Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elaedith said:
Another interesting Twitter thread on Mermaids' reversal.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it's a reversal of anything, if anything it shows that Mermaids is keeping up with the times in regard to transgender experiences. Seems like they are becoming more open to non-binary genders and the like.

I've used the "born in the wrong body" phrase to describe my dysphoria to people who don't or can't understand what we go through, because it's just extremely difficult to describe it in the first place. But I've also never thought it was accurate, rather that it sounded good at the time.

I've never thought I was born in the wrong body, but rather somewhere along the line my development and my gender just didn't line up with my physical body and now I'm taking steps to correct it.
 
d4m10n said:
How could the staff tell a cisgender man from a non-transitioned transgender woman like Seani?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CCHHFn0gKHA/?igshid=1ox61t2yu0e8
Click to expand...

I have never seen Seani before and as far as I can tell, she is presenting as completely male in every pic on there, regardless of what she might identify as.

So yes, this is definitely a case where suspicion would be warranted. I can't say for sure or not if she is truly trans without knowing more about her (might be a troll like that Zuba person), but while looking like that I would not want her in single-sex spaces with me.
 
Boudicca90 said:
I view female as relating to either sex or gender, depending on the context.
Click to expand...
Good point. Back in the day it was all about getting us blokes to connect with our feminine side. That vanished so clearly was a mere talking point invented out of whole cloth.

Boudicca90 said:
My biological sex may be male, but that doesn't make ME male.
Click to expand...
Disagree. You are YOU and that is the end of it. It so happens that I am a blokey bloke. It so happens that you are some place else on the spectrum. Do I care about that? Hell no. But it seems a lot of people do even though they know nothing about it.

So as a blokey bloke who has no desire or reason to change my person, the best advice I can give is to be your very own self and stay true to that. If you can do that, you will have self respect, my respect, and the respect of an entire hidden community.

Boudicca90 said:
And as far as I'm concerned, bio sex is only really relevant for things like medical issues, not when discussing areas that have more to do with gender or gender presentation than chromosomes or reproductive organs.
Click to expand...
Be careful with that. The surgery involved is not trivial nor without risks.

On a better note, I know a kid who has been through the surgical mill top and bottom and has never been happier.

It would be a bucket of fun to lob that into the bathroom discussion.

Boudicca90 said:
Transwomen are women and females, we just aren't biologically female.
Click to expand...
Interesting take. My position is that they are all people and can self identify as whatever they wish. No skin off my nose. But it appears that some are unable to lay down that strange prejudice. And there is not much anyone can do in the face of that.

Like it or not we are all stuck with....I am not even going to name it.
 
caveman1917 said:
No they haven't. Furthermore, if you want to change the established definitions of terms so they mean something else instead then you need a good reason. The reason you present is that it purportedly clarifies discussion. This reason can easily be seen to be nonsense by the following:

- Having 1 thread use different definitions for common terms than the standard ones will lead to a decrease in clarity as new participants to the thread, or old participants who failed to get the memo on the special in-thread definitions, will be using a different definition than those participants who did get the memo and use the special in-thread definitions instead.

- Even assuming that everyone is on board with these new definitions, it can hardly clarify a term for its definition to change from something precise and empirical (adult human male/female) to some vague wishy-washy (masculine/feminine gender).

Indeed, the best way to clarify a discussion would be to use 1) the standard definitions and not special in-thread redefinitions of common terms and 2) when deciding between multiple possible definitions, to pick the more precise ones. Which seems to be exactly the opposite from what you seem to be trying to do.
Click to expand...




Here are the definitions used by the UK's Office for National Statistics (which is an entity linked to government), and these same definitions are used by the UK Government (my bolding):


2. Definitions and differences

The UK government defines sex as:

referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions

generally male or female

something that is assigned at birth



The UK government defines gender as:

a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth

where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender – where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman
Click to expand...


https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21
 
caveman1917 said:
No, the words referring to gender are "masculine" and "feminine." From wikipedia: "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity."

"Man" and "woman" refer to specific subsets of males/females, namely those that are 1) adult and 2) human. Male and female refer to sex. Sex is not gender.

If you want to use words with an alternative definition then you should provide and support that definition. Specifically, if you want to define the terms man or woman by reference to gender then you should also address the earlier failings of similar attempts, such as LondonJohn's attempts which failed against the "are you a type A or type B person" line of questioning.
Click to expand...


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


ETA: and ????
(I don't treat the discussion in this thread as some sort of battle to be "won" or "lost" - though it certainly appears that other participants might see it in this way. But if one were for a moment to view this thread through that lens, I can see only one "side" that is consistently "winning" the argument - on moral, ethical, legal and consideration grounds :))
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
To be fair, I don't think he's saying biological sex is a superstition. I think he's saying that biological sex as a meaningful distinction between male and female is a superstition.

But it's still pretty convenient that the superstition is so offensive that it absolves him of any responsibility to muster a rational counter-argument.
Click to expand...

Even if he's saying that sex as a meaningful distinction between males and females is a superstition, that seems like a rather far-fetched claim that kind of ignores almost everything in the phylum chordata, given that the class amphibia is the only one that contains at least a few species capable of switching sex in some cases. Even then, those sexes are an important element of reproductive reality for amphibians.
 
abaddon said:
Nope. I have always been a man, and an unapologetic masculine hairy hunter.

But I can tell you something for nothing. I would not ever have the sheer gall to tell someone else what they may or may not be. I would simply accept them for what and who they are. End of.

You have a different view. You think you decide. And you are wrong. You don't get to decide. I don't get to decide. Every person makes their own path. As long as it's within the law, OK by me.

But that is not your way, is it? You want everyone to conform to a standard that you are actually ashamed to state out front.

Put up or shut up. State your standard. I stated mine. As far as I am concerned, we are all captains of our own ships so long as we break no laws.

Need me to state it again?

Or have you none? Have you not thought out where I know you are going with this? Because this is not my first rodeo. I had a daughter and now I have a son. Would that bother you? Didn't bother me. Why does it bother you so much? I'm wondering how you might explain that? Because I know you can't.

But feel free to try. I know from years of experience what you will present. Do your best.
Click to expand...

Talk about straw. Not to mention insults, which are only coming from one side of this debate. And debate it is, whether you like it or not. You might have the views you outline, but what gives you the right to declare you are right and others are wrong?
 
My own definitions chime exactly with those used by the UK's national statistics body and the UK Government. I also think that these are the definitions which have been generally globally adopted (in the English-speaking world, that is); and I think they work very well within the specific narrow context of discussing gender identity.

And they are:

Male & Female*: biological sex - determined in utero and related to chromosome configuration. Biological sex manifests itself in certain anatomical, physiological and hormonal ways - most notably in the distinction of gametes and reproductive organs. One's biological sex remains one's biological sex throughout one's lifetime.

Man & Woman (and indeterminate and non-binary): gender - defined as the social constructs of those respective gender identities; gender can be fluid throughout one's lifetime.


* Almost everybody is born as either a biological male or a biological female; however there are of course a very small number of exceptions to this rule, when people are born either with indeterminate sex or intersex characteristics. But for the sake of the definition of terms, it's reasonable to treat "male" and "female" as the binary options as a general rule.
 
abaddon said:
Every person makes their own path.
Click to expand...

No community. No society. Just individuals. Maybe this is why corporations have embraced transgenderism and transhumanism so easily.

In our society, it is still largely our bodies (male or female) that determine our paths.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
My own definitions chime exactly with those used by the UK's national statistics body and the UK Government. I also think that these are the definitions which have been generally globally adopted (in the English-speaking world, that is); and I think they work very well within the specific narrow context of discussing gender identity.

And they are:

Male & Female*: biological sex - determined in utero and related to chromosome configuration. Biological sex manifests itself in certain anatomical, physiological and hormonal ways - most notably in the distinction of gametes and reproductive organs. One's biological sex remains one's biological sex throughout one's lifetime.

Man & Woman (and indeterminate and non-binary): gender - defined as the social constructs of those respective gender identities; gender can be fluid throughout one's lifetime.
Click to expand...

Where do women's sex-based rights and protections fit into this? Looks like they've been disappeared.



LondonJohn said:
* Almost everybody is born as either a biological male or a biological female; however there are of course a very small number of exceptions to this rule, when people are born either with indeterminate sex or intersex characteristics. But for the sake of the definition of terms, it's reasonable to treat "male" and "female" as the binary options as a general rule.
Click to expand...


Nearly all intersex conditions are specific to either males or females. "People with "intersex characteristics" are biologically either male or female.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
Where do women's sex-based rights and protections fit into this? Looks like they've been disappeared.
Click to expand...


Not at all. It's just that they are a separate issue from transgender rights. In exactly the same way, rights and protections for (say) homosexuals or black people are not addressed in the debate over gender identity - but that doesn't mean they've "been disappeared".

And on the matter of the rights and protections that are due to a) biological females and b) women, it's perfectly possible (and, obviously, desirable) to address the issue of transgender identity rights while at the same time taking care to protect the rights of biological females and women.




Nearly all intersex conditions are specific to either males or females. "People with "intersex characteristics" are either male or female.
Click to expand...



Yes and no. Yes, many intersex babies present somewhere closer to the male end of the spectrum, and many present closer to the female end of the spectrum. And in many (most) intersex births, it's fairly uncontentious for those babies to be labelled as either male or female (even though technically-speaking they are neither). But many intersex babies are close enough to the halfway line between male and female that it is difficult for doctors to assign them a male or female sex.
 
JihadJane said:
No community. No society. Just individuals. Maybe this is why corporations have embraced transgenderism and transhumanism so easily.

In our society, it is still largely our bodies (male or female) that determine our paths.
Click to expand...



But it might just as easily (or, IMO, more probably) be because those corporations realise that a) it's fair, decent and equitable to create - and enforce if required - a work environment in which transgender people are embraced in an inclusive manner (and not discriminated against or denigrated); and b) it's the law (and by extension, central to employment law) in the jurisdictions in which those corporations operate.
 
JihadJane said:
Where do women's sex-based rights and protections fit into this?
Click to expand...

LondonJohn said:
It's just that they are a separate issue from transgender rights.
Click to expand...
Come on LJ. You haven't yet seen any cases where sex-based rights conflict with gender-based rights? After all this time?

Suppose Rolfe believes that she has the right to a single sex sleeper berth on the railway. She sincerely believes that's a sex-based right.

Suppose Boudicca believes she has a right to a single gender sleeper berth on the railway. She sincerely believes that's a gender-based right.

Rolfe and Boudicca are the same gender, so they belong in the same sleeper berth, yeah? Or nah?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom