TERFs crash London Pride

[Myriad]

Why not just say "biological sex" or "natal sex"?

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/natal+sex

The original context refers to people "living as their born biological gender."

Does one "live as" a sex?

 

[kellyb]

The original context refers to people "living as their born biological gender."

Does one "live as" a sex?

You would have had to slightly re-word it as "living as the gender most strongly correlated with their born biological sex", or something like that.

 

[Myriad]

You would have had to slightly re-word it as "living as the gender most strongly correlated with their born biological sex", or something like that.

I would have had to... why?

If you're about to answer, "to be understood," please keep in mind that all of your and caveman's objections have done nothing but demonstrate your accurate understanding of my exact meaning.

If the answer is, "to not be language policed for failure to use elaborately phrased legalese," well... yeah, I suppose I would have, if I cared about that ********.

 

[kellyb]

I would have had to... why?

Because the concept of "living as their born biological gender" is incoherent nonsense from all perspectives other than yours.

If you meant it from the trans rights advocate perspective and intended to say "the gender generally correlated with biological sex", it makes no sense because it assumes that gender is synonymous with sex.

If you meant it from the GCF/TERF perspective, it makes no sense because they don't believe gender is even "real."

 

[kellyb]

please keep in mind that all of your and caveman's objections have done nothing but demonstrate your accurate understanding of my exact meaning.

Indeed.
lol

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

RE: a non-gendered society and an asexual one:

Please define what you think the differences and similarities are. Thanks.

The differences = they are totally different things

The similarities = neither of them is ever going to happen and suggesting them as answers wouldn't be helpful.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Because the concept of "living as their born biological gender" is incoherent nonsense

Is it? In what way?

Do you accept that there is such a thing as gender?
Do you accept that there is such a thing as gender dysphoria?
And if you do, would both not require to be based in biology?

 

[caveman1917]

I think there is a significant correlation between them, which suffices for one to be evidence of the other. (Notice I did not offer proof.)

No it doesn't, both theories (gender is biologically determined and gender is socially constructed) have significant correlation between sex and gender so the correlation doesn't provide evidence for either theory over the other. The difference in the theories is merely as to how the correlation comes to be, either due to a biological link between gendered brains and sexed bodies in the "born biological gender" theory or due to society training children from birth to display gendered behaviour according to their sex in the "gender is social construct" theory. The correlation by itself tells us nothing.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The other point is that we are now in the position where de facto all anyone has to do even now to be recognised socially as trans is claim to be trans. The vast majority of the trans rights activists currently insisting on using women's lavatories and changing rooms and so on do not have a GRC. It has become "transphobic" to ask for a GRC or to deny the status of trans to anyone who claims to be trans.

My goodness. "Vast" sounds so ... big.

How many is "vast", exactly. As in, would you provide an actual number.

Is it a "vast majority" of 50?

20?

3?

These things are relevant, you know.

 

[kellyb]

My goodness. "Vast" sounds so ... big.

How many is "vast", exactly. As in, would you provide an actual number.

Is it a "vast majority" of 50?

20?

3?

These things are relevant, you know.

The word "majority" in there is saying it's a percentage. So, something along the lines of "upwards of 85%" is generally what people mean when they say "vast majority" or "overwhelming majority".

 

[quadraginta]

The word "majority" in there is saying it's a percentage. So, something along the lines of "upwards of 85%" is generally what people mean when they say "vast majority" or "overwhelming majority".

Yes, of course. I understand that.

This is a technique commonly used to make something sound impressive and/or ominous when the actual numbers really aren't.

Which is why I asked for actual numbers.

If the "vast majority" she referred to is two out of three people, then the point she was claiming to make is no longer quite so telling.

I think you missed my point. Does that help you comprehend it better?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No it doesn't, both theories (gender is biologically determined and gender is socially constructed) have significant correlation between sex and gender so the correlation doesn't provide evidence for either theory over the other. The difference in the theories is merely as to how the correlation comes to be, either due to a biological link between gendered brains and sexed bodies in the "born biological gender" theory or due to society training children from birth to display gendered behaviour according to their sex in the "gender is social construct" theory. The correlation by itself tells us nothing.

Regardless of whether you call it gender or not it's surely trivial to see that the issue has both biological and social elements?

You can only have a societal issue here if there is an internal identity (biological) which doesn't match to an external expectation (societal).

The important question is how best to deal with the issue in terms of solutions. And it seems that whichever way you weight it in terms of biology or society then it still only makes sense to allow a trans person to live as they see fit, dress as they choose, participate in society how they choose and pee where they prefer.

It seems to me that in your preferred non-gendered society the answer would still be the same in pretty much all practical terms.

 

[Rolfe]

Makes sense if you're a man. How much do you want women to give up? Everything? Thanks for that.

 

[pharphis]

Oh, that's good. She said she had copies of most of the posts but thought the comments were gone for good and there was a lot of important stuff in the comments.

This extreme bullying is such typically male behaviour even as the poor wee marginalised souls bleat about their pink feminine lady brains. No self awareness at all. And I've seen some screenshots of posts by the ball-waxing guy (and others) that are stomach churningly gross. Not a fetish? Really?

I didn't know extreme bullying was typically masculine behavior

 

[pharphis]

Regarding the claim that transwomen are women. We must define the term women. By Munchhausen's trilemma we have 3 options: infinite regress, circular, or axiomatic.

We can immediately reject infinite regress since there are only a finite number of words and concepts in the English language.

Circular would be definitions of the form "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" or variations thereupon. Circular can also be rejected as being meaningless.

Which leaves us with axiomatic, a definition in terms of more fundamental concepts. We have two such relevant concepts available, sex and gender. Which gives us:

1. A woman is anyone who is female. This is the standard dictionary definition.

2. A woman is anyone who is feminine. From this follows the statements:

2.1. Women must be submissive.
2.2. Women must be emotional.
2.3. Women can not be rational.
2.4. Women can not have short hair.
2.5. Women must wear makeup.
2.6. etc etc

Unless someone wants to claim these statements to be true, we can reject "a woman is anyone who is feminine" leaving us with "a woman is anyone who is female" and, likewise, "a man is anyone who is male." Transwomen are male, therefor transwomen are men. QED.

That's a pretty weird (sexist?) collection of attributes of "feminine".

 

[pharphis]

Of course, in a gendered society both sexes are socialized into gender norms. Typical male behaviour would be, for example, the use of violence whereas typical female behaviour would be, for example, not standing up for themselves when a man speaks over them. Neither of these is of course innate male/female behaviour but it is typical male/female behaviour given a society which socializes males and females into those norms.

If I understand correctly,
typical male behavior = abuser
typical female behavior = being abused

It still blows my mind that people have such simplistic reasoning about gender roles and the alleged "patriarchy"

 

[Lithrael]

I didn't know extreme bullying was typically masculine behavior

Seriously. Women and girls who bully can be astonishingly vile. Bullying style may be gendered but bullying itself definitely isn’t.

 

[luchog]

If I understand correctly,
typical male behavior = abuser
typical female behavior = being abused

It still blows my mind that people have such simplistic reasoning about gender roles and the alleged "patriarchy"

Yeah, that's the problem with the radical fringe feminists (especially Critical Theory feminists), they're locked into the same gender stereotypes and misogyny that they rail against. They inevitably portray women as weak, inevitable victims, lacking agency, and unable to stand on their own against the big, evil, all-powerful men. "Those who fight monsters" and all that. Although one wonders just how much of their rhetoric is actually "fighting", and how much is intended, on some level, to keep women thinking of themselves as powerless and afraid in order to maintain their own elitist leadership position. They seem to have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo as much as the "patriarchy" they rail against so ineffectually.

 

[caveman1917]

That's a pretty weird (sexist?) collection of attributes of "feminine".

And yet those are none other than the usual attributes associated with femininity in our culture.

If I understand correctly,
typical male behavior = abuser
typical female behavior = being abused

It still blows my mind that people have such simplistic reasoning about gender roles and the alleged "patriarchy"

Both of those, violence in men and men talking over women, have been measured. If you have an actual argument to make then make it, otherwise I'm not going to bother responding further, since your claim of "alleged patriarchy" already clearly shows the position you're arguing from.

 

[caveman1917]

Yeah, that's the problem with the radical fringe feminists (especially Critical Theory feminists), they're locked into the same gender stereotypes and misogyny that they rail against. They inevitably portray women as weak, inevitable victims, lacking agency, and unable to stand on their own against the big, evil, all-powerful men. "Those who fight monsters" and all that. Although one wonders just how much of their rhetoric is actually "fighting", and how much is intended, on some level, to keep women thinking of themselves as powerless and afraid in order to maintain their own elitist leadership position. They seem to have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo as much as the "patriarchy" they rail against so ineffectually.