Transgender man gives birth

[Belz...]

Exactly it is crazy like gay marriage. Who is the husband and who is the wife? Who is the one who can sign legal documents and who can't? Things are now all fuzzy and indistinct. We need to go back to the old days of clear and simple.

You either have very little ability to understand concepts, or you are deliberately obtuse. Marriage is not a fuzzy word. You either define it as the union between a man and a woman, or between two consenting adults, or whatever. But whatever definition you use, it's pretty simple and easy to understand.

Not so simple with the definition of gender, or so we're told. Your analogy fails.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm not sure I follow you here. Do you mean that only one behavioural, cultural or psychological trait is necessary to label someone a man? Is it like a one-drop rule for gender?

Personally, I feel that there are robust frameworks from the fields of psychology, sociology or philosophy we could use to define whether someone is a man.

But Argumemnon has stated a lack of need for those sources and identified the dictionary as the authoritative source of definition. Since the dictionary definition was broad, without any further source for clarification we're left with a pretty broad definition. I'm mostly arguing the logical consistency of Argumemnon's definitions.

 

[Cavemonster]

I like both 2a and 2b. I just don't view it as meaning that a biological woman can have a male gender. Gender is the social expression of biological sex.

I'm afraid this is where you become very difficult to follow.

Which definitions you "like" shouldn't have much impact on them. And the things you inject into 2b are not in the text.

You are asserting that your feelings constitute the truth.

 

[Belz...]

I'm afraid this is where you become very difficult to follow.

Which definitions you "like" shouldn't have much impact on them. And the things you inject into 2b are not in the text.

You are asserting that your feelings constitute the truth.

What do feelings have to do with my argument? You're the one who brought up the word "like".

The definition 2b doesn't say that how people feel determines their gender, does it?

 

[sphenisc]

Personally, I feel that there are robust frameworks from the fields of psychology, sociology or philosophy we could use to define whether someone is a man.

But Argumemnon has stated a lack of need for those sources and identified the dictionary as the authoritative source of definition. Since the dictionary definition was broad, without any further source for clarification we're left with a pretty broad definition. I'm mostly arguing the logical consistency of Argumemnon's definitions.

Great. Now here's a question. Do you mean that only one behavioural, cultural or psychological trait is necessary to label someone a man? Is it like a one-drop rule for gender?

 

[Wolrab]

What a silly thread. Believing you are something does not make it true. A man is not biologically equipped to have a baby. Women have babies, duh.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't disagree with those reasons at all. But the question is at what point does liberalism evolve to the point where it does disagree? If you had asked the average liberal 40 years ago, what they thought of gay marriage, they probably would have laughed. Transgender in the military? It was a running joke on MASH that was a dodge to get out of the military.

Okay, so maybe the liberals don't go for the real predators, the guys raping babies. But they find someone like Mary Kay Letourneau. She got off extraordinarily light as it was; for her first conviction of having sex with a sixth-grader (one whom she was teaching) she got 6 months, 3 suspended. Second time around (with the same kid) she got 7-1/2 years, but served less than 6. And then after she got released, they were married (apparently separated since, but their marriage lasted 13 years, not bad by today's standards).

Those kinds of female teacher/male student caught having sex stories come up periodically. Around here the reaction mostly seems to be, lucky guy! So you start with the women. But then comes the fairness argument. Mary Kay had sex with her student who was 12, why is this guy in prison for 20 years having sex with a female student who was 13? And I assume there will be some gay cause celebre about a man who was after all only showing a youngster how to become comfortable with his own sexuality.

I find the statement "Around here the reaction mostly seems to be, lucky guy!" a less than convincing indicator the liberals in general approve of such relationships.

The idea that liberals will cease trying to preen themselves for being more tolerant than their elders is patently absurd. Indeed, that is exactly what the person I was originally responding to was doing. His grandfather was racist. Mom was more tolerant but still homophobic. Him perfectly tolerant in every regard. I'm guessing his descendants will find his blind spot, whether it's pedophobia or something else that we all take for granted.

What some consider preening, others consider an acknowledgement of progress.

 

[Cavemonster]

Great. Now here's a question. Do you mean that only one behavioural, cultural or psychological trait is necessary to label someone a man? Is it like a one-drop rule for gender?

I'm again sorry if I was unclear, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how to make it any clearer to you. Let me give it one more go

I do not subscribe personally to a belief that a single trait from those three categories is sufficient to define someone as a man.

In a conversation with a specific poster I have presented that definition as the logical conclusion from his assertions about how gender ought to be defined. That thread, addressed to that poster is an attempt to show why I don't believe that poster's argument to be valid or sound.

 

[Cavemonster]

The definition 2b doesn't say that how people feel determines their gender, does it?

It also doesn't say that "Gender is the social expression of biological sex." So why do you insist on that meaning? You must be using some source outside of the dictionary for your definition, and since you have eschewed academic sources, where do you get your definition from?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You either have very little ability to understand concepts, or you are deliberately obtuse. Marriage is not a fuzzy word. You either define it as the union between a man and a woman, or between two consenting adults, or whatever. But whatever definition you use, it's pretty simple and easy to understand.

Not so simple with the definition of gender, or so we're told. Your analogy fails.

It is simple with gender, people are what they claim to be. But you reject that simple easy definition and instead prefer incomplete ones you claim are scientific.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What a silly thread. Believing you are something does not make it true. A man is not biologically equipped to have a baby. Women have babies, duh.

And the article in the beginning clearly shows this is wrong. A man had a baby.

Lets take a simple gender test, Beards. If you grow a beard you are a man if you don't you are a woman.

So a Sikh "woman" with a beard is a man. And a Native American who never needs to shave to keep a clean face is a woman no matter what their genitals same. Makes gender simple.

 

[johnny karate]

Well IF there's a law that says that you can't intentionally or repeatedly fail to use somene's prefered pronouns, and IF the list of pronouns goes well beyond "he" or "she" and into "xer" and others, then it stands to reason that you have to learn the list.

Transgender people in total are less than 1% of the adult population. Are you able to put a number on how many of them actually use any of those terms? As a function of population percentage, does that number round to something higher than zero?

I just want to know if I should join in sir drinks-a-lot's concern and start preparing flashcards to learn the list.

 

[Belz...]

It also doesn't say that "Gender is the social expression of biological sex." So why do you insist on that meaning?

Perhaps you should read the definition again. It explicitly mentions sex.

Transgender people in total are less than 1% of the adult population. Are you able to put a number on how many of them actually use any of those terms? As a function of population percentage, does that number round to something higher than zero?

I just want to know if I should join in sir drinks-a-lot's concern and start preparing flashcards to learn the list.

Well that's our point actually: the list is nonsense.

 

[sphenisc]

I'm again sorry if I was unclear, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how to make it any clearer to you. Let me give it one more go

I do not subscribe personally to a belief that a single trait from those three categories is sufficient to define someone as a man.

In a conversation with a specific poster I have presented that definition as the logical conclusion from his assertions about how gender ought to be defined. That thread, addressed to that poster is an attempt to show why I don't believe that poster's argument to be valid or sound.

Thanks that's clearer.

 

[3point14]

What a silly thread. Believing you are something does not make it true. A man is not biologically equipped to have a baby. Women have babies, duh.

I assume you're not working on:

Can have babies = Woman
Cannot have babies = Man.

 

[Cavemonster]

Perhaps you should read the definition again. It explicitly mentions sex.
.

Yes, but specifically it says that it refers to traits typically associated with sex.

It does not say that those traits are necessarily an expression of sex. You seem to be tossing out the words "typically" and "associated".

 

[ponderingturtle]

I assume you're not working on:

Can have babies = Woman
Cannot have babies = Man.

And yet when I point out that this definition means that hysterectomies mean that they are no longer women it becomes crazy.

 

[Wolrab]

And the article in the beginning clearly shows this is wrong. A man had a baby.

Lets take a simple gender test, Beards. If you grow a beard you are a man if you don't you are a woman.

So a Sikh "woman" with a beard is a man. And a Native American who never needs to shave to keep a clean face is a woman no matter what their genitals same. Makes gender simple.

No, a woman had a baby. She still has all the woman parts as the article stated therefore she is a woman.


I don't have a clue as to what you posted after that has anything to do with anything.

From the article, my highlights.

Trystan Reese, 34, and Biff Chaplow of Portland, Oregon, welcomed their first biological child, a son named Leo, two weeks ago
•Trystan, who was born female and still is, started taking hormones ten years ago to make herself more like a man, but kept his 'original parts' all the female bits, vagina, uterus, etc.- the defining parts that make her a woman.•He stopped taking hormones in order to get pregnant, which was under the supervision of a doctor that obviously treated a woman as she became pregnant, something which men cannot do.•Earlier, he suffered a miscarriage last year at six weeks, but the couple got to trying again right away
•The pair are already dads to two adopted children, Riley and Hailey, who are Biff's biological niece and nephew good for them, kids rock.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but specifically it says that it refers to traits typically associated with sex.

It does not say that those traits are necessarily an expression of sex. You seem to be tossing out the words "typically" and "associated".

You know, ponderingturtle and yourself are quite fond of telling me what I "seem" to be doing. How about you stop doing that and just go with what I post, m'kay?

 

[Belz...]

I don't have a clue as to what you posted after that has anything to do with anything.

Welcome to my world.