Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[ponderingturtle]

Seems like the resistance to trans in female toilets isn't prejudice about trans, but prejudice about men

And can a trans girl really knock up their classmates? If they are on hormone blockers they couldn't and that would invalidate more of Meadmakers arguments.

 

[shuttlt]

And can a trans girl really knock up their classmates? If they are on hormone blockers they couldn't and that would invalidate more of Meadmakers arguments.

We are going with self identification rather than insisting they are at least transitioning to enter bathrooms though, aren't we?

 

[shuttlt]

Handed means nothing. If you say "I am handed" no one knows what you are talking about. If you say "I am female" everyone knows. Everyone is born male or female and some spend a certain amount of time transitioning Modifying themselves) to the other gender so they are called transgender. In my opinion, once they get there they are just that gender and no longer trans. I can be on a trans-continental trip but once I get there the trip is over and I am just on the other side of the continent.

Surely they have arrived if they feel they have arrived, even if they never went anywhere? Or are we now restricting this to only people who have completed all the surgery, hormones, and what ever else.

 

[qayak]

Surely the have arrived if they feel they have arrived, even if they never went anywhere?

In most instances I agree. Most people are honest about these things I think. There are some areas where this wouldn't apply of course. For instance in medicine where diseases and disorders often occur differently between the genders no matter how you feel.

I can't really think of an instance where a person who is very obviously one gender or the other wants to be known as the opposite gender. I would say that if someone looks at you and you are passable as your preferred gender then you are that gender. I think I would have to disagree with someone who looked like Sandra Bullock, or Jennifer Lawrence, decided they wanted others to see them as a male. I think they have to be passably male first.

 

[qayak]

Wait a second. If one demonstration that men are modified women is that men have non-functional breasts, isn't the clitoris evidence that women are modified men? If you look at foetuses before a certain point their "eggs" are not where they should be for either sex. I don't really get his basis for that.

You asked for evidence, not ALL THE EVIDENCE. Thinking that you can debunk an expert on the subject by poo-pooing something from one tiny blurb from their book that in your not so expert opinion you don't agree with shows you are not interested in understanding the point but are just being contrarian.

Go read the book. It is very interesting . . . or maybe you could just contact the author and set him straight from your years of knowledge and experience on the subject.

Ok, fair enough. I find it a bit circular in that it's tailored to include trans-men but ok. I have a bit of an issue with the use of the word "normally", however. How would one determine that someone who doesn't produce sperm is a male, then?

Well, we are looking for an inclusive definition and because gender has little impact on my life I can allow for a lot of ambiguity in my definition. I used the term "normally" more to distinguish those biological males who could not produce sperm because of some illness or disorder and not to exclude transitioning males. It doesn't matter whether they produce sperm, it only matters that they appear to be one of the members able to produce sperm.

Basically, if you look (passably) like a male and identify as a male, you are a male. If you look (passably) like a female and identify as female, you are a female. And by "passable" I mean "falling within the broadest scope of that gender's continuum."

 

[mumblethrax]

These hangups about bathrooms are just weird. You don't need to pretend to be transgendered to thwart the elaborate security systems that keep men out of women's bathrooms.

 

[shuttlt]

In most instances I agree. Most people are honest about these things I think. There are some areas where this wouldn't apply of course. For instance in medicine where diseases and disorders often occur differently between the genders no matter how you feel.

I can't really think of an instance where a person who is very obviously one gender or the other wants to be known as the opposite gender. I would say that if someone looks at you and you are passable as your preferred gender then you are that gender. I think I would have to disagree with someone who looked like Sandra Bullock, or Jennifer Lawrence, decided they wanted others to see them as a male. I think they have to be passably male first.

I don't know how to react to you saying you don't know anybody who claims to be a gender without being passable.

Off the top of my head in the sceptic community we have Danielle Muscato.

 

[pharphis]

Peeing on the floor is a lot more likely if you pee standing up. I am sure if more women peed standing up they would have more urine on the floor. And if fewer men did the same. Add drunk men with likely worse aim into it and you have a different situation than basic cleanliness.

From what I've heard when one toilet gets messy, some women will squat over it instead of cleaning + sitting, so it leads to an even bigger mess.

Seems like the resistance to trans in female toilets isn't prejudice about trans, but prejudice about men

Agreed.

 

[pharphis]

These hangups about bathrooms are just weird. You don't need to pretend to be transgendered to thwart the elaborate security systems that keep men out of women's bathrooms.

Exactly. Not much changes significantly. I figure people should just ignore whoever they run into in a washroom until a problem presents itself. Isn't that what people already do?

 

[William Parcher]

Danielle Muscato

Dude needs to cut his fingernails.

 

[qayak]

I don't know how to react to you saying you don't know anybody who claims to be a gender without being passable.

Off the top of my head in the sceptic community we have Danielle Muscato.[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180411/36f4dacb40e76225a4cee3ecf00769ac.jpg[/qimg]

Never heard of them. The passable part is about my requirement for using the chosen gender of a person.

 

[shuttlt]

These hangups about bathrooms are just weird. You don't need to pretend to be transgendered to thwart the elaborate security systems that keep men out of women's bathrooms.

True, but if I go into the women's bathroom at work, then it is very straightforward that I am not supposed to be there. I would stand out. Very likely somebody would ask me why I was in there. If I was accused of doing something untoward in there, I would already be somewhere I shouldn't be, so it would not be simply he said/she said.

 

[Belz...]

You asked for evidence, not ALL THE EVIDENCE. Thinking that you can debunk an expert on the subject by poo-pooing something from one tiny blurb from their book that in your not so expert opinion you don't agree with shows you are not interested in understanding the point but are just being contrarian.

First of all, no, that doesn't follow at all. Second, I wasn't debunking an expert, I said very specifically that from what you posted I didn't get the argument, since having breasts is not evidence, in any way, for YOUR claim. I want to make sure you're not misrepresenting his work, first of all, and then I really only need some good arguments to support your claim. Don't get pissy with me just because your demonstration fails.

Well, we are looking for an inclusive definition

Who's "we"?

I used the term "normally" more to distinguish those biological males who could not produce sperm because of some illness or disorder and not to exclude transitioning males. It doesn't matter whether they produce sperm, it only matters that they appear to be one of the members able to produce sperm.

Yeah but my point is that it's very vague. How do you associate those who can't produce sperm with those who can, and why isn't that part of your definition?

Basically, if you look (passably) like a male and identify as a male, you are a male. If you look (passably) like a female and identify as female, you are a female.

That seems to agree with something I believe I said earlier on, which is that "male" is defined loosely as "we know it when we see it", though how the brain makes the calculation is a bit murky, and it sure beats "the person knows what they are" as a definition. However, it's far from being very useful except in a general, layman fashion.

 

[Meadmaker]

We are going with self identification rather than insisting they are at least transitioning to enter bathrooms though, aren't we?

Trying to make sense out of a chain of reasoning that includes Denny Hastert watching boys in a locker room is unlikely to lead anywhere productive.

ETA: But yes, that is what a significant faction of Americans are insisting on today. Self-identification is the one and only relevant criterion for determining the gender of an individual.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. Not much changes significantly. I figure people should just ignore whoever they run into in a washroom until a problem presents itself. Isn't that what people already do?

Personally if I see a woman in the men's restroom, I might bat an eye or two, but I'll assume, even if she doesn't say anything, that she really needs to pee and there are no free stalls in the female room, so I'll just shrug it off. Who cares, anyway?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Personally if I see a woman in the men's restroom, I might bat an eye or two, but I'll assume, even if she doesn't say anything, that she really needs to pee and there are no free stalls in the female room, so I'll just shrug it off. Who cares, anyway?

Because that's not how the narrative is being written and the narrative is the very, very super serious guys.

If you don't care if a cis-woman is in the men's room with you then how will you make a big "Lookit at me being so accepting and progressive by not caring that this trans-male or woman who identifies as a man is in the men's room" show of how much better you are than other people?

The standard has to exist so subverting the standard can be properly praised. Therefore not accepting the standard in the first place is not a valid option.

Again the "moral" we're being told we have to take away from this is is is very, very important that we bring a lot of the old standards back and reinforce them just so we can applaud people who subvert them and your and mine "I don't care / accept the broader standard, so I can't conceptualize subverting the standard in the same way you do" is treated with hostility even though as I've pointed out multiple times nothing functional in how we treat another human being changes.

In a gender neutral world a trans-person... stops being special, unique or even meaningful and the people who support them would stop being able to play the "Lookit at me being more tolerant and progressive than you" card and we just can't have that.

 

[Belz...]

The standard has to exist so subverting the standard can be properly praised.

One thing I realised not long ago is that the key difference between the far-right and the far-left is that the former fears and hates deviation from the standard, while the latter fears and hates the standard itself.

Therefore not accepting the standard in the first place is not a valid option.

I think you're on to something here. It would put ponderingturtle's posts in an interesting light.

 

[JoeMorgue]

One thing I realised not long ago is that the key difference between the far-right and the far-left is that the former fears and hates deviation from the standard, while the latter fears and hates the standard itself.

Which would theoretically be fine (for certain definitions of "fine") as an ideological framework. In a very broad sense 99% of arguments boil down to some version of "the established" being set in opposition to "the new." Society always has and will both have and need forces both protecting the status quo and fighting for improvement in the status quo. "Revolution versus Stability" is probably the closest one could come to summing up human history in only three words.

The problem is when the self feeding "I have to be more progressive than the last progressive to 'win'" mentality creates this weird paradox where subverting the status quo becomes so lionized that it unintentionally forces you to start protecting the status quo so the person can subverting it can stay on top.

It's the Progressive version of how conservatives will always see dangerous revolutionaries around every corner and in every shadow.

Extreme Progressive will always see a system that needs to be subverted, Extreme Conservatives always see subversives trying to destroy the system.

 

[shuttlt]

Deleted

 

[Belz...]

"Revolution versus Stability" is probably the closest one could come to summing up human history in only three words.

Pfft. I can do it in one word: Revolubility.