Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[ponderingturtle]

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?

And of course the women in question are on testosterone blockers and estrogen and so on. That is why I was talking about trans women, not men. Then of course there are the freaks that fake it as women but fail the medical screenings to compete in womens sports, they shouldn't be labeled as women on their ID's either or some such.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

You do realize all the trans people I know are solidly in favor of equal rights, what kind of step back are you asserting this is?

And I have certainly not seen a lot of people proposing a truly gender free society.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

That is rather outdated information about Eddie. And the quote I remember was not a lesbian in a mans body but a male lesbian.

 

[cullennz]

Every reliable dictionary I have seen has a similar definition of "woman"

eg Oxford English

"An adult human female."

Unless someone can point out to me they are all wrong or that trans can somehow magically turn into females, there is no need for "cis"

 

[Crawtator]

PT: How do you feel about Mack Begg's then?

Or for that matter, Fallon Fox?

 

[qayak]

I don't believe you.

And that still doesn't make what I said wrong.

Isn't the latter "trans-male"?

No. Don't care how you got there, if you're male you're male.

And again, you're missing the point, which seems to indicate that you're doing it deliberately.

Or it could mean your argument is wrong.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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.

First, I'd like to point out how much of that link is uncited ideology about gender and orientation:

So, where do we stand on transgender issues? Science tells us that gender is certainly not binary; it may not even be a linear spectrum. Like many other facets of identity, it can operate on a broad range of levels and operate outside of many definitions. And it also appears that gender may not be as static as we assume. At the forefront of this, transgender identity is complex – it’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to attribute it to one neat, contained set of causes, and there is still much to be learned. But we know now that several of those causes are biological. These individuals are not suffering a mental illness, or capriciously “choosing” a different identity. The transgender identity is multi-dimensional – but it deserves no less recognition or respect than any other facet of humankind.

"Science tells us", and you have to take the author's word.

Second, for the biological basis, it contradicts their rhetoric because the studies it references paint a picture of gendered traits and binary genders. You'll find that this has fallen out of favor and labels you as "truscum" and "gender essentialist" if you bring it up in the current movement, as I have found. These are the arguments of an older trans movement, to establish that there is a biological basis for dysphoria.

Third, the findings themselves are cherry picked and the conclusions highly speculative and controversial as well. Here is a more balanced article looking at studies on this matter, and here is a long article on gender in general putting the "brainsex" debate in context.

When your body systems are telling you you're a woman, what are you supposed to be? That makes you a woman.

Begging the question. Even if we assumed strict biological determination, which again is controversial at best, this seems to be assuming the definition: Woman - one who identifies as a woman because of brain development.

 

[Belz...]

I'm so confused right now.

Maybe our double confusion will lead to clarity at some point!

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?

All of it. It's not a definition, first of all. And second, how do you determine what tells whom what they are? How do you know that someone suffering from gender dysphoria feels that way because of hormones, or brain structure, or whatever? And what about the rest of that person's biolgical systems which scream the opposite?

So that's why I'm asking: what is the definition of "woman"?



Also, what about people's body systems telling them they're Napoleon?

 

[Belz...]

And that still doesn't make what I said wrong.

All you need to do is present evidence.

I think you misinterpreted something you read.

No. Don't care how you got there, if you're male you're male.

Fair enough. How do you define "male"?

Or it could mean your argument is wrong.

No, me being wrong cannot follow from you missing the point. You'd have to understand and address the point first.

 

[Belz...]

Begging the question. Even if we assumed strict biological determination, which no one does, this seems to be assuming the definition: Woman - one who identifies as a woman.

Well, that's the end result of the validation culture of our time. Whatever you feel is true. Whatever you want to be, you are. It makes difficult the differentiation of people with actual dysphoria and those who are just riding the oppression-is-cool fad. It also helps no one.

 

[cullennz]

Well, that's the end result of the validation culture of our time. Whatever you feel is true. Whatever you want to be, you are. It makes difficult the differentiation of people with actual dysphoria and those who are just riding the oppression-is-cool fad. It also helps no one.

It also has the potential of messing with how funding allocation is sorted if you happen to be in a country with a free universal health system.

 

[tyr_13]

First, I'd like to point out how much of that link is uncited ideology about gender and orientation:



"Science tells us", and you have to take the author's word.

No you don't. That paragraph is the conclusion, and the support is cited and link to throughout the article, and the further reading links.

Second, for the biological basis, it contradicts their rhetoric because the studies it references paint a picture of gendered traits and binary genders. You'll find that this has fallen out of favor and labels you as "truscum" and "gender essentialist" if you bring it up in the current movement, as I have found. These are the arguments of an older trans movement, to establish that there is a biological basis for dysphoria.

How is that a contradiction? Reexamining old data in light of new information doesn't mean one accepts the old conclusions, let alone verbiage.

Third, the findings themselves are cherry picked and the conclusions highly speculative and controversial as well. Here is a more balanced article looking at studies on this matter, and here is a long article on gender in general putting the "brainsex" debate in context.

Am I missing something important, because the 'more balanced article' looks to be almost completely in agreement? Is it because it spends more time talking about the limitations? You quoted the article stressing the unknowns and limitations.

Your article doesn't contradict the conclusion that it's very complex without easy answers, but that there are biological factors. It is not 'they just think it'.

Begging the question. Even if we assumed strict biological determination, which again is controversial at best, this seems to be assuming the definition: Woman - one who identifies as a woman because of brain development.

Is that a bad definition? It fits the best we know so far.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think the questions about identifying as dolphins or Napoleon are too far off the beaten trail for much, outside of the specific semantic question and self-identification alone. In the general trans debate, the most relevant and closest to another condition I would say would be the people who identify as amputees and seek to have limbs amputated.

We have plenty of research showing transition leads to the best outcomes. But again, this is the old framework of transitioning between binary genders due to dysphoria with adult patients.

 

[tyr_13]

Maybe our double confusion will lead to clarity at some point!



All of it. It's not a definition, first of all. And second, how do you determine what tells whom what they are? How do you know that someone suffering from gender dysphoria feels that way because of hormones, or brain structure, or whatever? And what about the rest of that person's biolgical systems which scream the opposite?

So that's why I'm asking: what is the definition of "woman"?



Also, what about people's body systems telling them they're Napoleon?

Well, that's the end result of the validation culture of our time. Whatever you feel is true. Whatever you want to be, you are. It makes difficult the differentiation of people with actual dysphoria and those who are just riding the oppression-is-cool fad. It also helps no one.

What about people who think they're Napoleon? Did you have research that could show any relation to transgender issues, or did it just sound like a valid argument?

It helps no one? What do you even mean by that? No one is helped by accepting transgender people as more than 'just wanting to be the other sex'?

All this information on it being more than 'just feelings', yet you fall right back to that.

It's difficult to determine who actually is transgender. It takes time, professionals, and lots of effort on behalf of the person. There is absolutely no obligation for it to be 'simple' to be true.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No you don't. That paragraph is the conclusion, and the support is cited and link to throughout the article, and the further reading links.



How is that a contradiction? Reexamining old data in light of new information doesn't mean one accepts the old conclusions, let alone verbiage.



Am I missing something important, because the 'more balanced article' looks to be almost completely in agreement? Is it because it spends more time talking about the limitations? You quoted the article stressing the unknowns and limitations.

Your article doesn't contradict the conclusion that it's very complex without easy answers, but that there are biological factors. It is not 'they just think it'.





Is that a bad definition? It fits the best we know so far.

Going to be honest, I don't think any of this addressed what I wrote and you didn't really add to any of what you wrote, so I would just be repeating myself in response. So... Good times?

 

[Belz...]

What about people who think they're Napoleon?

Well, are they Napoleon by the simple fact that their "bodies" tell them that they are?

Did you have research that could show any relation to transgender issues, or did it just sound like a valid argument?

I want to understand how you define what makes someone the thing they claim to be. I'm still not sure how you define "man" and "woman" outside of "they feel like they are so".

It helps no one? What do you even mean by that? No one is helped by accepting transgender people as more than 'just wanting to be the other sex'?

If you look back at the post you quoted, and presumably read, I was talking about the culture of validation.

It's difficult to determine who actually is transgender.

That's at least one thing we agree on.

It takes time, professionals, and lots of effort on behalf of the person. There is absolutely no obligation for it to be 'simple' to be true.

Who said it had to be simple?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay let's try a more grounded comparison.

Rachel Dolezal. Remember her? The white lady (German, Swedish, and Czech ancestory) that "identified" as black and headed a chapter of the NAACP?

Is she black? "Race" is certainly a near totally social construct.

 

[kellyb]

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.

Which multiple body systems? All I'm seeing is brain/mind.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It's difficult to determine who actually is transgender. It takes time, professionals, and lots of effort on behalf of the person. There is absolutely no obligation for it to be 'simple' to be true.

This is the old framework. The current movement is against medical gate-keeping and outside determination. Only self-identification is required.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...nt_who_decides_when_transition_treatment.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ender-recognition-self-identify-a7855381.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/us/birth-certificate-nonbinary-gender-california.html

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, it looks like this link is needed again.

From the first paragraph in the link:

Think of your most noticeable feature. ... But whatever it is, for better or worse, it is probably not your most salient feature to the world around you. To others, our most salient feature is one that doesn’t make any of us very salient at all – a feature in which none of us had any say in, which was assigned at, or prior to, birth: are you male or female?

In the first paragraph, she correctly identifies the problem. Your most noticeable feature is your sex, and when you "notice" someone's sex, you notice it based on appearance.


So, if you happen to be in a situation, like a locker room, where you might notice what is normally hidden behind a zipper, you're going to judge their maleness or femaleness based on what you can see, not based on what they might be thinking at the time, or the shape of something that is hidden inside the cranium.

If someone has one of those things that can make a woman pregnant, I'm not going to tell a woman that it's ok for that other person to see her undress on the grounds that "she" identifies as a woman.