Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[MisAndreG]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

You pretty much summed up the laws as they are here, and I think it works well.

For example, if I entered the men's room, a man (either trans or cis) would be perfectly in their rights to tell me to get out because I don't belong in there.

Can you stop with the cis thing?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12

. Man and Woman are normative no matter what language games that you play. Let’s add latinx and womxn and all of the other creepy cult terms you

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12

come up with to facilitate your escapes from reality.

 

[Boudicca90]

If you mean legal rights, which set of laws are we talking about?

The California Gender Recognition Act (SB 179): https://transgenderlawcenter.org/resources/id/ca-sb179

More specifically dealing with restrooms: https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-gender-and-restrooms

This is more in-depth about the effects of the law: https://ogletree.com/insights/an-in...-restroom-access-pronoun-preference-and-more/

 

[MisAndreG]

I just want to pause for a moment and reflect on the absurdity of the “words” latinx and womxn — if ever one need an example of how profoundly unimaginative and stupid tras are look at their sins against language

 

[Boudicca90]

Can you stop with the cis thing? You sound like a fool when you use it. Man and Woman are normative no matter what language games that you play. Let’s add latinx and womxn and all of the other creepy cult terms you deluded ideologues come up with to facilitate your escapes from reality.

Cisgender is a term of scientific classification and is used widely in academic circles. It just refers to a person who has a gender identity that aligns with their biological sex and assigned gender at birth.

It is no more offensive than transgender and isn't an insult.

 

[lionking]

The California Gender Recognition Act (SB 179): https://transgenderlawcenter.org/resources/id/ca-sb179

More specifically dealing with restrooms: https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-gender-and-restrooms

This is more in-depth about the effects of the law: https://ogletree.com/insights/an-in...-restroom-access-pronoun-preference-and-more/

From the second link:

“Transitioning” is defined as “a process some transgender people go through to begin living as the gender with which they identify, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth.
Apart from the extremely minute number of intersex babies, sex is not assigned to anyone, it is recorded as what it is.

If this sort of sloppy wording features in the law itself, it's not a sound law at all.

 

[lionking]

Cisgender is a term of scientific classification and is used widely in academic circles. It just refers to a person who has a gender identity that aligns with their biological sex and assigned gender at birth.

It is no more offensive than transgender and isn't an insult.

It's the same as calling a black person a non-white. I suggest you will get into a lot of trouble calling black people non-whites, and I'll bet a lot of black people will view it as an insult.

 

[MisAndreG]

Cisgender is a term of scientific classification and is used widely in academic circles. It just refers to a person who has a gender identity that aligns with their biological sex and assigned gender at birth.

It is no more offensive than transgender and isn't an insult.

It’s a propaganda term; you clowns appropriated the prefix from science to make it look like normal people aren’t normal. That’s the reason it exists, and you know it. It’s also redundant - you know the difference between man and trans man, and no additional information is added by cis. I don’t care how widely it’s used by academics.

I’ll put it you like this - you refer to me as cis, I’ll misgender you. Okay?

 

[Boudicca90]

It's the same as calling a black person a non-white. I suggest you will get into a lot of trouble calling black people non-whites, and I'll bet a lot of black people will view it as an insult.

No. There are all types of people, some of those people are black and some are white, and some are every shade in between. Same as with gender, some people are cisgender, some are transgender, and some are non-binary and fit elsewhere in the gender spectrum.

Just because you think it's an insult because it goes against your worldview, doesn't mean it is.

Here is a pretty good article on the term: https://medium.com/@GLBalend/cisgender-is-not-a-slur-c24f0d76fa49

 

[Robin]

I don't know why "cisgender" should be offensive. If you don't want it applied to you just say so, that is what I do.

I am neither cisgender nor transgender nor agender nor binary nor non-binary nor gender fluid nor am I on any gender spectrum.

But if people classify me as any of these things I don't get upset.

 

[lionking]

I don't know why "cisgender" should be offensive. If you don't want it applied to you just say so, that is what I do.

I am neither cisgender nor transgender nor agender nor binary nor non-binary nor gender fluid nor am I on any gender spectrum.

But if people classify me as any of these things I don't get upset.

If it were only that simple.....

 

[Boudicca90]

I don't know why "cisgender" should be offensive. If you don't want it applied to you just say so, that is what I do.

I am neither cisgender nor transgender nor agender nor binary nor non-binary nor gender fluid nor am I on any gender spectrum.

But if people classify me as any of these things I don't get upset.

I typically only use it when I have to. Like in cases where I have to distinguish between cisgender and transgender people.

It isn't a term I tend to use in everyday life, but comes up a lot in these types of discussions out of necessity for clarification.

 

[Robin]

If it were only that simple.....

It has always been that simple for me.

 

[lionking]

It has always been that simple for me.

At least some (and I would suggest many) people I refer to as trans activists insist on the cis prefix whether you like it or not.

The transcendental irony of the cis prefix is that transgender people want to be accepted as and addressed as a man or woman (and Boudicca has said this many times) while allocating cis man and cis woman to non-trans people. These non-trans (or genetic or natal) women and men do not want or need the prefix in my experience.

But to speak for myself only, I want to be referred to as a man not as a cis man.

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL, wut? You seriously expect us to derive a defintion of "man" from this:

Er yes, I do (and note: this is a definition of "man" in a gender-identity context.)

Dude, get serious. Tell us straightforwardly and without equivocation what trans men and cis men have in common which makes us all men.

Well dude, I've now done this several times. I'm sorry that it's so hard for you to understand. But I'll say it again: in a gender-identity context, trans men and cis men share the "man" gender identity, which is a lived experience and an internal perception; the externalities of "man" include traditional societal/social assignments and expectations of the "man" gender, including perceptions around the concept of "masculinity".


There are plenty of resources available online if you'd like to commit to learning and understanding more about gender identity and the concepts & definitions which underpin it. You'll be able to find, for example, much more in-depth explorations of things like "man" vs "male". If you'd like some help finding these sorts of resources, I'm sure I'll be able to help.

 

[LondonJohn]

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenge-innate-gender/

That case appears to be about whether it's legally/lawfully-permissible to treat adolescents with gender reassignment therapies - including medicinal/hormonal treatments and reassignment surgery.

Personally, I believe that there should be a much tighter medico-legal framework concerning the whole issue of adolescents and gender reassignment. I don't think it should be permissible to treat adolescents with anything other than general psychotherapy (ie not aimed at gender reassignment per se). There appears little doubt that adolescents can develop genuine, authentic gender identity issues - but I believe that these people should be, as it were, "kept on hold" - by bringing them into the protective and affirmative environment of therapy, but at the same time refraining from administering targeted therapy, medical or surgical intervention until the person reaches either the age of 18 or the age of 21.

The case linked to above is, it appears, a convincing example of the dangers of treating gender-confused adolescents with therapies/medicines/surgeries which are partially or wholly irreversible.

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems highly likely to me that the UK Government don't know what they are talking about on a number of issues.

But the problem here is that their definition of gender is basically that it doesn't really say anything.

If I were to define the categories "A type people" and "B type people" and then say that A type people have the behaviours and attributes associated with A type people and B type people have the behaviours and attributes associated with B type people then you wouldn't know whether you were an A type person or a B type person.

But you also wouldn't know that you were neither A type nor B type or if you were somewhere in between because you would first have to know what those categories were.

My test for a definition of "gender" would be, "could I use this definition and be able to tell from it if I was a man or a woman or be able to tell if I was somewhere between being a man or a woman, or if I was neither a man nor a woman?"

Since I can't tell any of that from the definitions, then it is of no use.

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

Let's take things right out of the human experience for a moment, to try to make this easier to understand.

We'll consider lions. And we'll say that the (biological) males of the species are terms "lion", and the females of the species are named "lioness".

Now we'll introduce gender (in the context of gender identity). We will call one gender "lionish", and the other gender "lionessish".

Our starting point is that, in general, a lion has the lionish gender, and a lioness has the lionessish gender.

Now, in nature, the lionessish gender's main attribute is that they are the ones who do the hunting of prey, at night. They hunt and kill the prey, and then (if successful) they either drag their prey back to the pride or they summon the pride to the prey.

By contrast, in nature, the lionish gender's main attribute is that they remain with the pride while the lionessish gender hunt prey.

Now imagine that there is a lion who has gender identity issues: this lion feels strongly that their identity is such that they want to go out and hunt prey at night - in other words, they identify with the lionessish gender.


(This is obviously a simplified and simplistic analogy - for example, the gender attributes of these animals are of course much more complex and detailed. It's being used merely as an attempt to illustrate the concept of "gender vs sex" in a different way)

 

[Roboramma]

Well dude, I've now done this several times. I'm sorry that it's so hard for you to understand. But I'll say it again: in a gender-identity context, trans men and cis men share the "man" gender identity, which is a lived experience and an internal perception; the externalities of "man" include traditional societal/social assignments and expectations of the "man" gender, including perceptions around the concept of "masculinity".

Be specific. What specific lived experience and what specific internal perceptions are shared by trans men and cis men but not by women?

 

[LondonJohn]

Be specific. What specific lived experience and what specific internal perceptions are shared by trans men and cis men but not by women?

They are many and various. And I don't feel like writing a wall of text. I'll help you search for the relevant literature though, if you're serious about educating yourself in this area.

(And see my simplistic lion analogy as an illustration of the concept)

 

[Olmstead]

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

Let's take things right out of the human experience for a moment, to try to make this easier to understand.

We'll consider lions. And we'll say that the (biological) males of the species are terms "lion", and the females of the species are named "lioness".

Now we'll introduce gender (in the context of gender identity). We will call one gender "lionish", and the other gender "lionessish".

Our starting point is that, in general, a lion has the lionish gender, and a lioness has the lionessish gender.

Now, in nature, the lionessish gender's main attribute is that they are the ones who do the hunting of prey, at night. They hunt and kill the prey, and then (if successful) they either drag their prey back to the pride or they summon the pride to the prey.

By contrast, in nature, the lionish gender's main attribute is that they remain with the pride while the lionessish gender hunt prey.

Now imagine that there is a lion who has gender identity issues: this lion feels strongly that their identity is such that they want to go out and hunt prey at night - in other words, they identify with the lionessish gender.


(This is obviously a simplified and simplistic analogy - for example, the gender attributes of these animals are of course much more complex and detailed. It's being used merely as an attempt to illustrate the concept of "gender vs sex" in a different way)

Yeah, but in recent years lion society has become rather progressive, and so none of them really cares whether a lion or a lioness hunts at night, so now a lion can remain a lion, retain the lionish gender, and go hunt at night.

 

[Roboramma]

They are many and various. And I don't feel like writing a wall of text. I'll help you search for the relevant literature though, if you're serious about educating yourself in this area.

I don't think I need educating, but I'd like to hear your viewpoint, so if you're capable of expressing it I'll do my best to understand what you're saying with an open mind.

You don't need to give the many and various examples, just one or two would be fine.

(And see my simplistic lion analogy as an illustration of the concept)

I think I missed that, could you quote or give a post number so I could go back and read it? Thanks.

ETA Lion analogy was quoted by Olmstead, I'm reading it now, so ignore my last request there.