Uterus, the production of reproductive Eggs, and a gene makeup of XX. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/female http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Female http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female
I'm sorry, but if you were NOT born with those traits, you are not a naturally born FEMALE. It's as simple as that.
NOWHERE in the definitions of the terms Male or Female does it say anything about how you feel inside.
I don't think it is wrong for a private company to exclude certain people from its functions.
I think the Government only has a responsibility to prevent PUBLIC descrimination based on gender, religion, race, etc. To guard against these forms of racism/sexism in housing, employment, law enforcement, and medical treatment.
I do NOT believe it is the intent of Equal Rights to shut down every single "Gentlemen's Club" ever.
I do not believe it is the intent of Equal Rights to force the PGA to accept a woman, or to force the NFL to accept a woman, or any other privately owned and funded organization that wishes to keep the sexes seperate. I do not want them to force the LPGA to accept men. I do not want them to force the Red hat Society to accept men. Let clubshouses keep their rules.
We are not talking about the right to vote, or to attend public schools, or to be treated at a hospital here.
In fact, I know it's not the intent. After all, we do not force the KKK to include blacks, and we also do not shut them down. We just bash them in the media as often as possible.
If this pageant's rules were intended to keep the contest between naturally born females. I see nothing wrong with what they did.
Though now, they have been forced under public pressure to take Jenna back into the competition (if she meets Canada's gender definitions). So you see Teia, make a big enough stink about it, and "oppressed minorities" can get their way. It's reverse oppression sure, but as long as you agree with the cause right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
This sort of thing seems to happen in every competitive sport or game. Someone turns out to be trans or their gender in doubt and suddenly people start spouting stuff about chromosomes and gender roles and the real issue is lost.
The lady in question made some people uncomfortable and for that reason she was disqualified. Maybe it was a sponsor or a judge or some of the competitors. It doesn't matter really. To me its upsetting because Jenna has been penalized for something she can't change or control. She has done something many people will never do. Love and embrace her true self without fear or shame. That she was born a male is of little importance to the Miss Universe pageant. Its one of the few things in life where being a guy has no advantage whatsoever!
Update: The Donald has reinstated Jenna and she will compete in Miss Universe Canada!
What happened here is that the competition only allows women to enter, the word woman means something that Jenna isn't, then a bunch people who don't know the meaning of the word got angry and made the categorical error that definitions can discriminate.
Actually, only the US version of the pageant requires contestants to be biological women. Canada's rules are written rather hazily and so that is why Jenna even tried to enter. The rules are that contestants must be a Canadian citizen and be at least 18 years old but under 27 on Feb. 1, 2012. That's it. No "must be a biological woman" in the fine print. The rules may be implied but if it is not explicitly expressed then it doesn't mean anything.
I have to wonder why that tangent would even matter. It seems to me you're just so uncomfortable with the prospect that you're obsessing over it even when no one else is.
You tell me! You're the one who started to argue against it in the first place. I brought up the point to talk about why I don't view transgendered woman in the exact same sense as I do naturally born women.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
That manages to be the exact opposite of what I argued. A system with PS3 internals and a 360 case is obviously a PS3, but the same logic that says trans women are men (or even just somehow "less" female than cis women) would say that the system in question is a 360.
Transgendered females are not born with xx chromosomes in their genes, it's something they feel - not something they are according to their genes. That's part of the reason I think your metaphor was crappy in the first place.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
I agree with the wording albeit not the intended meaning. I was born female (trans female, but still, that doesn't diminish anything), and hormones, surgery, etc don't change that. I don't "become" a woman or anything with them—I was always one.
What you're talking about is psychological feelings - not physical genetic ones. It's a strawman because as I have been arguing in this thread - I don't consider psychological feelings about how you view yourself to be an indication of what you are.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
Your chromosomes might be set at conception, but it's a little while into the pregnancy before your body and brain get the chemical signal to masculinize or not (and this happens in two stages).
Yeah, see at conception you get your genes that will determine what type of gonads you will grow and when you hit puberty - if your body produces testosterone or estrogen.
Again, you're trying to argue psychological feelings determine your sex. The Y gene has very much to do with how you will masculinize or not (usually if its there, you will and if it isn't you'll feminize).
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
This question is utterly meaningless. You're basically asking, "What if we give someone misleading and incomplete information and see what kind of wrong conclusions they draw?"
No, you're trying to use biased information to prove the results you're looking for. I'm advocating a blind test or a double blind test - both of which are accepted testing methods for unbiased results.
You just happen to know the results of a blind/double blind test wouldn't favor you because you're wrong, so now you're trying to dismiss it.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
I think that, in the face of people making such a big deal out of XY chromosomes, it's interesting to point out a category of XY women which would not be barred from entry.
What they address is that, on very real levels, the "trans women are strictly men, end of story" view is scientifically inaccurate.
No they don't, they address sexual identity (which is psychological), not genetic sex. It's a strawman.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
Depends. When we're talking about identity and lived experience, it's impossible for a cis person to know how trans identities work on the same level that we do.
Yeah, depends on the argument you're making - hence as I said before just because you're a member of the transgendered community, doesn't automatically give you credibility here.
Arguments stand and fall on their own. That is why I don't accept arguments from authority and why they are a fallacy.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
Ignoring the biological cause of it that you really are born with...
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Clarify please.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
Why dismiss this out of hand? Is the thought of accepting others' identities when they run against your preconceptions really worth that kind of dismissal?
Lets look at your argument then:
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
No, not in the slightest. Trans women don't "become" female except in terms of adjusting our gender presentations to match female norms. We take estrogen shots because, in a nutshell, it corrects the hormonal imbalance inherent in our bodies, and we get surgery the same as anyone seeking to correct a birth defect would.
Basically it reads, Well Transwomen don't become women except you know... to remove the ***** we are born with and turn it into a ****** and take estrogen shots because our bodies will otherwise produce testosterone.
Which are things that a male goes through. There's no hormonal imbalance inherent in your bodies - your genes are telling your male body to produce a male hormone at puberty, which is a natural affect of being a genetic male.
You get the surgery to match what you feel psychologically.
As I said, being a male or female isn't who you are but what you are.
Your argument is so bad that it attempts to dismiss this without actually dismissing it and you just choose to play word games instead. Like I said, it falls flat on it's face, on its own merit.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
Inasmuch as you throw out statements and claim they're "nonetheless true," you really don't go about backing up your statements that well. Even I've supplied actual sources in this thread—you're just arguing that your opinions should outweigh trans identities.
You think I need to back up what is commonly known through the scientific community? You can use google for that.
You think I need to back up what is commonly known through the scientific community? You can use google for that.
One can also use Google to find articles such as this, a recent study suggesting that brain development in trans individuals varies immensely from normal brain development (and suggesting that the condition might be more detectable in the near future, even in the very young). These are neurological conditions, not psychological ones, and are not controllable; that is, they are physical changes in the brain, not simple feelings.
I personally haven't read the rules myself, so if you can demonstrate that when the organizers said "Jenna got disqualified because only naturally-born females may enter", they didn't actually base it on the rules for the event, then I will gladly concede that they discriminated against Jenna. IF the rules don't rule out transwomen.
I looked all over their website but couldn't find any official rules. The part Bitsy quoted was the "basic requirements" as stated on their "Become" page. Fill out the online form, get a most likely paper application, and then maybe get sent to a casting or local pageant. I assume the full rules are distributed to a contestant upon approval of the application.
The official rules for Miss Universe International do have the genetic female requirement.
Well it's pretty difficult for me to elaborate on what specifically about your argument that pageant people are immoral is flawed, seeing as how you just said that they were immoral without ever backing it up.
So would you care to elaborate on why exactly beauty pageants are immoral? Then maybe we can actually weigh the merits and flaws of your argument.
Because your earlier claim was based on the idea that corporate entities adhere to different ethical standards than a single person. As the two entities in this case do not share a common action, this is apples and oranges.
No, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Are you reading what I'm posting? Your past two posts are non sequential, which makes me wonder whether you're confusing my arguments with others or just not reading my posts.
What I'm saying is that you can't remove the viewer-as-participant from the equation. Your original question was whether or not removing the "born as a female" rule would hurt the brand; my response is that you have to show that the viewer is going to care enough about that change to stop watching before you can make an assumption that it would hurt the brand.
Let me put it this way:
If we have a black women's beauty pageant, and a white woman submits an application to enter, intentionally lying about her race, I would be disappointed in the contestant.
If a bunch of people were to protest the decision to not allow her to compete, I would be disappointed in them.
I would be disappointed in the contest holders if they revoked their decision allowing her to compete. I would be further disappointed in the contest itself if she won.
I don't see how you could possibly say that this brand has not been damaged. The fact that the basis of your argument that it hasn't is, "Well it has no integrity anyway," rather proves the point that it is.
If the pageant actually directly sought out participants, that would lend weight to your argument, as they would have made a "bad pick" and changing the rules would look like backpedaling to appease a minority; but since they changed the rules specifically so that Ms. Talackova could participate (even after she lied), it's pretty clear how seriously the competition itself takes the seriousness of that rule.
Whether or not the competition seeks participants has no relevance at all.
And I agree that it is ridiculous that Ms. Talackova could compete again. I'm not sure why you're the one bringing that up.
Well, first off, I never said they were immoral.
Yes you did! You did in the post before! In the NEXT PARAGRAPH you say they're exploitative!
Your past two posts demonstrate not only a lack of understanding of what I'm trying to argue, but also what you've been posting. Was it just really late in the night when you did these? I'm confused as to what's going on.
Secondly, exploiting
Prove they're exploitative.
the fantastic elements of the competition are of importance when discussing the integrity of that competition: if people are willing to suspend their disbelief that these contestants are acting like their usual selves instead of trumped-up version of their ideal selves, they'd probably also be willing to temporarily disbelieve that the integrity of the contest hasn't been compromised.
I agree that there's no integrity left in this competition with the decision to allow a transgender person to compete. I'm not sure how this benefits you, or how this argument registers in your mind as sound.
It would be like saying, "Well there's inequalities in baseball with the Yankees having more money, and in that sense the idea of fair game is damaged, so therefore if every single person used steroids it doesn't matter." Doesn't work.
Longer answer: There's a fundamental difference between a generalized women's event and a trans women's event. Trans women, being a highly marginalized and oppressed group in general, create our own spaces to be free from all the cissexism and transphobia that run rampant in society. Excluding cis women isn't oppressive. For an event like Miss Universe to exclude Jenna is oppressive on the grounds that it's basically a way for them to say trans women either aren't "really" women, or that our womanhood is significantly inferior to cis women's. The dynamics involved are totally different.
So you fully support discrimination against natural-born XX women, but will scream bloody murder if a transgender XY is discriminated against?
"Oppressive" or not, discrimination is discrimination and it's wrong. Doesn't matter who is being discriminated against or why - it's still wrong. Saying discrimination is wrong in on instance, but perfectly fine and acceptable in another is just ignorance or an elitist attitude.
Basically Teia, and I don't mean any offense by this, but that post basically reads "Transwomen like me are special and deserve special treatment and **** the natural-borns." For all your claims that you and other transgender XYs are no difference than a natural-born woman, aside from inability to ovulate, you sure go out of your way to set yourself apart and demand special treatment.
As I've said many times...I would love to exist in a world were discrimination didn't exist and everyone was treated equal. And a world were I could walk through the streets of Philadelphia or Detroit or Los Angeles after dark and not be armed for my protection. But let's be realistic...humans will never be like that, because it is basic human instinct to fear what is different. And demanding special treatment because you're different, even if it's only being treated the same in your eyes (as I'm sure this seems to you - but even in your view, transgender XYs should be allow to compete with natural-born XXs in women-only pageants, but natural-born XXs cannot compete with transgender/transsexual XYs in their own pageants, which is a double standard), will only make the problems worse because it will keep all those differences right in the front for others to see, and it will end up breeding resentment.
If you want to be treated the same, then you have to try and fit in - not call out all the differences between you and others and demand special treatment for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Solaran, discrimination is not inherently bad, it depends on the intent.
All discrimination is bad. Everyone should get treated as equals, aside from glaringly obvious cases like not hiring a man to be a Hooters girl (that was an absolutely hilarious lawsuit, also). What I especially don't understand is how some people, such as yourself Cervid, can say one type of discrimination is bad and one type is good when only one small factor is changed.
Hiring a person for a job because he is white is discrimination and racism and bad.
Hiring a person for a job because he is black is discrimination and Affirmative Action and good.
Not allowing a transgender XY to compete in Miss Universe is discrimination and bad despite all other contestants being XX.
Not allowing a natural-born XX to compete in Miss Thailand is discrimination but okay because that pageant is for transsexual/transgender XYs.
Discrimination is wrong. Period. There are so few cases where discrimination is okay (once again, I point at the male Hooters girl lawsuit) that it is statistically irrelevant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
All discrimination is bad. Everyone should get treated as equals, aside from glaringly obvious cases like not hiring a man to be a Hooters girl (that was an absolutely hilarious lawsuit, also). What I especially don't understand is how some people, such as yourself Cervid, can say one type of discrimination is bad and one type is good when only one small factor is changed.
It's amusing that in the same breath you declare that all discrimination is wrong, and then give an example where it doesn't bother you. If all discrimination is wrong, then Hooters is wrong in its hiring, and Miss America should not be able to discriminate against men, or dogs for that matter.
Groups are discriminated against every second, of every minute, of every day in ways that do and don't effectively influence peoples' lives. For example, restaurants routinely discriminate in favor of attractive waitstaff, whereas they do not apply this hiring criterion for the kitchen staff.
Hiring a person for a job because he is white is discrimination and racism and bad.
Hiring a person for a job because he is black is discrimination and Affirmative Action and good.
It really depends on the situation and circumstances. Absolute statements like this are just silly.
Not allowing a transgender XY to compete in Miss Universe is discrimination and bad despite all other contestants being XX.
Not allowing a natural-born XX to compete in Miss Thailand is discrimination but okay because that pageant is for transsexual/transgender XYs.
This is a difference in hierarchical categories, which I have pointed out to you earlier. Transexual and cissexual are two types of women. If your contest is defined by "woman" then it's reasonable to assume that both should be applicable. However, a contest for transexual women does not include cissexual women, by definition. Cissexual women are not suffering because they can't compete in a transexual contest, but they are essentially being told "you are not women" when told they can't compete in a competition for women.
Discrimination is wrong. Period. There are so few cases where discrimination is okay (once again, I point at the male Hooters girl lawsuit) that it is statistically irrelevant.
Once again, it's either always wrong, or it's not always wrong. You point out an instance in which you don't find it to be wrong, therefore it is not always wrong in your opinion.
As far as statistical significance, that doesn't even make sense here. What do we consider statistical significance to be when minorities are concerned? I'm guessing you know very little about statistics.
[...]So would you care to elaborate on why exactly beauty pageants are immoral? Then maybe we can actually weigh the merits and flaws of your argument.
I didn't say they were immoral, I said they are produced to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You, apparently, feel that the lowest common denominator appeals to a bad morality, whereas my contention this whole time has been that the lowest common denominator appeals to a bad intelligence.
No, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Are you reading what I'm posting? Your past two posts are non sequential, which makes me wonder whether you're confusing my arguments with others or just not reading my posts.
I'd just like to say, I appreciate this. I'm glad that I've reached a point in my debate career on this website where you feel I'm deserving of what I have often seen, and yet never been close enough to to glean your knowledge from. You do me a great service by providing me this chance to experience your wisdom first hand, and I am humbled, and I thank you.
Let me put it this way:
If we have a black women's beauty pageant, and a white woman submits an application to enter, intentionally lying about her race, I would be disappointed in the contestant.
If a bunch of people were to protest the decision to not allow her to compete, I would be disappointed in them.
I would be disappointed in the contest holders if they revoked their decision allowing her to compete. I would be further disappointed in the contest itself if she won.
What you're expressing here isn't disappointment, it's complaining. The woman, the crowd, and the business are all doing what they feel is right for themselves, and while you may disagree with their decisions you have no right or, dare I say, privilege to think your way is somehow better. What your doing here is tantamount to being upset that your local baker, baker's other customers, and bakery all decided to stop carrying your favorite kind of cookie.
I don't see how you could possibly say that this brand has not been damaged. The fact that the basis of your argument that it hasn't is, "Well it has no integrity anyway," rather proves the point that it is.
This simply doesn't make sense. Is the brand-damage tied to the integrity of the event? If it is, then could you maybe see your way to addressing that point of my argument? If it isn't, how can my supposed point prove that negative?
Whether or not the competition seeks participants has no relevance at all.
Well, exactly, because they don't. If they did, as you originally asked me about, it would.
And I agree that it is ridiculous that Ms. Talackova could compete again. I'm not sure why you're the one bringing that up.
Meh, whatev's. Trying to misinterpret my point doesn't really bother me when the point you're trying to misinterpret is inconsequential to my point anyways.
Yes you did! You did in the post before! In the NEXT PARAGRAPH you say they're exploitative!
Exploitation =/= immorality. If they did mean the same thing, then why would you have felt the need to use both in your earlier post?
Your past two posts demonstrate not only a lack of understanding of what I'm trying to argue, but also what you've been posting. Was it just really late in the night when you did these? I'm confused as to what's going on.
Seriously, I do appreciate the opportunity. It's a masterwork, and I do love the simplicity. You honor me, good sir.
Prove they're exploitative.
Sure: everything is exploitative, and beauty pageants are no exception. That's the basis of society, we exploit resources for our own gain.
Now, if you won't mind a bit of my own curiosity, what bearing does that have on the discussion? It seems you have no problem with my suggestion that beauty pageants are fantasies, why would exploitation be anything other than an example of this fantasy creation?
I agree that there's no integrity left in this competition with the decision to allow a transgender person to compete. I'm not sure how this benefits you, or how this argument registers in your mind as sound.
I do believe you are in error, good sir. Since your original post on the subject here, I have been arguing the, shall we say, "logistics" of how badly a removal of the relevant rule would hurt the brand and the pageant's integrity, not the relative fairness of allowing a trans woman into the pageant. Considering you capitulate this point in the quoted subpost above and claim there is, in fact, no integrity, and the odds of the pageant being able to once again pull the proverbial rug out from Ms. Talackova without getting badly sued are slim or nonexistent, shall we consider this debate ended?
It would be like saying, "Well there's inequalities in baseball with the Yankees having more money, and in that sense the idea of fair game is damaged, so therefore if every single person used steroids it doesn't matter." Doesn't work.
And again, I was never under the delusion that the pageant was even remotely fair, so this is a null issue for me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's shocking for OMG-exploitation feminist reasons rather than OMG-temptation conservative reasons.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Glad to know the cause of feminism has advanced so far in 70 years...
1940s: Women were perceived as being chaste, and the Miss Universe pageant scandalous because it caused women to be perceived as sexual beings.
1970s: Women rebel against conservative ideas of sexuality and the chaste portrayal of women.
2012: Woman in a bikini is bad because it portrays women as sexual beings.
This is stupid.
Yes it is, actually.
And it depends on who you are. If you're part of the multi-billion dollar industry of women's fashion, then there's nothing wrong with the scenario you just talked about, now, is there?
You don't get the idea behind this, do you?
The whole point of Miss Universe is she's presented as an ideal. She's the most beautiful woman in the world. She's sexy (swimsuit competition); she's smart, has personality, and is a humanitarian (Q&A portion); she's patriotic (national costume portion); and she's elegant (evening wear). That's the selling point.
The whole appeal is that men want her, young girls want to be her, and women who compete in beauty pageants compete to be her.
So what, exactly, are they trying to do by changing their rule on naturally born females competing? What's being achieved here aside from shooting themselves in the foot? I don't get it.
Not to mention with the way most transexuals identify as naturally born as their "brain sex" which is a portion of one's naturally born status.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Of course they can. So can men. But the Miss Universe competition doesn't exist to showcase the aforementioned qualities in men, does it?
Yes it is. That's my point. The Miss Universe pageant is a dinosaur that somehow avoided the meteor strike.
I gotta admit, that is an expert goalpost shift you've done there, turning my point about the questionable ethics of people viewing or hosting the pageant into a cute little defense of women's rights because women are in the pageant.
Well, I'd assume there is because the Miss Universe pageant doesn't actually go down the street and sign people up, do they? Last I checked, the pageant has an impossibly long list of people all trying to get into it, that was the whole point here wasn't it? Ms. Talackova applied to be in the pageant. she wasn't approached.
I am quite thick, I'll admit. So will this be an education for me, or are you content to ask questions with self-evident answers?
And that selling point is a big ol' lie. You say it yourself, the winner is presented as an ideal: it is ideal to have tape on your nipples and a swimsuit that fits your curves so well you have to apply a gel to get into it; it is ideal to have a pre-written speech about your patriotism and a stunning yet ridiculously expensive costume designed for you; it is ideal to put on a different gown for each portion of the event.. but it will never be reality. It's a fantasy, nothing more.
You're implying that there were no downsides to maintaining the status quo? That it somehow wouldn't be shooting themselves in the foot to fight a battle for an outdated ruling and facing harsh criticism from social groups the whole way? Seems to me that getting rid of this minor trifling rule is the easy route.
And then, of course, this only broadens their audience: not all men find trans women unappealing, not all girls are born with vaginas, and not all women care about their competitors genitals. Until you can show me evidence of some kind of "trans radius" that turns off viewers to the other contestants because of the removal of this rule, or even some evidence that most of the viewers care so much about every rule of the event that they're goign to stop watching, there's no reason to forbid Ms. Talackova from competing.
Yes, that sounds like discrimination. Who do they think they are to have some sort of standard by which eligible contestants are selected?
Despite appearances, I really am trying to keep myself to as few subtopics as I can and trying to keep those at least somewhat related to the whole pageant thing (while also responding to arguments others make). Offhand there's the "what constitutes womanhood?" thing (since Jenna being a woman is relevant in the context of a women's event), plus the related "trans women aren't any less 'women' than cis women" thing (where even if Jenna is classified as female, people still see her as being "less" female than cis women and thus ineligible for the event), and the "discriminating based on gender identity is no different from discriminating based on race/etc" thing (plus the obvious "the policy was bigoted/wrong/other negative judgement" stuff), at least in terms of arguments I'm proactively advancing. It just bounces around a lot between them and probably seems more chaotic than it really is.
Well, that's just the thing. There is such a thing as "not female enough." Again, take a look at how people talk about Jenna, or about me, or about any trans woman when you get right down to it. There's a fair deal of "we respect your identity" lip service (for instance, it's very rare on here that I'm referred to with male pronouns, even by people who don't respect trans identities) that's met with insinuations that we're either "really" men or were at one time men—and yet we also aren't fully treated as men at the same time. It's a kind of subconscious third-gendering that goes on, where people are so used to the concept of there being only two genders that there's noticeable cognitive dissonance regarding people's approaches to those who they see, on some level, as being outside the two basic categories. Which is why you can get statements like the "trans women and women are two different categories" thing someone told me earlier, or the "they're two separate types of women and there's no reason not to segregate them in beauty pageants" thing.
The tl;dr of this is that trans women are seen as being too feminine to be men but not "really" women, so people shuffle back and forth as to which box they put trans women in.
Sure they do. What you're doing is mixing around terms to mean things they don't—in this case, you're acting as if "woman" and "morphologically female human being" must be necessarily the same thing, whereas "woman" is more of a social label than a biological one.
No, it's not the absolute authority over linguistics, but in terms of things like brain structure, it can say what set of norms trans people's biology falls into. And if the conclusion is "trans women have female brain structure," then that's the conclusion.
I only said "the right brain" when I was using your own words to make a point.
It absolutely can be if the purpose is to keep something excluded from a definition, such as keeping trans women excluded from being considered "women." At that point the definition becomes mostly self-serving for the privileged ones who influence that definition.
When I say "point at someone," I don't mean literally as in point at a picture of them, but figuratively at the person as a whole.
Gender roles are absolutely assigned at birth. Right from the get-go, you hear stuff like "it's a boy" and now everything involving the child is gendered in some form. You break out the blue stuff (ignoring that until relatively recently, blue was considered a girl's colour and pink a boy's colour), you encourage strength and independence, and basically get the kid in line with a male gender role as fast as humanly possible.
The fact that the "intended" usage only has the XX requirement as a background thing not applied to common usage of the term, for one. No one really cares that much in actual conversation, nor are people likely to care if someone who is (in their eyes) well-established in their minds as being a woman turns out to have unexpected traits.
I have to wonder why that tangent would even matter. It seems to me you're just so uncomfortable with the prospect that you're obsessing over it even when no one else is.
That manages to be the exact opposite of what I argued. A system with PS3 internals and a 360 case is obviously a PS3, but the same logic that says trans women are men (or even just somehow "less" female than cis women) would say that the system in question is a 360.
I agree with the wording albeit not the intended meaning. I was born female (trans female, but still, that doesn't diminish anything), and hormones, surgery, etc don't change that. I don't "become" a woman or anything with them—I was always one.
Your chromosomes might be set at conception, but it's a little while into the pregnancy before your body and brain get the chemical signal to masculinize or not (and this happens in two stages).
This question is utterly meaningless. You're basically asking, "What if we give someone misleading and incomplete information and see what kind of wrong conclusions they draw?"
I think that, in the face of people making such a big deal out of XY chromosomes, it's interesting to point out a category of XY women which would not be barred from entry.
What they address is that, on very real levels, the "trans women are strictly men, end of story" view is scientifically inaccurate.
Depends. When we're talking about identity and lived experience, it's impossible for a cis person to know how trans identities work on the same level that we do.
Ignoring the biological cause of it that you really are born with...
Why dismiss this out of hand? Is the thought of accepting others' identities when they run against your preconceptions really worth that kind of dismissal?
Inasmuch as you throw out statements and claim they're "nonetheless true," you really don't go about backing up your statements that well. Even I've supplied actual sources in this thread—you're just arguing that your opinions should outweigh trans identities.
You realize karyotype testing is a real thing, right?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: There's a fundamental difference between a generalized women's event and a trans women's event. Trans women, being a highly marginalized and oppressed group in general, create our own spaces to be free from all the cissexism and transphobia that run rampant in society. Excluding cis women isn't oppressive. For an event like Miss Universe to exclude Jenna is oppressive on the grounds that it's basically a way for them to say trans women either aren't "really" women, or that our womanhood is significantly inferior to cis women's. The dynamics involved are totally different.
It's not something created out of spite at all. If the distinction were solely between, say, "trans" and "normal," then the implication is that trans people are somehow abnormal (with all the inescapable negative social connotations therewith), as if being trans is some kind of perversion of the natural order of things. When it's between "trans" and "cis," then the implication is that each is just as valid a state of being as the other, with the implication that it's normal for a certain percent of the population to be trans.
I fully agree, but not for the reasons one might expect. Ultimately it comes down to two factors: Prescriptivism and victim-blaming. Prescriptive "don't do this" attitudes in ideologies centred around the concept of freedom have always annoyed me, because the message there is that you're free to do whatever you're told you can do, rather than to make your own choices. Similarly, to put wearing a bikini (or whatever other revealing attire) as being inherently objectifying is blaming the women for being sex objects, rather than blaming the men actually doing the objectifying.
They're basically saying (whether on their own or because of pressure to) that any woman can be Miss Universe, not just a member of a specific privileged group.
How can you say, "That's my point" when I'm ridiculing what you're saying?
I'm saying the idea of people viewing or hosting a pageant having questionable ethics is ridiculous.
Why is this relevant?
This seems like a non sequitur. Yes, she applied to be in the pageant. She also lied on her application from the sound of it, or else never qualified under the rules, although I'm not sure ignorance is entirely believable as the "natural born female" rule has come up before. So what are you trying to say here?
So?
I'm not saying that beauty pageants are intellectual and artistic triumphs of man. They are silly. However, you're trying to say they're immoral and exploitive, which I don't buy.
No. I don't believe there would. The natural born female rule was there before and has a purpose.
Why should it be?
The idea that showing women in bikinis is evil and bad because real women would never portray their bodies in a sexual fashion but instead it is the work of malevolent forces threatening to confuse and corrupt innocent young virgins is something that was believed in the forties with its attitudes towards sex and female modesty, which are also considered to be sexist and harmful.
The fact that people who call themselves feminists are trying to pull the same argument now is ironic, farcical, and pathetic.
Again, the idea that men are evil forces corrupting young, innocent virgins to make them do unnatural things like wear bikinis on television is a ****ing ridiculous view.
What do you all think a bikini is for?
By specific, privileged group, you mean women?
What about the aforementioned transsexual beauty pageant? You want to tell me the same criticism doesn't apply there? See to me, the idea of an authentic woman participating in such a pageant entirely defeats the purpose of a trans-beauty pageant. Evidently the people in charge of the event agree, because they don't allow anyone non-trans in the event.
So why does the natural born female rule come under fire in Miss Universe? Misapplied political correctness.
Honestly? A bikini is for displaying the female form in a sexually enticing manner. Most Bikini's are completely impractical as a piece of actual swimwear, especially relative to non-bikini swimwear.
But then, I don't speak for others -- thats just my opinion.
You realize deliberately taking what he said out of its explicit context and making it sound like he meant the opposite of what he said is a thing, right? (Also, it's a dick move).
What he ACTUALLY said, instead of what you lied about him saying:
We can both say something is ridiculous without agreeing as to why it's ridiculous.
Care to elaborate? As I'm reading it now it doesn't make any realistic sense, like people can't make ethically unsound viewing/job decisions. That's clearly not the case, so it's obviously my error and I need to get schooled.
Because your earlier claim was based on the idea that corporate entities adhere to different ethical standards than a single person. As the two entities in this case do not share a common action, this is apples and oranges.
What I'm saying is that you can't remove the viewer-as-participant from the equation. Your original question was whether or not removing the "born as a female" rule would hurt the brand; my response is that you have to show that the viewer is going to care enough about that change to stop watching before you can make an assumption that it would hurt the brand. If the pageant actually directly sought out participants, that would lend weight to your argument, as they would have made a "bad pick" and changing the rules would look like backpedaling to appease a minority; but since they changed the rules specifically so that Ms. Talackova could participate (even after she lied), it's pretty clear how seriously the competition itself takes the seriousness of that rule.
Well, first off, I never said they were immoral.
Secondly, exploiting the fantastic elements of the competition are of importance when discussing the integrity of that competition: if people are willing to suspend their disbelief that these contestants are acting like their usual selves instead of trumped-up version of their ideal selves, they'd probably also be willing to temporarily disbelieve that the integrity of the contest hasn't been compromised.
Then you've got your work cut out for you: social pressure was on the pageant as soon as this story broke, and I'd bet this isn't the only site on the internet that's having this discussion. On top of that, the pageant revoked the rule, so can you give me another reason they'd do that if it isn't an attempt at palliation to these social pressures? 'Cuz I'm having no problem connecting the dots between "oh a lot of people are mad" and "better change the rules so that Ms. Talackova can participate."
Cis women, yes.
Well, no, it's more for the reasons I explained in my previous post than anything else. I'll repost it:
Like that.
Karyotype testing is a thing. I've never had it. I don't know how one could reasonably get a facetious "it's impossible" out of that—his leap from one to the other was highly disingenuous. And as for going by identity, I don't see anything wrong with it. It doesn't involve mind-reading in the slightest, unless the point is that one would have to read my mind in order to verify that I truly identify as female, which is decidedly unnecessary.
And because I said it earlier in the thread, I'll paste this again because it's relevant:
The "fundamental identity" there being the underlying biological causes of transsexuality resulting in a specific hardcoded encephalic sex.
Thats completely irrelevant to his point.
Oh lay off it already. You know what he was doing, you know what he meant, quit lieing about it and twisting his words to fit your ridiculous agenda.
I'm pretty sure that was the point. He was arguing that one test (genetic testing) is a real, doable, test that provides concrete results. The other test (what do you identify as) is a pseudo test that relies on getting correct honest answers and/or mind reading and is nebulous at best.
but of course you don't want to interpret it that way. It wouldn't help your stupid agenda.
_______________________________________________________________
Wait, is this you saying that the issue isn't one of gender, but of sex?
Must a person be XX to be female? Must they have a typical female body with working parts? Must they identify as female? Must all three of these be true? Two of them?
There are XY individuals where every part of them is female, and functional.
There are XY individuals who are transexual women and have a male body with working parts.
There are XY individuals who are transexual women and have a female body without working parts.
There are XX individuals who have a female body without working parts.
etc.
Teia, I'm sorry but you are wrong here, not in a major way, I support your intent, just not your argument. I mean, sure I agree that I don't spend my time checking people's chromosomes walking down the street before I greet them. So I am positive I have said "Hey lady, how are ya?" to a couple transwomen. Therefore, I have to agree that "usage" of the term woman/female generally just applies to someone with pretty hair, boobs, no junk up front, hips, lipstick on, etc. So be it. I don't play biologist when interacting with people on a casual social basis. So you do have a point, it just isn't a very strong one Teia. As far as transwomen/transmen go, I have no personal issue at all with transpeople.
My issue here is your argument about the definition of words vs. the usages of those words falls flat once you actually discuss assignment.
There may be social usages of the terms Female and Woman.
However, speaking for myself, when I call someone a WOMAN, I am assuming (and if they are trans, I am wrong) that the person obeys the natural biological category definitions of WOMAN.
Thus, as a Scientific Biological term, Female and Woman and Girl all mean that the organism was born with birthing equipment and genes. Ovaries, Uterus, the production of reproductive Eggs, and a gene makeup of XX.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/female
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Female
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female
I'm sorry, but if you were NOT born with those traits, you are not a naturally born FEMALE. It's as simple as that.
NOWHERE in the definitions of the terms Male or Female does it say anything about how you feel inside.
I don't think it is wrong for a private company to exclude certain people from its functions.
I think the Government only has a responsibility to prevent PUBLIC descrimination based on gender, religion, race, etc. To guard against these forms of racism/sexism in housing, employment, law enforcement, and medical treatment.
I do NOT believe it is the intent of Equal Rights to shut down every single "Gentlemen's Club" ever.
I do not believe it is the intent of Equal Rights to force the PGA to accept a woman, or to force the NFL to accept a woman, or any other privately owned and funded organization that wishes to keep the sexes seperate. I do not want them to force the LPGA to accept men. I do not want them to force the Red hat Society to accept men. Let clubshouses keep their rules.
We are not talking about the right to vote, or to attend public schools, or to be treated at a hospital here.
In fact, I know it's not the intent. After all, we do not force the KKK to include blacks, and we also do not shut them down. We just bash them in the media as often as possible.
If this pageant's rules were intended to keep the contest between naturally born females. I see nothing wrong with what they did.
Though now, they have been forced under public pressure to take Jenna back into the competition (if she meets Canada's gender definitions). So you see Teia, make a big enough stink about it, and "oppressed minorities" can get their way. It's reverse oppression sure, but as long as you agree with the cause right?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The lady in question made some people uncomfortable and for that reason she was disqualified. Maybe it was a sponsor or a judge or some of the competitors. It doesn't matter really. To me its upsetting because Jenna has been penalized for something she can't change or control. She has done something many people will never do. Love and embrace her true self without fear or shame. That she was born a male is of little importance to the Miss Universe pageant. Its one of the few things in life where being a guy has no advantage whatsoever!
Update: The Donald has reinstated Jenna and she will compete in Miss Universe Canada!
Actually, only the US version of the pageant requires contestants to be biological women. Canada's rules are written rather hazily and so that is why Jenna even tried to enter. The rules are that contestants must be a Canadian citizen and be at least 18 years old but under 27 on Feb. 1, 2012. That's it. No "must be a biological woman" in the fine print. The rules may be implied but if it is not explicitly expressed then it doesn't mean anything.
You tell me! You're the one who started to argue against it in the first place. I brought up the point to talk about why I don't view transgendered woman in the exact same sense as I do naturally born women.
Transgendered females are not born with xx chromosomes in their genes, it's something they feel - not something they are according to their genes. That's part of the reason I think your metaphor was crappy in the first place.
What you're talking about is psychological feelings - not physical genetic ones. It's a strawman because as I have been arguing in this thread - I don't consider psychological feelings about how you view yourself to be an indication of what you are.
Yeah, see at conception you get your genes that will determine what type of gonads you will grow and when you hit puberty - if your body produces testosterone or estrogen.
Again, you're trying to argue psychological feelings determine your sex. The Y gene has very much to do with how you will masculinize or not (usually if its there, you will and if it isn't you'll feminize).
No, you're trying to use biased information to prove the results you're looking for. I'm advocating a blind test or a double blind test - both of which are accepted testing methods for unbiased results.
You just happen to know the results of a blind/double blind test wouldn't favor you because you're wrong, so now you're trying to dismiss it.
Those are genetic mutations and your argument is a strawman.
No they don't, they address sexual identity (which is psychological), not genetic sex. It's a strawman.
Yeah, depends on the argument you're making - hence as I said before just because you're a member of the transgendered community, doesn't automatically give you credibility here.
Arguments stand and fall on their own. That is why I don't accept arguments from authority and why they are a fallacy.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Clarify please.
Lets look at your argument then:
Basically it reads, Well Transwomen don't become women except you know... to remove the ***** we are born with and turn it into a ****** and take estrogen shots because our bodies will otherwise produce testosterone.
Which are things that a male goes through. There's no hormonal imbalance inherent in your bodies - your genes are telling your male body to produce a male hormone at puberty, which is a natural affect of being a genetic male.
You get the surgery to match what you feel psychologically.
As I said, being a male or female isn't who you are but what you are.
Your argument is so bad that it attempts to dismiss this without actually dismissing it and you just choose to play word games instead. Like I said, it falls flat on it's face, on its own merit.
You think I need to back up what is commonly known through the scientific community? You can use google for that.
One can also use Google to find articles such as this, a recent study suggesting that brain development in trans individuals varies immensely from normal brain development (and suggesting that the condition might be more detectable in the near future, even in the very young). These are neurological conditions, not psychological ones, and are not controllable; that is, they are physical changes in the brain, not simple feelings.
I looked all over their website but couldn't find any official rules. The part Bitsy quoted was the "basic requirements" as stated on their "Become" page. Fill out the online form, get a most likely paper application, and then maybe get sent to a casting or local pageant. I assume the full rules are distributed to a contestant upon approval of the application.
The official rules for Miss Universe International do have the genetic female requirement.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Well it's pretty difficult for me to elaborate on what specifically about your argument that pageant people are immoral is flawed, seeing as how you just said that they were immoral without ever backing it up.
So would you care to elaborate on why exactly beauty pageants are immoral? Then maybe we can actually weigh the merits and flaws of your argument.
No, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Are you reading what I'm posting? Your past two posts are non sequential, which makes me wonder whether you're confusing my arguments with others or just not reading my posts.
Let me put it this way:
If we have a black women's beauty pageant, and a white woman submits an application to enter, intentionally lying about her race, I would be disappointed in the contestant.
If a bunch of people were to protest the decision to not allow her to compete, I would be disappointed in them.
I would be disappointed in the contest holders if they revoked their decision allowing her to compete. I would be further disappointed in the contest itself if she won.
I don't see how you could possibly say that this brand has not been damaged. The fact that the basis of your argument that it hasn't is, "Well it has no integrity anyway," rather proves the point that it is.
Whether or not the competition seeks participants has no relevance at all.
And I agree that it is ridiculous that Ms. Talackova could compete again. I'm not sure why you're the one bringing that up.
Yes you did! You did in the post before! In the NEXT PARAGRAPH you say they're exploitative!
Your past two posts demonstrate not only a lack of understanding of what I'm trying to argue, but also what you've been posting. Was it just really late in the night when you did these? I'm confused as to what's going on.
Prove they're exploitative.
I agree that there's no integrity left in this competition with the decision to allow a transgender person to compete. I'm not sure how this benefits you, or how this argument registers in your mind as sound.
It would be like saying, "Well there's inequalities in baseball with the Yankees having more money, and in that sense the idea of fair game is damaged, so therefore if every single person used steroids it doesn't matter." Doesn't work.
Who the entire competition is made for.
It's like protesting Miss Canada for not allowing American women to compete.
Which basically says, "We're creating a double standard because our demographic gets a blank check."
Except, no, you don't. You don't get to complain about double standards and then transparently create one.
Teia, anyone can see that he was using an ironic tone to point out an inconsistency in your argument.
No, his leap from one to the other was meant to point out your disparate positions on two different things to highlight inconsistency.
So you fully support discrimination against natural-born XX women, but will scream bloody murder if a transgender XY is discriminated against?
"Oppressive" or not, discrimination is discrimination and it's wrong. Doesn't matter who is being discriminated against or why - it's still wrong. Saying discrimination is wrong in on instance, but perfectly fine and acceptable in another is just ignorance or an elitist attitude.
Basically Teia, and I don't mean any offense by this, but that post basically reads "Transwomen like me are special and deserve special treatment and **** the natural-borns." For all your claims that you and other transgender XYs are no difference than a natural-born woman, aside from inability to ovulate, you sure go out of your way to set yourself apart and demand special treatment.
As I've said many times...I would love to exist in a world were discrimination didn't exist and everyone was treated equal. And a world were I could walk through the streets of Philadelphia or Detroit or Los Angeles after dark and not be armed for my protection. But let's be realistic...humans will never be like that, because it is basic human instinct to fear what is different. And demanding special treatment because you're different, even if it's only being treated the same in your eyes (as I'm sure this seems to you - but even in your view, transgender XYs should be allow to compete with natural-born XXs in women-only pageants, but natural-born XXs cannot compete with transgender/transsexual XYs in their own pageants, which is a double standard), will only make the problems worse because it will keep all those differences right in the front for others to see, and it will end up breeding resentment.
If you want to be treated the same, then you have to try and fit in - not call out all the differences between you and others and demand special treatment for it.
All discrimination is bad. Everyone should get treated as equals, aside from glaringly obvious cases like not hiring a man to be a Hooters girl (that was an absolutely hilarious lawsuit, also). What I especially don't understand is how some people, such as yourself Cervid, can say one type of discrimination is bad and one type is good when only one small factor is changed.
Hiring a person for a job because he is white is discrimination and racism and bad.
Hiring a person for a job because he is black is discrimination and Affirmative Action and good.
Not allowing a transgender XY to compete in Miss Universe is discrimination and bad despite all other contestants being XX.
Not allowing a natural-born XX to compete in Miss Thailand is discrimination but okay because that pageant is for transsexual/transgender XYs.
Discrimination is wrong. Period. There are so few cases where discrimination is okay (once again, I point at the male Hooters girl lawsuit) that it is statistically irrelevant.
It's amusing that in the same breath you declare that all discrimination is wrong, and then give an example where it doesn't bother you. If all discrimination is wrong, then Hooters is wrong in its hiring, and Miss America should not be able to discriminate against men, or dogs for that matter.
Groups are discriminated against every second, of every minute, of every day in ways that do and don't effectively influence peoples' lives. For example, restaurants routinely discriminate in favor of attractive waitstaff, whereas they do not apply this hiring criterion for the kitchen staff.
It really depends on the situation and circumstances. Absolute statements like this are just silly.
This is a difference in hierarchical categories, which I have pointed out to you earlier. Transexual and cissexual are two types of women. If your contest is defined by "woman" then it's reasonable to assume that both should be applicable. However, a contest for transexual women does not include cissexual women, by definition. Cissexual women are not suffering because they can't compete in a transexual contest, but they are essentially being told "you are not women" when told they can't compete in a competition for women.
Once again, it's either always wrong, or it's not always wrong. You point out an instance in which you don't find it to be wrong, therefore it is not always wrong in your opinion.
As far as statistical significance, that doesn't even make sense here. What do we consider statistical significance to be when minorities are concerned? I'm guessing you know very little about statistics.
I didn't say they were immoral, I said they are produced to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You, apparently, feel that the lowest common denominator appeals to a bad morality, whereas my contention this whole time has been that the lowest common denominator appeals to a bad intelligence.
I'd just like to say, I appreciate this. I'm glad that I've reached a point in my debate career on this website where you feel I'm deserving of what I have often seen, and yet never been close enough to to glean your knowledge from. You do me a great service by providing me this chance to experience your wisdom first hand, and I am humbled, and I thank you.
What you're expressing here isn't disappointment, it's complaining. The woman, the crowd, and the business are all doing what they feel is right for themselves, and while you may disagree with their decisions you have no right or, dare I say, privilege to think your way is somehow better. What your doing here is tantamount to being upset that your local baker, baker's other customers, and bakery all decided to stop carrying your favorite kind of cookie.
This simply doesn't make sense. Is the brand-damage tied to the integrity of the event? If it is, then could you maybe see your way to addressing that point of my argument? If it isn't, how can my supposed point prove that negative?
Well, exactly, because they don't. If they did, as you originally asked me about, it would.
Meh, whatev's. Trying to misinterpret my point doesn't really bother me when the point you're trying to misinterpret is inconsequential to my point anyways.
Exploitation =/= immorality. If they did mean the same thing, then why would you have felt the need to use both in your earlier post?
Seriously, I do appreciate the opportunity. It's a masterwork, and I do love the simplicity. You honor me, good sir.
Sure: everything is exploitative, and beauty pageants are no exception. That's the basis of society, we exploit resources for our own gain.
Now, if you won't mind a bit of my own curiosity, what bearing does that have on the discussion? It seems you have no problem with my suggestion that beauty pageants are fantasies, why would exploitation be anything other than an example of this fantasy creation?
I do believe you are in error, good sir. Since your original post on the subject here, I have been arguing the, shall we say, "logistics" of how badly a removal of the relevant rule would hurt the brand and the pageant's integrity, not the relative fairness of allowing a trans woman into the pageant. Considering you capitulate this point in the quoted subpost above and claim there is, in fact, no integrity, and the odds of the pageant being able to once again pull the proverbial rug out from Ms. Talackova without getting badly sued are slim or nonexistent, shall we consider this debate ended?
And again, I was never under the delusion that the pageant was even remotely fair, so this is a null issue for me.