Transgender man gives birth

Porpoise of Life said:
Sure. The problem is that we have two words for a whole lot of related and interdependent but separate concepts. Sex, gender, gender roles. We use man and woman for all of those.
Sometimes one word applied in one context, and the other in another. Sometimes the distinction isn't that clear-cut.
Of course the person in the OP has to have a female anatomy in order to give birth. And of course we'd expect medical and scientific literature to use the terminology that is most appropriate. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we let 'feelings' dictate reality, and that we should ignore science because it might hurt someone's feelings.
And yes, transgender and intersex people are a tiny minority, and from a purely clinical standpoint their conditions can be called pathological. But if we use those words outside of a purely clinical context, they carry certain value judgments.

The OP asked why he should call the person described in the article a man. The answer is politeness.
Being polite in a social context does not preclude being truthful or conscious or thorough in a scientific or clinical context. It isn't all black and white, pure fact versus pure feeling.
Click to expand...

But people need to be able to harass their coworkers for some reason. And this is one of the last few that they can. Why else would we see so many people in support of harassment?
 
ponderingturtle said:
I have as much as you do. It isn't like the actual scientists who study gender agree with you remotely.

Here is a simple question what would it take to convince you that transgender people exist?
Click to expand...

Again, read ,you use gender indifferentely for both gender and sex. I do not.

Homo sapiens has only two sex, female and male. Patholigical cases may require look at the context, but there is no third sex.

Gender (gender identity) is another thing, and you keep missing the point i am making.
 
Argumemnon said:
Considering how much of an ideology the social justice movement is, your comment here is quite ironic. In this case, the one true faith is that one's feelings are the most important thing in the universe.
Click to expand...

Morris Albert agrees
 
It's quite funny that some people can only see two sides to this issue; the moral victors and the enemy, instead of the great range of views that exist on this topic, and in so doing antagonise those who would normally be their allies in the fight for civil rights, while at the same time chastising those same potential allies for seeing gender as a binary rather than a spectrum.
 
mumblethrax said:
Even if there is some "objective reality" to gender, it's not like I ask for DNA samples when I meet people.
Click to expand...

No, but there are certain visual cues which, if you happen to be sharing a locker room with someone, are extremely good indicators of sex.

(I might add that the same goes for maternity wards.)

And this is where, some years ago, I parted company with the orthodox transgender rights supporters. I'm all about being liberal and allowing people to live their lives the way they wish to live them. I supported the rights of people to present themselves as females even if they weren't really females. No problem. Takes all kinds to make a world.

However, reading about the phenomenon right here on these pages, I realized that wasn't enough for the hard liners. They insisted that that person who was clearly a biological male, really was actually a woman. She wasn't someone who thought she was a woman. She wasn't someone who felt like a woman. She wasn't someone who identified as a woman. By gum, she was, really and truly a woman, and must be treated by society as such in every way.

And most of the time, even that doesn't really cause problems, but there is a certain point where there has to be some reality that sets in. There are certain situations where it is unreasonable for everyone else to ignore the reality of what they see and instead treat someone based on their own psychological state. There have been many, many threads on those subjects, so I won't rehash them here. Anyone interested has seen them before. For the purposes of this thread, at least for now, I will simply say that the person who gave birth in Oregon the other day was a woman, regardless of how she felt about herself or how she lives most of her life. To say otherwise is to say that the word "woman" has no real meaning.
 
Reminds me of arguments with my grandpa, trying to convince him that Russians can be consdered white. He thinks that because of Genghis Khan and miscegenation that Russians are all Chinamen. He knows this. From science. And anyone who thinks differently is in league against him, with sinister intent (possibly a global syndicate headed by Dr Fu Manchu) preparing for the upcoming race war.

That other people just have a looser definition of "white" (and "Chinaman") and no motives beyond living and let live does not register with him. He knows what he knows, damn it, and telling him different is proof of pernicious Catholic influence inherited from my grandmother.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Reminds me of arguments with my grandpa, trying to convince him that Russians can be consdered white. He thinks that because of Genghis Khan and miscegenation that Russians are all Chinamen. He knows this. From science. And anyone who thinks differently is in league against him, with sinister intent (possibly a global syndicate headed by Dr Fu Manchu) preparing for the upcoming race war.

That other people just have a looser definition of "white" (and "Chinaman") and no motives beyond living and let live does not register with him. He knows what he knows, damn it, and telling him different is proof of pernicious Catholic influence inherited from my grandmother.
Click to expand...

Considering that this has nothing to do with the discussion, it's odd that it reminds you of it.

ETA: Unless you think that some loon disagreeing with you on one thing means that people who disagree with you are loons.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Again, read ,you use gender indifferentely for both gender and sex. I do not.

Homo sapiens has only two sex, female and male. Patholigical cases may require look at the context, but there is no third sex.
Click to expand...

Exactly there are a lot of people who are neither biologically male or female. A hysterectomy for example would mean that you should not longer refer to them as women in the work place.

The thing is that the only ones who care about sex are a persons doctors. None of the people objecting here are doctors they want to be able to pretend that transgender people don't exist. They want to be able to harass transgender coworkers freely. That is what they are arguing for. And you are agreeing with them.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Exactly there are a lot of people who are neither biologically male or female. A hysterectomy for example would mean that you should not longer refer to them as women in the work place.
Click to expand...

That's like saying that losing an arm means you're no longer a tetrapod.

The thing is that the only ones who care about sex are a persons doctors.
Click to expand...

Spouses may care as well.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Reminds me of arguments with my grandpa, trying to convince him that Russians can be consdered white. He thinks that because of Genghis Khan and miscegenation that Russians are all Chinamen. He knows this. From science. And anyone who thinks differently is in league against him, with sinister intent (possibly a global syndicate headed by Dr Fu Manchu) preparing for the upcoming race war.

That other people just have a looser definition of "white" (and "Chinaman") and no motives beyond living and let live does not register with him. He knows what he knows, damn it, and telling him different is proof of pernicious Catholic influence inherited from my grandmother.
Click to expand...

All non-sequiturs aside, the thing is that you don't have a "looser definition" of "woman" that excludes the fellow who just gave birth. You have no definition at all.

Give it a shot. Provide a definition of "woman" that meets the following conditions.

1. Includes transwomen
2. excludes transmen
3. Is not circular
 
Meadmaker said:
No, but there are certain visual cues which, if you happen to be sharing a locker room with someone, are extremely good indicators of sex.
Click to expand...

Which is why males with androgen insensitivity need to use the men's locker rooms. It is simple biology people.
 
Argumemnon said:
If it's insignificant then both sides are guilty.
Click to expand...

The insignificance I'm referring to is in the effort and impact on ones life to refer to a transgender person by their preferred gender. You may not agree with it or even understand it, but it literally costs you nothing. So why make an issue of it?

It's the exact same insignificance of effort and impact for a non-black person to not use the N-word.

So when I see someone arguing so vehemently against something that is ultimately inconsequential to their lives, I have to wonder about their underlying motives.
 
Meadmaker said:
All non-sequiturs aside, the thing is that you don't have a "looser definition" of "woman" that excludes the fellow who just gave birth. You have no definition at all.

Give it a shot. Provide a definition of "woman" that meets the following conditions.

1. Includes transwomen
2. excludes transmen
3. Is not circular
Click to expand...

You are the one arguing for strict definitions, why don't you provide your one that fits everyone nicely into either male or female with not large other group we would then need to treat as some third gender?
 
johnny karate said:
The insignificance I'm referring to is in the effort and impact on ones life to refer to a transgender person by their preferred gender. You may not agree with it or even understand it, but it literally costs you nothing. So why make an issue of it?

It's the exact same insignificance of effort and impact for a non-black person to not use the N-word.

So when I see someone arguing so vehemently against something that is ultimately inconsequential to their lives, I have to wonder about their underlying motives.
Click to expand...

Gertrude there will always need to state what ever they view is fact no matter how rude or insulting it is to others.
 
johnny karate said:
The insignificance I'm referring to is in the effort and impact on ones life to refer to a transgender person by their preferred gender. You may not agree with it or even understand it, but it literally costs you nothing. So why make an issue of it?
Click to expand...

Is that your criterion?

Hopefully you never argue against creationists. I mean, it's no effort to just pretend that their beliefs are true. So why make an issue of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom