Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[JoeMorgue]

It's not controversial at all.

Then I am highly, highly confused as to what this thread, and the entire transgender movement is about then.

The Gender/Sex distinction is just tautological proving of the distinction it wants to exist by defining it as different.

 

[RedStapler]

How strange: to come into the thread and impute what you (apparently) have merely guessed to be my beliefs/opinions on this issue.

Breathtaking contribution, really. And pretty obnoxious. Especially in light of what I actually believe.

I was asking questions and all I got was the usual "I am so much holier than thou and cannot be bothered to answer simple questions from a pleb".

When you are done being outraged about someone asking questions, will you answer them, my Lord?

 

[LondonJohn]

You're mistaking socially attached attributes for definitions and vice versa.

"If you've got four right angles and four equal sides you're a square" isn't "societal expectations we put on squares." It's the definition of a square.

"Women have vaginas, ovaries, and a certain chromosome structure" and "Women need to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making me a sammich" are not the same thing. One is absolutely a B.S. societal expectation, the other is a simple working definition.

No. In the context of gender identity, one uses "female" to refer to biological attributes, and "woman" to refer to gender attributes (and expectations).

As for your "square" example, well of course the "societal expectations" subcategory isn't applicable. But it is applicable to gender definitions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again the "Gender/Sex" distinction is just begging the question, and seems a lot like trying to rebrand "Gender Roles."

 

[LondonJohn]

I was asking questions and all I got was the usual "I am so much holier than thou and cannot be bothered to answer simple questions from a pleb".

When you are done being outraged about someone asking questions, will you answer them, my Lord?

What the hell is going on here? If you want to know my beliefs about this issue, just read my posts.

(Oh and, as you know very well, you weren't just "asking questions", were you? You were actually barging into this thread and suggesting that you could already guess my position on this issue, and you were challenging me to confirm or deny it)

(And, as I said, you were wrong)

 

[LondonJohn]

Again the "Gender/Sex" distinction is just begging the question, and seems a lot like trying to rebrand "Gender Roles."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

 

[RedStapler]

What the hell is going on here? If you want to know my beliefs about this issue, just read my posts.

(Oh and, as you know very well, you weren't just "asking questions", were you? You were actually barging into this thread and suggesting that you could already guess my position on this issue, and you were challenging me to confirm or deny it)

(And, as I said, you were wrong)

So you chose to post another rambling instead of answering the questions?

 

[JoeMorgue]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

That's just the "Gender is the new term for 'social expectations'" with more words and a bibliography.

 

[LondonJohn]

(I mean, you can try writing to the ONS, or the UK Government, or the panels of medical, legal and sociological experts who inform the policy-making of the UK Government..... and tell them that the "Gender/Sex" distinction is just begging the question, and seems a lot like trying to rebrand "Gender Roles", and that the Gender/Sex distinction is just tautological proving of the distinction it wants to exist by defining it as different.

And maybe see what they have to say by way of response...?)

 

[Lithrael]

If, like me, you can’t remember more than a couple posters’ positions in here, it’s still best not to call people holier than thou for reacting in a less than completely cheerful tone to being told you couldn’t be bothered to figure out their position.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The small part I did look at made it seem like the paper was primarily concerned with trans-activism, and what it sees as the corrosive impact upon women and - in particular - children. And I'd say that this is a very, very different issue from the clinical approach to gender identity, where the current medical consensus is that gender dysphoria is a valid condition (and that therefore people who have been diagnosed as living this condition should be properly - and decently/sensitively - accepted and accounted for within society).

Umm... just so you're actually on the same page as the rest of the discussion, I don't think any of us really care all that much about the diagnostic criteria and whether it has a physical, neurological, or psychological basis. Most of us do not care about that at all. The distress is real, we acknowledge that, so move on.

What the discussion has actually been about is the trans-activism, and it's effect on women and children. Like... almost the entirety of the past three threads have been focused on this topic.

I know you jumped in late here, but I really suggest that you take some time and at least skim through this thread in it's entirety. You don't have to read every post, by any means, but I quick run through to catch the highlights would help to get you on the same page as the rest.

 

[LondonJohn]

If, like me, you can’t remember more than a couple posters’ positions in here, it’s still best not to call people holier than thou for reacting in a less than completely cheerful tone to being told you couldn’t be bothered to figure out their position.

Especially, perhaps, when your opening gambit was this passive-aggressive bait:

Do you have a problem with a human being saying "My body is male, but all my life I felt like a woman?"

I mean, it's obvious that some people in here claim that they only do it for attention, or to compete in sports where they are clearly at an advantage.

Are you one of these people? (I could not be bothered to go through all your *Sigh* posts)

 

[JoeMorgue]

(I mean, you can try writing to the ONS, or the UK Government, or the panels of medical, legal and sociological experts who inform the policy-making of the UK Government..... and tell them that the "Gender/Sex" distinction is just begging the question, and seems a lot like trying to rebrand "Gender Roles", and that the Gender/Sex distinction is just tautological proving of the distinction it wants to exist by defining it as different.

And maybe see what they have to say by way of response...?)

You're missing the point and trying to drag a discussion that is already 100% pure semantics down with more semantics.

Call it gender, call it sex, calling it dancing the Charleston in a Tri-corner hat on Sunday. My point doesn't change.

Either it's a biological factor that doesn't change or it's a societal role put on us. There's no magical 3rd category of self determination.

If you have a penis or vagina you have a penis or vagina and that's the way it is until you sit down with a good surgeon.

If you have to wear pants or a dress that's societal rule that shouldn't exist.

There's no valid 3rd category of way we differentiate people sex/gender/Dancing the Charleston in a Tri-corner Hat on Sundays

It's either something you can't change by self determination or it's something that should be a requirement put on you in the first place.

Which is why I've been screaming into the night for 3+ threads what differences all of this makes and have gotten absolutely nothing but the same vague, mush-mouthed appeals to "Well it's complicated."

 

[LondonJohn]

Umm... just so you're actually on the same page as the rest of the discussion, I don't think any of us really care all that much about the diagnostic criteria and whether it has a physical, neurological, or psychological basis. Most of us do not care about that at all. The distress is real, we acknowledge that, so move on.

What the discussion has actually been about is the trans-activism, and it's effect on women and children. Like... almost the entirety of the past three threads have been focused on this topic.

I know you jumped in late here, but I really suggest that you take some time and at least skim through this thread in it's entirety. You don't have to read every post, by any means, but I quick run through to catch the highlights would help to get you on the same page as the rest.

I appreciate your sentiment. But I disagree with your rationale. I already know very well, for example, that there are some fundamental areas on this issue where you and I markedly disagree. I don't know how long Boudicca90 has been contributing to this thread, but I know that she can see the distinctions between your position and mine, as clearly as I can.

I'm bemused at the suggestion that I'm not currently "on the same page as the rest". In fact, what does that actually even mean in this context? We're having a discussion and a debate, are we not? Who is it that defines where Page 1 (figuratively speaking, of course) starts? It's a fluid debate with no beginning and no end. And I'm pretty confident I'm on the "page" I'm comfortable being on.

 

[Olmstead]

Okay, posting the opinions of governments and certain medical bodies is cute and all, but presumably those same governments and medical bodies once expressed opinions that you disagreed with. It really doesn't say anything.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So that's where I am, I am learning to live as a woman socially, but I also don't have a frame of reference for really being a man which makes it hard to judge their intentions towards me.

The safe approach is to assume that any man you interact with is probably thinking about your boobs or your butt or something similarly sexual. NOT ALL OF THEM ARE (before the men in this thread get upset), but a shockingly high proportion of men you meet out in the world will be thinking about sex. Hell, you don't even have to be a traditionally attractive woman - if you've got boobs, at least one man in the vicinity will be contemplating what it would be like to fondle them.

That's not a suggest to dislike men. On the contrary, I rather like men. But it is a recommendation that you bear in mind that if you make eye contact or smile at a man, there's a reasonable likelihood that he will perceive that as you being interested in him and open to overtures. It's a suggestion to be relatively hands-off and professional rather than casual whenever you meet a man for the first time. Once you get to know someone, you'll probably be better able to gauge their intentions... but even with all of that I've been surprised on more than one occasion when a man I thought was a friend, and who I thought understood completely that we were only friends, made a pass at me.

Your description of yourself leads me to think that you're rather slight of build? If that's the case, bear that in mind. Smaller women, in general, tend to get more determined interest. Many men will be pushier about trying to convince you that you really should want them if you're notably smaller than they are. Taller and stronger women still get the same approach, but men in general don't tend to be quite as insistent when the woman they're after could probably knock them out.

To the men in this conversation - this is a generalization. Obviously, not all men are like this. But it is a reality for most women, because there are far more men who are like that then most women would prefer.

 

[LondonJohn]

You're missing the point and trying to drag a discussion that is already 100% pure semantics down with more semantics.

Call it gender, call it sex, calling it dancing the Charleston in a Tri-corner hat on Sunday. My point doesn't change.

Either it's a biological factor that doesn't change or it's a societal role put on us. There's no magical 3rd category of self determination.

If you have a penis or vagina you have a penis or vagina and that's the way it is until you sit down with a good surgeon.

If you have to wear pants or a dress that's societal rule that shouldn't exist.

There's no valid 3rd category of way we differentiate people sex/gender/Dancing the Charleston in a Tri-corner Hat on Sundays

It's either something you can't change by self determination or it's something that should be a requirement put on you.

Which is why I've been screaming into the night for 3+ threads what differences all of this makes and have gotten absolutely nothing but the same vague, mush-mouthed appeals to "Well it's complicated."

It's not complicated at all. To me.

(And, it would appear, to the experts behind DSM-5 or the UK Government).

It's like this:

(Most) people have a biological sex at birth. Male or Female.

And those people are, almost without exception, assigned the corresponding gender identity at birth (ie "man" for males, and "woman" for females)

But a relatively small number of each sex come to understand that they should not be inhabiting their assigned gender, but rather that they feel they identify with another gender identity - most often it's the binary opposite to their birth-assigned gender, but not necessarily.


I signally fail to see how this definition (both as a definition of terms and as a definition of gender dysphoria) is anything but rational, logically-sound, and understandable.

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay, posting the opinions of governments and certain medical bodies is cute and all, but presumably those same governments and medical bodies once expressed opinions that you disagreed with. It really doesn't say anything.

It says something. It doesn't say everything, but nor does it say nothing.

What you're suggesting is something that's known colloquially as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

 

[Emily's Cat]

It strikes me as a cheap, often times deeply insulting, approximation (if this is the correct word) of what woman is. I’m thinking of a person like Blaire White or ContraPoints. Perfectly fine people, don’t get me wrong, but their woman suit is deeply offensive. I don’t even know what to make of the Clymers of the world.

Honestly, a lot of it is summed up by Caitlyn Jenner saying that the hardest thing about being a woman was deciding what to wear. That really captures a lot of the conflict between natal women and transwomen.

Women face a *lot* of challenges and social barriers. What to wear is way, way down on the list of difficulties. I think that most transwomen really have no idea what those challenges are, and don't understand the every-day stresses and pressures and inequities that women face. Those very real problems are invisible to most transwomen, just as they're invisible to most men.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's not complicated at all. To me.

(And, it would appear, to the experts behind DSM-5 or the UK Government).

It's like this:

(Most) people have a biological sex at birth. Male or Female.

And those people are, almost without exception, assigned the corresponding gender identity at birth (ie "man" for males, and "woman" for females)

But a relatively small number of each sex come to understand that they should not be inhabiting their assigned gender, but rather that they feel they identify with another gender identity - most often it's the binary opposite to their birth-assigned gender, but not necessarily.


I signally fail to see how this definition (both as a definition of terms and as a definition of gender dysphoria) is anything but rational, logically-sound, and understandable.

That's just "Some people want to be the other sex" worded with more grandiosity. It's trying to redefine "I want to be the other sex" as some inherent form of sex itself.

You could replace "sex" with any other quality in that and it would make an equal amount of sense.

"Everyone is assigned a hair color at birth, but a relatively small number of come to feel they were assigned the wrong hair color."

I can be a 6 foot tall, 180 pound, 1% body fat person "trapped" in the body of... well the doughy guy I am all I want. I'm not 6 foot tall, 180 pounds with 1% body fat. And I get out of that by arguing "Well my gender height is 6 foot even though my sex height is only 5 foot 8."

This is why sex change/gender reassignment surgery makes 100% perfect sense to me and why it negates all of this. That's just a tacit admission that you actually have to change biological features of yourself in order to actually change your sex.

Yeah if you're a woman and want to be a man you have to make physical changes.