Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[JoeMorgue]

It seems now that we are firmly in the "It is vitally important that you agree with me about this thing that I'm now going to claim isn't a big deal and never happens" stage of the argument.

So let me sum this up.

It is vitally important that people be allowed to live as the gender of their choice even though there are no difference between the genders except when they are except when they aren't and we need codified social rules rules and laws to protect transgender people and allow them to use the facilities of their choice even though that never happens so why are you making such a big deal about it jeez.

Got it, glad we've cleared all that up.

 

[tyr_13]

What?

Why do people keep asking me to explain what they are talking about to them?

Because when we do, you are obtuse and go off on straw-man tangents back to your original assertions as if we had never explained anything. Thus, trying to nail you down to something to work off of is in order.

It isn't that the subject isn't complex or is easy to understand that is so off-putting for this conversation every time it takes place; it is the denial of knowledge over and over that causes shaking of heads and walking away.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because when we do, you are obtuse and go off on straw-man tangents back to your original assertions as if we had never explained anything. Thus, trying to nail you down to something to work off of is in order.

Because every time it's "nailed down" it changes on a dime whenever it's applied in a situation that makes your narrative less convenient.

You want to create this little transgender argument bubble universe and act as if gender rolls you apply in there don't apply outside.

This entire discussion is hinged on these secondary sexual characteristics that have to apply to transgender people for the concept to make even a lick of sense but can't apply to cis-people without bringing a lot of baggage back and everybody is just saying "Well just pretend there's no conflict or you're a transphobe."

I've been 100% clear this entire discussion. We can't have it so gender roles that only exist for transpeople to define themselves by.

But that's what people wants to land on and then... just stop talking; that we're all supposed to pretend there is some factor between a man and a man who identifies as a woman... but that factor doesn't exist between cis-men and cis-women.

People keep telling me they've explained this but since I don't buy pure personal identity as a meaningful concept this is functionally "Just stop arguing with me."

 

[Mycroft]

We've been stuck in this loop for 20 pages now.

"What makes the difference between a man and a man who identifies as a woman?"
"Factor X"
"So a woman has to have Factor X"
"No."
"So how can it be a female factor in pertaining to men who identify as women, but not a female factor in the concept of 'woman' at all?"
"It's complicated."

You cannot have criteria that only exist when they are being subverted. No amount of "Well it's complicated" will make that not true.

If you say a man with X criteria is a woman, than you are saying a woman has to have X criteria. No amount of if, and, or buts will make that not true.

Words mean things.

We are really, really starting to get a firm foot into "Will you just shut up and let me be special and unique already?" territory here.

I don't understand why this "X criteria" needs to be defined beyond that the person identifies with one gender while having every reason to identify with the other gender instead. It seems to me the fact that it happens is the issue, and the what, how and why of it are separate issues. Those seperate issues should certainly be explored, but I can't see any reason to wait on the answers to decide how we're going to treat these people today.

If you ask me, "What makes the difference between a man and a man who identifies as a woman?" To me the obvious answer is the difference is she identifies as a woman despite having been born with a penis and XY chromosomes, and this is something that is highly unusual among people who are born with penises and XY chromosomes.

Clearly you want something more than that. Do you want to know why? If science came up with an answer about a specifig gene that doesn't normally do anything but under certain circumstances can express itself during fetal developement and blah, blah, blah... and the result is a boy is born but because this gene was switched on that boy is going to start thinking of himself as a girl as soon as he/she can tell boys from girls. Would having a definitive answer like that change anything? I don't think it would, but what's your opinion?

 

[kellyb]

If science came up with an answer about a specifig gene that doesn't normally do anything but under certain circumstances can express itself during fetal developement and blah, blah, blah... and the result is a boy is born but because this gene was switched on that boy is going to start thinking of himself as a girl as soon as he/she can tell boys from girls. Would having a definitive answer like that change anything? I don't think it would, but what's your opinion?

That would be revolutionary in terms of demonstrating gender actually existing outside of cultural stuff like stereotypes and roles.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What?

Why do people keep asking me to explain what they are talking about to them?

You apparently have some inclination of what you think it is since you're able to strenuously assert what it is not.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

 

[Meadmaker]

Because when we do, you are obtuse and go off on straw-man tangents back to your original assertions as if we had never explained anything. Thus, trying to nail you down to something to work off of is in order.

It isn't that the subject isn't complex or is easy to understand that is so off-putting for this conversation every time it takes place; it is the denial of knowledge over and over that causes shaking of heads and walking away.

I don't know. I figured out what he was saying. No real need to nail down anything more than he has already nailed down.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That would be revolutionary in terms of demonstrating gender actually existing outside of cultural stuff like stereotypes and roles.

"Cultural stuff" includes things like the practice of segregated bathrooms and being squeamish about nudity. Why is some "cultural stuff" sacrosanct and others dismissed as frivolous?

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

 

[Mycroft]

Well Jesus goddamn Christ if it never happens what are we arguing about?

Apparently we need to argue that a person who is trans is something more than a man wearing a dress or a woman in overalls? Do we?

What difference does that make?

Because for the vast majority of people you figure out their gender just fine without ever seeing their genitals or testing their chromosomes, yet you insist that these are the defining characteristics of gender and we can't possibly go by anything else, yet somehow we all do it all the time.

 

[kellyb]

"Cultural stuff" includes things like the practice of segregated bathrooms and being squeamish about nudity. Why is some "cultural stuff" sacrosanct and others dismissed as frivolous?

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Yes, segregated bathrooms definitely count. Squeamishness about nudity might be innate after a certain age.

 

[Mycroft]

That would be revolutionary in terms of demonstrating gender actually existing outside of cultural stuff like stereotypes and roles.

Would it really? As a parent I can tell you I don't feel I've had any influence on the gender expression of my daughter, that I've always encouraged her to do whatever she wants, and her choices have always been girly, girly and more girly. The other parents in my peer-group have had similar results with their children where the boys end up predominantly masculine and the girls primarly feminine with some expected variation.

Over the decades I've heard claims that gender expression is entirely cultural, but proof? Life experience suggests there is something to these gender constructs even if we agree it's important to allow people the freedom to choose not to follow them.

 

[kellyb]

Would it really? As a parent I can tell you I don't feel I've had any influence on the gender expression of my daughter, that I've always encouraged her to do whatever she wants, and her choices have always been girly, girly and more girly. The other parents in my peer-group have had similar results with their children where the boys end up predominantly masculine and the girls primarly feminine with some expected variation.

Over the decades I've heard claims that gender expression is entirely cultural, but proof? Life experience suggests there is something to these gender constructs even if we agree it's important to allow people the freedom to choose not to follow them.

My kids, too, but I think some/most (maybe all?) of the girliness comes from peers. Since kids are so immersed in culture, it's really hard to say there. It's not outlandish to wonder if that exposure to the stereotype causes the desire to conform to it ,even when the parents don't encourage that, I don't think.

Girls and boys REALLY do seem innately wired to like different toys to some extent, tho, in a way that's not just cultural.

ETA:
Back to this...

Over the decades I've heard claims that gender expression is entirely cultural, but proof?

I don't know. But that's why I think the proof you suggested about a gene (or anything at all like that) as a hypothetical would be scientifically revolutionary.

 

[tyr_13]

Because every time it's "nailed down" it changes on a dime whenever it's applied in a situation that makes your narrative less convenient.

No, that is the narrative you keep coming back to. Something that is complex with many different aspects and intersecting sources is of course going to be complex (especially the stuff we're just now exploring), but that doesn't mean it 'turns on a dime'. It doesn't have to make simple sense to you because, as basically everyone on the 'gender isn't sex' side has agreed that it isn't actually simple (even if we do all have differing opinions on the details).

That the complexity can confuse you, and that people disagree on the exact details and mechanisms, is no more an argument against transgender issues than it is against evolution.

Some thing are cultural, some biological, some psychological. The interaction of these mechanisms can cause confusion and amplify each other, but not recognizing that they are separate factors is leading you to conclude there are dissonances where there are not.

You want to create this little transgender argument bubble universe and act as if gender rolls you apply in there don't apply outside.

No. Again, as basically everyone has said that gender rolls are to some degree arbitrary and not biological in origin (the degree gets disagreement). You're conflating many related concepts as if they are the same thing, when they are not. Here again is where it's useful to nail you down to what you mean; which rolls specifically do you feel are being advocated for only for transgender people?

This entire discussion is hinged on these secondary sexual characteristics that have to apply to transgender people for the concept to make even a lick of sense but can't apply to cis-people without bringing a lot of baggage back and everybody is just saying "Well just pretend there's no conflict or you're a transphobe."

I don't even know what you think you're saying here but I suspect that the highlighted is not actually the term you wanted to use.

The persecution complex you constantly invoke is getting cute though. Calling you wrong is not calling you a transphobe.

I've been 100% clear this entire discussion. We can't have it so gender roles that only exist for transpeople to define themselves by.

What do you mean by gender rolls? Why do you imagine this must be the same as gender identity? Even after it has been explained and linked to that there are other biological systems that can indicated to a person their gender does not match their sex?

If you don't treat people with gender rolls, then you're already treating trans women as women, therefore, what is your objection?

But that's what people wants to land on and then... just stop talking; that we're all supposed to pretend there is some factor between a man and a man who identifies as a woman... but that factor doesn't exist between cis-men and cis-women.

People keep telling me they've explained this but since I don't buy pure personal identity as a meaningful concept this is functionally "Just stop arguing with me."

And there is, again, the original assertion you keep going back too. You're not be persecuted by being told you're wrong and obtuse.

Your ideas here lack explanative power of most all of the phenomena under discussion. It runs headlong into why transitioning is so effective, and why it coupled with family and community acceptance lowers adverse effects to roughly the same as straight white cis men. It doesn't take into account the reality of disparate gender treatment, and how one can argue both for reducing that and for trans acceptance, things that are not in conflict.

You will, no doubt, again asset this is the same as 'the feels' and it advances 'my narrative'. Well, it does advance my narrative because that's to follow the evidence. It's just easier.

 

[caveman1917]

It runs headlong into why transitioning is so effective

Can you back this up? As far as I know there is no good evidence for that (which is also the conclusion of the literature overview of Medicare) and, on the contrary, evidence suggests that it isn't in the long term (+10 years):

The most comprehensive study with functional endpoints, the Swedish study that followed all patients who had undergone reassignment surgery (at mean age 35.1 years) over a 30 year interval and compared them to 6480 matched controls, identified increased mortality and increased psychiatric hospitalization (Dhejne et al., 2011). The mortality was primarily due to completed suicides (19.1-fold greater than in control Swedes), but death due to neoplasm and cardiovascular disease was increased 2 to 2.5 times as well. The divergence in mortality from the Swedish population did not become apparent until after 10 years. The risk for psychiatric hospitalization was 2.8 times greater than in controls even after adjustment for prior psychiatric disease (18%). The risk for attempted suicide was greater in male-to-female patients regardless of the gender of the control. Unfortunately, the study was not constructed to assess the impact of gender reassignment per se. The finding of this study, again, demonstrated that reassignment surgery does not return patients to a normal level of morbidity risk and that the morbidity risk is significant, because of its clinical importance, its persistence over the interval of data collection and the increase in risk over time for the individual.

 

[cullennz]

Jails are separated by sex
Toilets are separated by sex
Sports are separated by sex

Not gender

Why do people keep going on about gender to try to justify them not?

Unless they are saying it's the same thing

 

[Marcus]

Has this ever happened that you were introduced to a man in a dress and asked to call them a woman?

To me it seems like a hypothetical that gets bandied about, but that rarely happens in real life.

I am told, on this thread and others here, that I should always refer to a transwoman as a woman, that they get to choose which pronouns are used regardless of what parts they are sporting. It's not about in person interactions, I generally call someone by their name if I am talking to them, not "he" or "she".

For example, Bruce Jenner (pre-surgery) I referred to as a he, it was explained to me how mean this was, and how the poster correcting me would think less of me for this act of political incorrectness.

 

[Mycroft]

I am told, on this thread and others here, that I should always refer to a transwoman as a woman, that they get to choose which pronouns are used regardless of what parts they are sporting. It's not about in person interactions, I generally call someone by their name if I am talking to them, not "he" or "she".

For example, Bruce Jenner (pre-surgery) I referred to as a he, it was explained to me how mean this was, and how the poster correcting me would think less of me for this act of political incorrectness.

Back when Caitlyn was Bruce...? I would think the masculine pronoun would be appropriate for when she was Bruce, but maybe someone would disagree. Or call him "Bruce Gender", and see if they appreciate the joke.

 

[d4m10n]

Jails are separated by sex

Toilets are separated by sex

Sports are separated by sex

I’m not sure that any of these three assertions are actually true.

Consider how prison placement is currently done in Nevada: https://www.google.com/search?q="Non-Conforming+Gender+Review+Committee"

As to international sport, well, it’s complicated. It would certainly be an oversimplification to say that top level competition remains strictly segregated by sex.

That would be revolutionary in terms of demonstrating gender actually existing outside of cultural stuff like stereotypes and roles.

You don’t think that the felt need to physically transition (e.g. electrolysis, hormone therapy, top surgery, SRS) tells us something about subjective experience that goes well beyond external indicators such as walking with a bit of a flounce or wearing a dress?

"Cultural stuff" includes things like the practice of segregated bathrooms and being squeamish about nudity. *Why is some "cultural stuff" sacrosanct and others dismissed as frivolous?

Hopefully I made this clear upthread, but we really do need to rethink whether it makes sense to segregate bathrooms by either sex or gender.

As to our (Anglophone, Western, formerly known as Christendom) nudity taboo, I can sort of see a small payoff there, but we should probably ask whether it is worthwhile as well.

 

[Marcus]

Back when Caitlyn was Bruce...? I would think the masculine pronoun would be appropriate for when she was Bruce, but maybe someone would disagree. Or call him "Bruce Gender", and see if they appreciate the joke.

Good, we're in agreement then. Persons who posses a penis may be referred to as "he". Glad we got that settled.

 

[kellyb]

You don’t think that the felt need to physically transition (e.g. electrolysis, hormone therapy, top surgery, SRS) tells us something about subjective experience that goes well beyond external indicators such as walking with a bit of a flounce or wearing a dress?

Is it necessarily all that different from people who get horn implants and lots of facial tattoos and piercings?

I really don't know, myself.