"Real Girls"

[smc]

The problem with what Puck writes begins with the two words in this sentence that I have highlighted in boldface: "If a guy sees a person with a skirt, nice looks, long hair, he's going to ASSUME that that person is a woman with the appropriate anatomy."

Puck's premise is that the absence of this "appropriate anatomy" is the root of a "deception" -- a word based on an active verb, deceit. And what is the action? It is the willful effort to convince someone to believe that which is not true.

I contend that Puck's entire premise is wrong. Let's make this more concrete and abstract -- and please excuse me, Bionca, for including you in this exercise but since you have posted so eloquently I am hopeful it will be okay. Here goes: Do you, Puck, contend that Bionca (for example) is not truly a woman? Do you contend that when she self-identifies as a woman she is untruthful? If the answer is yes to either of these questions, then I ask what gives Puck (or anyone, for that matter) the right to make that determination for Bionca. Who are any of us to decide for any transgendered person what is the "appropriate anatomy"?

A premise such as Puck's is not only wrong, but it contributes to the violence in a rather insidious (or perhaps not so subtle) way. Not only does it dehumanize the victim (by creating a category that seems other than "normal" -- in this case, missing the "appropriate anatomy"), but it is a rationalization of the violence itself. Since words can be as violent as fists, as a rationalization it becomes a form of the violence.

Until we stop giving any aid and comfort to the attackers of transgendered people, even in the form of explanations such as the one Puck offers, we are complicit. Rationalizing an attacker's behavior -- even if we ourselves would never throw the punch -- must stop!

[puck]

Originally Posted by smc

The problem with what Puck writes begins with the two words in this sentence that I have highlighted in boldface: "If a guy sees a person with a skirt, nice looks, long hair, he's going to ASSUME that that person is a woman with the appropriate anatomy."

Puck's premise is that the absence of this "appropriate anatomy" is the root of a "deception" -- a word based on an active verb, deceit. And what is the action? It is the willful effort to convince someone to believe that which is not true.

I contend that Puck's entire premise is wrong. Let's make this more concrete and abstract -- and please excuse me, Bionca, for including you in this exercise but since you have posted so eloquently I am hopeful it will be okay. Here goes: Do you, Puck, contend that Bionca (for example) is not truly a woman? Do you contend that when she self-identifies as a woman she is untruthful? If the answer is yes to either of these questions, then I ask what gives Puck (or anyone, for that matter) the right to make that determination for Bionca. Who are any of us to decide for any transgendered person what is the "appropriate anatomy"?

A premise such as Puck's is not only wrong, but it contributes to the violence in a rather insidious (or perhaps not so subtle) way. Not only does it dehumanize the victim (by creating a category that seems other than "normal" -- in this case, missing the "appropriate anatomy"), but it is a rationalization of the violence itself. Since words can be as violent as fists, as a rationalization it becomes a form of the violence.

Until we stop giving any aid and comfort to the attackers of transgendered people, even in the form of explanations such as the one Puck offers, we are complicit. Rationalizing an attacker's behavior -- even if we ourselves would never throw the punch -- must stop!

SMC, There are several problems with your rebuttal. If you just think about ordinary life you will find that we all rely on ASSUMPTIONS rather than reinvent the wheel every time we do something. We assume drivers will stop at red lights. We assume that the can of food we open will be safe to eat. Perhaps a better word would have been trust, for that is what it is. We trust in things in our daily life to be what they have been represented to be, now and in the past. I know, assume can make an ass of you and me, but those cases are sporadic.
I can question whether Bionca is truly a woman, because I have absolutely no idea what it is to be a woman and I doubt that most women would satisfactorily answer that question. What is it to be a man? Hard, authoritative, brutal, etc? We largely identify males by the physical appearance for a start.
Appropriate anatomy--maybe a poor choice of words but here is the point. If I see a man with pants on and shoes I assume he has legs and feet--but of course, at some point I could be wrong--he could be a double amputee, I which case my face would be hanging on the ground is shame for the mistake, but 99.9% of the time, I am going to be right in that assumption.
Yes, apropriate anatomy. If I ask someone to define a woman anatomically, they will point out among other thigs, breasts and vagina which are the visible traits of being a mwoman and female in gender.
Do you assume that every woman you meet is a transgendered person? That would be really awkward for both of you. Like the rest of us, your rely on assumptions about gender every day in order lnot to have to ask everyone you meet to either drop their pants or hike up their skirt.
Yes, words and labels can hurt the same as fists but that is not what my post was about. If I look at two people, one in skirt and blouse, and one in pants and jacket, I MUST make the standard assumption that they are who they outwardly represent. It is up to those individuals to tell me otherwise. Few of us can read minds.

[Bionca]

Puck - seriously what do you believe about Trans* women. What is going on in your mind about women like me?

[smc]

Of course, Puck, each of us makes assumptions, every day. Some, but not all, of these assumptions are relatively harmless. It is hardly analogous to compare the assumption that a can of food one opens is safe with the assumption that a woman with whom one has a first date has a vagina. Why? Because, by your own statement, the latter -- revealed to have a penis -- has practiced the kind of deception that may compel one to react violently towards the alleged deceiver. In the former case, perhaps one will feel compelled to deal with the can violently?

You have missed my point, Puck, and you have compounded the error of your initial argument by implying that because we as humans make assumptions, somehow it can be rationalized if our reaction to an assumption turning out to be false compels us to violence.

Let's take the rest of your argument point by point.

You write: "I can question whether Bionca is truly a woman, because I have absolutely no idea what it is to be a woman and I doubt that most women would satisfactorily answer that question."

How masterfully woven is your sophistry. But the point is that it is for Bionca to determine whether she is a woman, not you. It matters not whether you have an idea, or no idea, of what it means to be a woman (though every man would benefit from some of that knowledge, I am sure). What, then, is the point of this particular argument, other than to score some kind of rhetorical point? I cannot figure it out.

You write: "Appropriate anatomy--maybe a poor choice of words but here is the point. If I see a man with pants on and shoes I assume he has legs and feet--but of course, at some point I could be wrong--he could be a double amputee, I which case my face would be hanging on the ground is shame for the mistake, but 99.9% of the time, I am going to be right in that assumption."

So what?! Because he is wearing prosthetics, has he thus deceived -- and can you thus rationalize that there may be some violence against him? What if he were a blind date? The other person was expecting a man with both his legs, and your example man didn't deliver. What deception! No wonder he gets a beating.

You write: "Yes, appropriate anatomy. If I ask someone to define a woman anatomically, they will point out among other thigs, breasts and vagina which are the visible traits of being a mwoman and female in gender."

But the discussion here is about defining a woman, not a "woman anatomically." Bionca is a woman because she says so, plain and simple. Those who cannot accept that, or even who rationalizes the violent behavior of another who doesn't accept that, ought not to have the words "ladyboy lover" under their forum names.

You write: "Do you assume that every woman you meet is a transgendered person? That would be really awkward for both of you. Like the rest of us, you rely on assumptions about gender every day in order not to have to ask everyone you meet to either drop their pants or hike up their skirt."

Well, this line of argument really takes the cake. First of all, why would anyone need to make the assumption that every woman he or she meets is transgendered or not? But more important, why do you think we would need to count on our assumptions about gender to keep us from having to ask people to show us their genitalia? I don't know about your daily life, but in mine it involves interactions with people, and it is the rare incidence indeed -- outside of the most personal -- that in any of those interactions gender is of even the most minimal consequence. And surely if the assumed man I was doing a work project with turned out to be a woman, I cannot possibly imagine that I would feel so deceived as to rationalize violence -- nor would I think that okay (or even rationalizable) for anyone else.

Finally, you write: "If I look at two people, one in skirt and blouse, and one in pants and jacket, I MUST make the standard assumption that they are who they outwardly represent. It is up to those individuals to tell me otherwise. Few of us can read minds."

My question is why? Why must you make the standard assumption? Why is it so important to you? And why is it up to those individuals to tell you otherwise? If you and Bionca were somehow thrust into a work situation together, does she have some responsbility to tell you anything about her gender? Of course not!

I suggest that you explore why this is so important to you. What are the issues that drive you to be so wrapped up in having your assumptions validated.

Then again, I could be completely off base here. I don't know anything about you, or why this matters so much to you. Are you, perchance, a detective in some gender police department?

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by smc

The problem with what Puck writes begins with the two words in this sentence that I have highlighted in boldface: "If a guy sees a person with a skirt, nice looks, long hair, he's going to ASSUME that that person is a woman with the appropriate anatomy."

Puck's premise is that the absence of this "appropriate anatomy" is the root of a "deception" -- a word based on an active verb, deceit. And what is the action? It is the willful effort to convince someone to believe that which is not true.

I contend that Puck's entire premise is wrong. Let's make this more concrete and abstract -- and please excuse me, Bionca, for including you in this exercise but since you have posted so eloquently I am hopeful it will be okay. Here goes: Do you, Puck, contend that Bionca (for example) is not truly a woman? Do you contend that when she self-identifies as a woman she is untruthful? If the answer is yes to either of these questions, then I ask what gives Puck (or anyone, for that matter) the right to make that determination for Bionca. Who are any of us to decide for any transgendered person what is the "appropriate anatomy"?

A premise such as Puck's is not only wrong, but it contributes to the violence in a rather insidious (or perhaps not so subtle) way. Not only does it dehumanize the victim (by creating a category that seems other than "normal" -- in this case, missing the "appropriate anatomy"), but it is a rationalization of the violence itself. Since words can be as violent as fists, as a rationalization it becomes a form of the violence.

Until we stop giving any aid and comfort to the attackers of transgendered people, even in the form of explanations such as the one Puck offers, we are complicit. Rationalizing an attacker's behavior -- even if we ourselves would never throw the punch -- must stop!

SMC - absolutely correct