Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[mumblethrax]

But we already have a term for people who are born male . . . it's MALE. It's the same term we use for people who have transitioned to male. If they are on their journey they can call themselves transmales if they so choose.

"Cismen" refers to men who feel no discomfort with their presumptive birth sex, not to "people who are born male". A transwoman is born male, but is obviously not a cisman.

There's lots of silly language policing surrounding this debate, but cisgendered seems like a perfectly useful word to me when it's necessary to contrast those who are transgendered with those who are not, and I don't honestly see what the fuss is about. Or maybe I do.

 

[qayak]

Okay where exactly do you think this is gonna go?

Yes technically all mammals (maybe I'll vertebrates I don't remember) start off as female early in embryonic development.

AND?

How does that make adult biological sex any different in any context?

What possible part of the actual discussion that we are having do you think this little "Well ackschually..." factoid changes?

You need to read, Joe. It isn't about sex, it's about language modifiers. The term "female" makes it sound like they are a subset of male when the opposite is true. The error was caused because of societal views on women being inferior.

Trans on the other hand is accurate because it describes gender that spans the gap between female and male.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You need to read, Joe. It isn't about sex, it's about language modifiers. The term "female" makes it sound like they are a subset of male when the opposite is true. The error was caused because of societal views on women being inferior.

What?

Jesus Christ I thought the "Womyn" argument died years ago.

I have literally never once consider "female" as a subset of "male" because the wording is phrased.

This is gonna shock some people but... not all of us just comb for language for things to be annoyed about.

And I fail to see how adding yet another modifier to it fixes anything.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes. I think that's a hardwiring problem too. Doesn't make it bad or anything, and God knows I have them too. We are not perfect critters.

But does it mean gays don't really exist or what?

A woman getting implants, whether for cosmetic or surgical reasons, does not feel like she has the entirely wrong genetic makeup

But she certainly had body dysphoria about not having the breasts she wanted. When is this acceptable?

 

[Belz...]

Progressives have got to accept this. What someone "identifies" as is not the end all, be all of their person.

That's the thing. They've redefined "gender" to be "whatever you feel like". That has never been the definition of that word, but they clearly believe, as ponderingturtle and luchog do, that if you don't define it that way, and therefore you conclude that trans-people are objectively wrong about their actual gender, then you're in favour of dehumanising them and driving them to suicide.

It makes no sense to you or I, but that's how they see it: if you don't buy the whole package, you're a bigot and an evil monster. That's why they do buy the package, and why they are so aggressive towards those who don't. It's pure moral posturing.

 

[Belz...]

You need to read, Joe. It isn't about sex, it's about language modifiers. The term "female" makes it sound like they are a subset of male when the opposite is true.

Still waiting for that evidence.

The error was caused because of societal views on women being inferior.

No. It's because "man" was used to describe all humans as well as the male subset. There was nothing evil or oppressive about it. Besides, you're limiting yourself to a single language.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Stuff like this:
https://www.thenation.com/article/who-has-abortions/

I don't see your point? The number of trans people who are truly bothered by proper clinical names is minimal. There is a problem of tying womanhood to bodily organs sure, but that isn't even what this is about as it is very specifically about abortion and reproduction, and so vagina is a much more inclusive term than woman.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's true. The role of what a man or woman does is societally defined and changes with the society. A transgender person normally isn't just exhibiting the behavior of the opposite sex, though. Its more of the wrong body thing.

Do you have any actual stats to back that up?

 

[Pterodactyl]

But she certainly had body dysphoria about not having the breasts she wanted. When is this acceptable?

It's acceptable any time a person wants to do it.
Does everyone else have to then acknowledge that they are in fact real breasts though?

 

[kellyb]

Female comes from the Latin fēmellae, and male is from Latin masculus, I'm pretty sure.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's acceptable any time a person wants to do it.
Does everyone else have to then acknowledge that they are in fact real breasts though?

And if I make a point at calling out her fake tits at every chance that is cool too right?

 

[Belz...]

And if I make a point at calling out her fake tits at every chance that is cool too right?

See what I mean?

Nowhere has anyone suggested that we should seek out trans women in the streets, point and them and scream at the top of our lungs that they are not objectively real women, just like I don't go around looking for Christians on the street to point at their crucifix pendants and shout about how wrong they are. Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. There's a huge gulf between stating in a conversation about the issue that X is objectively incorrect, and going around being a jerk to people for no discernable reason.

But ponderingturtle does not make the distinction. If you disagree with the dogma he accepts, then you must be an evil person who would do things like that because that's the package he accepted: that in order to be a good, moral person you have to accept the package, and bad people do those sorts of things. It's insane, but that's the mindset.

 

[William Parcher]

This topic is red hot.

 

[kellyb]

Neither take the bait nor feed, y'all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Does everyone else have to then acknowledge that they are in fact real breasts though?

And that is the difference.

At some point being accepted as a man who wants to be a woman wasn't enough. We know have to pretend the very idea that you want to be... changes reality.

And again the irony and tragedy of this is none of this makes a functional difference.

Man: "I would rather be a woman."
Me: "Gotcha. Fully understand and support you."
Man: "I don't want my biological sex to impose unwarranted roles on my life and place in society."
Me: "Completely agree with you 100%."
Man: "And I need you to actually think of me and identify me in your own head as a woman."
Me: "Wait what? I don't understand what you are..."
Progressives: "Transphobe! Bigot! Cisgender Scum!"

This isn't argument about any difference in any objective behavior or action or anything you actually do. It's trying to demonize people for not pretending they conceptualize something in a way you do even if it makes no difference.

All so people can feel they are winning the "Lookit at me being more progressive and accepting than you" game.

 

[Thermal]

But does it mean gays don't really exist or what?

Wut?

But she certainly had body dysphoria about not having the breasts she wanted. When is this acceptable?

Anytime. Some people modify themselves to look like alligators. But they don't think they are alligators. Many transgender think they are the opposite sex, not playing at it. Big difference.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wut?

Don't worry you get used to Ponderingturtle after a while. He has the advantage of living a life completely unburdened by reality, which gives him a distinct edge in discussions.

 

[Belz...]

This isn't argument about any difference in any objective behavior or action or anything you actually do. It's trying to demonize people for not pretending they conceptualize something in a way you do even if it makes no difference.

It's a bit related to the idea of the post-fact world, one where no one, and especially not children, are ever told they're wrong or that they've failed. At some point they believe that what they feel defines reality.

 

[sadhatter]

Cis woman is a perfectly valid term, no matter how trans-excluding feminists want to twist the language in order to use old tactics of being the victimized, marginalized group against a group that they are currently victimizing and marginalizing.

I do in fact use terms for ethnic groups that many members claim they consider grossly offensive; black and African American. Most however, don't. This is the OVERWHELMING case with cis woman as well.

This is a basic fact that every TERF and other trans-excluding 'woman's' group fails to integrate; you do not own womanhood. You do not speak for womanhood. It is not a weapon you can swing against the other. This fear isn't of losing 'what they've worked for', it's for losing control and power. It's the sad hanging on to power that was fought for at first for noble goals, but power does what power does. 'Erase your identity' only works if one believes the markedly unfeminist idea that what is between your legs defines you as a person. What are you afraid of losing? From you last article, it looks like you want to reject women from being given shelter from violence because they're trans women, even though trans women are at greater risk of violence than cis women. How very kind of you.

Be grossly offended. Being offended doesn't make you right. I'll continue to offend you just like I continue to grossly offend radical Christians by denying a belief in any god, just like I'll grossly offend Trump supporters by opposing his harms, just like I'll grossly offend anti-vaxers with scientific facts.

Who gets to speak for women then?

You imply it is those that think like yourself, by what metric did you come to this decision?

And as a male, how am I to decide on a subject my privilege makes me unable to understand when I have two or more representatives from a group that should, telling me diametrically opposed things?

It seems to me we are entering the point in history where identity politics as they are being applied are showing to have severe logical problems. People attempt to hide behind a group banner and claim ownership of said group, rather than work toward any kind of logical conclusion.

You want to have enough social control to redefine major premises based on feelings? Well this is the consequence, their feelings and yours are now what matters, meaning instead of working on actual solutions to these issues, we get to hear terfs argue with people who identify as trans vampire wolves about whos feelings are the most important.

**** this, those of us in the middle that want safety and fairness for everyone based on logic and reason need to get loud. I'm tired of hearing two egotistical victims scream extremist positions that neither will budge from. And im tired of people accepting these positions because they believe their income race or their junk determines what they can comment on.

 

[tyr_13]

Well, it looks like this link is needed again.

The science tells us that it is not just 'in their heads'. There are multiple body systems telling them this. When your body systems are telling you you're a woman, what are you supposed to be? That makes you a woman.

If you get your breasts replaced, they're your breasts. People should treat them and refer to them as your breasts. That they're 'fake' means you can treat them differently, refer to them differently, legislate them differently because... ?

And that's what's happening with trans people now. Basing our terminology on some ideal where silly sex roles have been abolished is nonsense when we are so very far from that. Maybe in the future that would work, but right now when there is so much bigotry and mistreatment directed at them it's as silly as pretending it's the fault of black advocacy groups that racism still exists.