Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[kellyb]

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Children are not all females, and neither are foetuses at any point of their development. Children are already differentiated, and foetuses start halfway before a certain point.

Looks like you're so late to the party on this topic, it's firing up again. LOL

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/embryos-kill-male-tissue-become-female

For decades, females have been considered the “default” sex in mammals. The new research overturns that idea, showing that making female reproductive organs is an active process that involves dismantling a primitive male tissue called the Wolffian duct.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Very good point. And that may in fact be the reason why you don't hear much about crossdressers in today's debates. You don't see any crossdresser cultural groups intervening in the current discussion. It's kinda out of fashion culturally. That was back then, when there was no debate about the existence of two genders, so it made sense. But as you correctly point out, to validate crossdressing, you have to validate the fact that there are differences between how men and women dress.

Depends on the group. Cross dressing as day to day activity would fit into gender queer / gender non conforming. Cross dressing as a sexual act isn't what anyone is talking about here except for Rolfe.

So it is certainly related to this whole issue but not in the way you are implying.

 

[kellyb]

you do not own womanhood. You do not speak for womanhood.

We kinda do, actually.

 

[Cleon]

It's much more clear than otherwise. The entire argument against its use isn't on language grounds really, it's all about denying that trans women are women.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hmmm maybe we need to include photos of your genitals as well as your face on you ID think that would help resolve this?

 

[kellyb]

Very good point. And that may in fact be the reason why you don't hear much about crossdressers in today's debates. You don't see any crossdresser cultural groups intervening in the current discussion. It's kinda out of fashion culturally. That was back then, when there was no debate about the existence of two genders, so it made sense. But as you correctly point out, to validate crossdressing, you have to validate the fact that there are differences between how men and women dress.

The paradox still exists today, though, because transgender people do the same thing: They transform physically and dress like the opposite sex. So they're admitting that there's an opposite sex. Though there are also transgender people who are only transgender "in their soul" so to speak. While they look like their "original" sex, they claim to be the other one, because that's how they feel.

And that's all fine, by the way. Adults are free to do whatever they want. Just don't act like there aren't clear differences between males and females. Because if there were actually zero differences, then the whole concept of transgender and pretty much, the whole discussion, would be moot.

"Transvestite" is Latin for cross-dresser (more or less). I wonder why the shift occurred?

I have vague memories of people on daytime TV during the early 90's claiming that their crossdressing was more than some fun, kinky thing, and there was a "woman trapped in a man's body" aspect going on.

It would be interesting to see when and where gender was substituted for dressing, and originally why.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"Transvestite" is Latin for cross-dresser (more or less). I wonder why the shift occurred?

I have vague memories of people on daytime TV during the early 90's claiming that their crossdressing was more than some fun, kinky thing, and there was a "woman trapped in a man's body" aspect going on.

It would be interesting to see when and where gender was substituted for dressing, and originally why.

It is because clothing is highly gendered, so the clothes one wears is an expression of gender. More commonly such individuals would be gender queer or gender non conforming in more modern terminology except when it is a sexual fetish.

Of course the lowering of the stigma on being transgender and so more people are transitioning in their entire lives instead of only part of it.

 

[Belz...]

The entire argument against its use isn't on language grounds really, it's all about denying that trans women are women.

How do you define "woman"? That's kind of important at this point, if you want to determine if they're right or not.

 

[kellyb]

How do you define "woman"? That's kind of important at this point, if you want to determine if they're right or not.

I'm thinking how "woman" is defined depends (or should depend) on context. "Women's athletics" probably should be cis-exclusive, whereas "women's rights" should generally remain trans-inclusive.

(Also, that's an example of why I don't find cis offensive, or some covertly marginalizing modifier by nature.)

 

[Thermal]

Hmmm maybe we need to include photos of your genitals as well as your face on you ID think that would help resolve this?

You could just write 'innie' or 'outie'

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you're a "Man trapped in a woman's body" you have, by definition, think there are meaningful non-biological differences between men and women are the whole thing is a distinction without difference and those always, always have ulterior motives.

Every time we have this discussion I ask, beg, plead somebody, anybody to answer this question and they never do.

Unless you place external standards on what men and women are and can do outside of their biological difference the statement that "A Woman trapped in a Man's Body" is in any way meaningfully distinct from "A Man" makes no sense.

What is the difference? A real, meaningful difference. What should a "Man trapped in a Woman's body" be able to do that "A Man" can't?

When I met a biological male and he tells me "I'm a man trapped in a woman's body" what do I do differently? What do I say or do differently? What am I required to acknowledge or change?

I already don't treat men and women differently on the scale and in the context we're discussing which I distinctly being told that was the thing I had to do at one point in the not too distant past and now I'm supposed to... I honestly don't know.

What is the difference? Somebody give a straight answer that doesn't boil down to "It's different because they say it is different."

Because not to long ago I thought all those non-biological differences that a society put on men and women were bad things that we were trying to make go away and I wake up one morning and they've all been put back in just so people feel special and unique about subverting them.

The dynamic being created can't be "Men and women should be treated equally... except when they identify as the other gender and then they must be treated under the old standards of gender roles, just reversed."

Standards can't be evil when nominally applied but celebrated when reversed. That's not how reality works.

 

[Belz...]

I'm thinking how "woman" is defined depends (or should depend) on context.

Thing is, we can usually tell really easily who's a woman. It's the edge cases that are problematic, but they don't necessarily require a change in definitions.

However, the reason we can tell at a glance is that we're looking at a number of characteristics and our brains do the calculations. If the definition is, say, XX chromosomes, it might not translate well into what we see directly.

 

[Thermal]

...When I met a biological male and he tells me "I'm a man trapped in a woman's body" what do I do differently?...

Back away slowly?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because not to long ago I thought all those non-biological differences that a society put on men and women were bad things that we were trying to make go away and I wake up one morning and they've all been put back in just so people feel special and unique about subverting them.

The dynamic being created can't be "Men and women should be treated equally... except when they identify as the other gender and then they must be treated under the old standards of gender roles, just reversed."

Standards can't be evil when nominally applied but celebrated when reversed. That's not how reality works.

Maybe but of course a man who wears dresses and identifies as a man is different than a trans woman. If you are arguing we are at the time when being highly unique in your gender expression is not an issue, then frankly you are wrong. But that is still separate from gender identity.

 

[Thermal]

*preparing to be accused of transphobia*

Doesn't being trans amount to believing that you are something that you physically are not? I sympathize with those that do, its got to be brutal. But if I thought I was something I physically was not...say, a dolphin or a Windsor backed chair...would there be an inclusive socially and politically correct term like cisdolphin to differentiate?

 

[kellyb]

Thing is, we can usually tell really easily who's a woman. It's the edge cases that are problematic, but they don't necessarily require a change in definitions.

However, the reason we can tell at a glance is that we're looking at a number of characteristics and our brains do the calculations. If the definition is, say, XX chromosomes, it might not translate well into what we see directly.

It's not really the edge cases that bother me - it's really stuff like women's sports, women's health, etc that legitimately does seem to be being "encroached upon" in destructive ways which has been flying under the radar to some extent, because most feminists of all orientations really, truly don't want to be bigots.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Maybe but of course a man who wears dresses and identifies as a man is different than a trans woman. If you are arguing we are at the time when being highly unique in your gender expression is not an issue, then frankly you are wrong. But that is still separate from gender identity.

If the whole gender identify thing was being presented as some sort of... transitional phase, a thing for people do while waiting on gender roles to go away you might have a point but that's certainly not what we have.

Nothing in any version of the gender identify movement has it ever been presented in any context as "temporary."

 

[kellyb]

*preparing to be accused of transphobia*

Doesn't being trans amount to believing that you are something that you physically are not? I sympathize with those that do, its got to be brutal. But if I thought I was something I physically was not...say, a dolphin or a Windsor backed chair...would there be an inclusive socially and politically correct term like cisdolphin to differentiate?

Gender really does have a lot to do with what "social space" you occupy in the world. It's not as strict as it was 50 years ago, but it is still "a thing", for better or for worse. So, no, I definitely don't just see transgenderism as a delusion like thinking you're a dolphin.

 

[ponderingturtle]

*preparing to be accused of transphobia*

Doesn't being trans amount to believing that you are something that you physically are not? I sympathize with those that do, its got to be brutal. But if I thought I was something I physically was not...say, a dolphin or a Windsor backed chair...would there be an inclusive socially and politically correct term like cisdolphin to differentiate?

No. Trans people really do understand what their bodies are. But they also know what they feel their bodies should be. Their mental idea of this is my body does not match their physical one. This is not something that in general is treated with disdain when someone tries to get their body to fit their body image. Like those "unnecessary" breast reconstruction after mastectomy for women? Why bother with those fake unnatural breasts? Who are they trying to fool? Why do women who have cancer deserve tits but women who did not naturally grow them do not?

 

[Thermal]

Gender really does have a lot to do with what "social space" you occupy in the world. It's not as strict as it was 50 years ago, but it is still "a thing", for better or for worse. So, no, I definitely don't just see transgenderism as a delusion like thinking you're a dolphin.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. Thinking you are a woman when you are physically a male is some sort of crossed wire. Yes, a dolphin is being hyperbolic, but all this talk of gender inclusivity seems to gloss over that. That's why I see the gender distinction as often really meaning sex; we don't have any evidence of being trapped in wrong bodies. Its a hardwiring problem regarding self identification.