Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[tyr_13]

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?

Rational examination of the evidence and arguments. Everyone can make contributions to those. The irony is that my argument is to reduce the weight given to identity politics, yet I'm still accused of 'the feeling argument' and 'identity politics'.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well, it looks like this link is needed again.

The science tells us that it is not just 'in their heads'.

Actually it does. They just define it as "their brains", but you can perfectly well replace "brain" with "head" if you wanna use a more informal wording. But that's essentially what Gender Dysphoria is.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, by the way (Though a lot of people take this description as offensive) But that's where the "conflict" of the man who feels like a woman "trapped inside a man's body" originates. In fact, the very wording "woman trapped inside a man's body" is literally describing the process of a brain that feels like a female, while inside a man's body.

 

[tyr_13]

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.

I don't care if others make poor arguments for thinking of women as women, there are other actually solid arguments for doing so. Don't fall for the fallacy fallacy that just because someone has made a fallacy that the conclusion is therefore wrong.

First of all, it's just easier to think of women as women. Bring in the trans/cis only when it might actually matter. Secondly, "I don't want my biological sex to impose unwarranted roles on my life and place in society." is NOT BEING ANSWERED WITH 100% AGREE. Odin's eye man, why on earth do you think that's what happening? They're often met with discrimination, violence, and hate. Third, they are women. Their bodies tell them so. This is a 'does a vag make you a woman or your brain and other body systems?' question of defining 'women'. If you think it's a vag, then you're saying that outward appearance is more important that other biological factors. I side with the other biological systems. It isn't that I argue against your thinking to be a virtue laiden progressive, but because I honestly disagree based on the evidence.

Not every problem is tribalism, and even when it is a problem it often isn't even within an order of magnitude of being the biggest one on every issue.

 

[Crawtator]

Outside of sports where the advantages to transwomen vs ciswomen is debatable how is being inclusive hurting women's health and what ever is in the ect?

How is women's health being encroached upon?

Um...don't undercut your entire argument by making such a completely untrue statement. It really isn't debatable...at all. And that's not sexist or transphobic. It's reality about the differences between male and female. It's biology.

I have a very hard time with this particular type of discussion. I'm a pretty liberal republican and, also, an atheist. I have a hard time agreeing with most right-wing social ideas and most left-wing fiscal policies. However, I absolutely detest the right-wing views as they pertain to science 99% of the time. This particular subject rattles my cage, though. The progressives are arguing against science - THERE ARE MALES AND FEMALES (and a small group of intersex). But to make a statement like that, PT, is completely ignoring the science of biology. 99% of regular men will out-throw a ball compared to 99% of regular females. Are we to stick our heads into holes to just ignore this basic fact?

None of this has anything to do with self-identified gender. But ignoring science seems ridiculous. I've never considered you a far-right science denier, Ponderingturtle, but if you want to come out of the closet as one now, please clarify your position.

Or you can admit to making claims that are ridiculous interpretations of what others are saying and then grandstanding for your own personal ***** and giggles. Whatever makes you happy, I guess.

 

[tyr_13]

Actually it does. They just define it as "their brains", but you can perfectly well replace "brain" with "head" if you wanna use a more informal wording. But that's essentially what Gender Dysphoria is.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, by the way (Though a lot of people take this description as offensive) But that's where the "conflict" of the man who feels like a woman "trapped inside a man's body" originates. In fact, the very wording "woman trapped inside a man's body" is literally describing the process of a brain that feels like a female, while inside a man's body.

Please actually go through the link and it's citations, because it isn't actually all in the brain either. Hormonal reactions differ, as in how the body reacts to certain chemicals.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Secondly, "I don't want my biological sex to impose unwarranted roles on my life and place in society." is NOT BEING ANSWERED WITH 100% AGREE.

Just because we haven't won the war yet doesn't allow you to write the battle field as you see fit and doesn't make everything any proposes to help the battle automatically either factually correct or the best way to move forward.

This and your previous post bring up this air of "Transgenderism is a stop gap put into place until gender roles are removed" which A) is pure B.S. revisionism and not what transgenderism is being promoted as a B) makes zero logical sense.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Again, that depends on how you define "woman", but apparently the definition's kept secret, for obvious reasons.

 

[Belz...]

It's biology.

I have it on good authority that biology is sexist.

 

[tyr_13]

Just because we haven't won the war yet doesn't allow you to write the battle field as you see fit and doesn't make everything any proposes to help the battle automatically either factually correct or the best way to move forward.

This and your previous post bring up this air of "Transgenderism is a stop gap put into place until gender roles are removed" which A) is pure B.S. revisionism and not what transgenderism is being promoted as a B) makes zero logical sense.

Again, that depends on how you define "woman", but apparently the definition's kept secret, for obvious reasons.

Well you could both read all of my posts to have answers to both of these.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Please actually go through the link and it's citations, because it isn't actually all in the brain either. Hormonal reactions differ, as in how the body reacts to certain chemicals.

Okay. So gender equality doesn't exist.

The idea that men and women are functionally different in meaningful ways now has to go back on the table whether you like it or not. The very idea that men and women should just be assumed to be equal and appropriate for all jobs and roles in society just got shelved. The entire last... century of gender equality has to go out the window or at least be top down reviewed now if that's "the facts."

Because the dynamic you are trying to create is that Cis-Men/Cis-Women are the same as Trans-Men/Trans-Women without acknowledge any difference between men and women in the first place to give that any context.

You have can't have it both ways. There can't be a distinction that doesn't have a difference.

If a man who identifies as a woman is meaningfully different from a Cis-male that difference by definition has to also exist between cis-males and cis-women or the entire thing collapses into pointlessness.

You're undoing gender equality as a concept in order to put the difference between cis and trans into the equation but refusing to acknowledge that.

So what do we get? Transgender rights and acceptance or the base social concept of a general assumption that outside of purely biological distinctions and some demographic minutiae that the genders are equal?

Because... you... can't... do... both. You're creating a bloody paradox.

You have to choose one or the other. And I don't think you're going to.

 

[Belz...]

Well you could both read all of my posts to have answers to both of these.

I may have missed one or five. Would it have been a pain to just link to it?

 

[tyr_13]

Okay. So gender equality doesn't exist.

The idea that men and women are different in meaningful ways and all that got put back on the table whether you like it or not. The very idea that men and women should just be assumed to be equal and appropriate for all jobs and roles in society got shelved. The entire last... century of gender equality has to go out the window or at least be top down reviewed now if that's "the facts."

Because the dynamic you are trying to create is that Cis-Men/Cis-Women are the same as Trans-Men/Trans-Women without acknowledge any difference between men and women in the first place to give that any context.

You have can't have it both ways. There can't be a distinction that doesn't have a difference.

If a Trans-male is meaningfully different from a Cis-male that difference by definition has to also exist between cis-males and cis-women or the entire thing collapses into pointlessness.

You're undoing gender equality as a concept in order to put the difference between cis and trans into the equation but refusing to acknowledge that.

So what do we get? Transgender rights and acceptance or the base social concept of a general assumption that outside of purely biological distinctions and some demographic minutiae that the genders are equal?

Because... you... can't... do... both. You're creating a bloody paradox.

You have to choose one or the other. And I don't think you're going to.

No paradox. Society treats genders differently. That's the truth. To acknowledge that truth simply doesn't have the implications you're making. It doesn't mean you are endorsing that treatment. If you think through what I'm saying about treating women as women, does that endorse any specific treatment of women? Is that prescribing having women not wear pants? Of course not.

And those biological differences do exist, and they exist in varying degrees with trans people too.

EDIT: Maybe this is more clear, when I say, 'treat women as women', that means that once we treat women and men equally outside of biological differences, that would still be treating women as women. Nothing about that means not also changing how we treat women, just not to exclude trans women.

 

[tyr_13]

I may have missed one or five. Would it have been a pain to just link to it?

You actually quoted it. Remember, I explicitly said I sided with the other biological systems. You're asking how I define a woman after quoting how I define a woman.

 

[Belz...]

You actually quoted it. Remember, I explicitly said I sided with the other biological systems. You're asking how I define a woman after quoting how I define a woman.

Are you refering to post 321? I don't see a definition there.

 

[tyr_13]

Are you refering to post 321? I don't see a definition there.

I'm so confused right now. I said, "When your body systems are telling you you're a woman, what are you supposed to be? That makes you a woman."


What part of, 'that makes you a woman' is unclear?

 

[GlennB]

"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.

The most excellent comedian Eddie Izzard is a "tranny" (his word). He explained his particular feelings - he feels like a woman, but a woman who wants to have sex with other women. A lesbian in a man's body, in other words.

I seriously doubt that this observation will illuminate the discussion here, so please carry on

 

[Thermal]

I'm so confused right now. I said, "When your body systems are telling you you're a woman, what are you supposed to be? That makes you a woman."


What part of, 'that makes you a woman' is unclear?

When your 'body's systems tell you' you are a woman, you are a woman?

 

[sadhatter]

Wut?


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.

I could point you to many blogs by furries that state in no uncertain terms they believe their soul is that of an animal and they were born the wrong species.

But I'm going to guess you will ignore them as statistically insignificant, the exact same thing you complain people are doing to trans folks.

The take away should be , how willing would you be to treat that person as a tiger? That is how the other side feels about trans folKS.

Maybe the issue isn't what people should be unchallenged, but rather how we can challange and set boundaries in a sensitive and productive way.

 

[sadhatter]

Rational examination of the evidence and arguments. Everyone can make contributions to those. The irony is that my argument is to reduce the weight given to identity politics, yet I'm still accused of 'the feeling argument' and 'identity politics'.

Problem being in the identity politics paradigm I cannot make this decision myself as I'm neither a woman nor trans. I have to seek the experiences of those people.

When I do I see diametrically opposed views from the people that I'm supposed to listen to.

This is the end result of this kind of identity politics.

 

[Thermal]

I could point you to many blogs by furries that state in no uncertain terms they believe their soul is that of an animal and they were born the wrong species.

But I'm going to guess you will ignore them as statistically insignificant, the exact same thing you complain people are doing to trans folks.

No, I'd call the furry-souls nuts. Or more accurately, playing around.

The take away should be , how willing would you be to treat that person as a tiger? That is how the other side feels about trans folKS.

Maybe the issue isn't what people should be unchallenged, but rather how we can challange and set boundaries in a sensitive and productive way.

I'm happy to treat a trans as the sex they identify with. The comment you replied to was talking about the distinction between modifying your body for fun vs genuinely believing you are something else.

Eta: I said before, I think feeling like you are in the wrong body must be brutal, and lo siento babe, I feel for them