• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

Status
Not open for further replies.
TomB said:
I'm not sure this view is representative of the trans community at large, however. Most of the trans people whose youtube channels I've watched are very aware that their sex does not match their gender, and seem to have no problem stating this. They seem very aware of the objective physical reality of their bodies. Remember, the voices that get the most attention are going to be those that say the most radical things.

Now, the "assigned at birth" language, I agree is not accurate. It is, however, the current lingo and not really that big of a deal.
Click to expand...


There's one almighty mess - not just in terms of colloquial usage of words, but also in official usage of words - which is blighting this whole area. And it may prove to be "un-unravelable".

Basically, over the past several centuries and right up to the present day, the general public and legislators alike (in English-speaking countries at least) have entirely conflated the words "female" (as a noun and an adjective) and "woman", and "male" (as a noun and an adjective) and "man". The two words in each group are used more-or-less interchangeably, and they're synonymous with each other.

The medical and scientific communities, in a move which brings a lot of clarity to the situation, have adopted a separation in terminology, to reflect the agreed differences between biological sex and gender: in their deliberations and publications, the words "male" and "female" exclusively refer to biological sex, and the words "man" and "woman" (and "boy" and "girl") refer exclusively to gender.

IMO, in a perfect world this system would be adopted by all official bodies, and public recognition and changes in usage would very likely follow. But - and just to take one example of many - a person's passport lists their "sex" as "male" or "female". But (and quite correctly IMO) many westernised liberal democracies have now ruled that transgender people can, upon application and a few points of verification, get their passport "sex" status changed from "Female" to "Male" (or vice-versa).

On the face of it, this makes no sense: after all, the passport records someone's "sex", not their gender. But it actually does make sense when seen through the eyes of a transgender person, and particularly one who presents visually as their trans gender. Because it would likely cause embarrassment at the very least, and administrative or security concerns at most, for someone visually presenting as a woman to have the word "male" in their passport.

There are a *lot* of other similar points of confusion, blurring of lines, and (quite probably) "un-unravelable" problems in this area, And that's hardly surprising, since for the past several hundred years, society - and those who make the laws and other regulations for society - have operated under the assumption that sex and gender are one and the same, and that therefore the words "male" and "man" (and vice-versa) can be freely used interchangeably and synonymously.

So we're currently stuck with a pretty intractable problem around this whole "definition of words" issue. The current solution seems to be: make all the words liable to be used to represent gender, where it's appropriate from the context that they should be used that way. I'm not sure whether such a policy will have lasting success, but it may be the best we can do.
 
xjx388 said:
How do you know it's deep in their psyche and that it's not a choice? Gender is not like sexual orientation. Couldn't gender, being a more superficial thing than sexual orientation, be more superficial in the psyche? Maybe not an outright choice, but a learned thing?

I'm probably not stating this well . . .

If I sat here and thought about it -really, really tried- there's no way that I can find men sexually attractive. Even though society is way more open to homosexuality, I just can't ever see myself being attracted to men. Not even in my childhood can I say that I ever had any stirring of such attraction. My sexual orientation is deep in my psyche, hardwired into my brain, so to speak. It's way more nature than nurture.

If I sat here and thought about it, I can easily see that I tick off boxes in both male and female gender roles. If I'm honest with myself, I'm a bit effeminate, I'm emotional, I'm not the breadwinner, I'm not strong, etc etc etc. My gender does not fit either role very well. As I child, I enjoyed playing with the girls and their toys just as much as I enjoyed playing boy stuff. There's a picture of me wearing my mom's wig and playing with her make-up, though I don't remember. If I had done this kind of thinking much younger, if the society I grew up in were more like it is now, if my parents and peers had been more affirming of my feminine side . . . Whatever the case, maybe I would have come to a conclusion that I am non-binary or a trans female that likes women? IOW, maybe gender identity is a sociological phenomenon more than it is a psychological phenomenon. It's not hardwired, it's wired as you grow up and become aware of the idea of gender roles and you face pressure to conform or support in your non-conformity. It's much more nurture than nature.

Those questions aren't answered yet. Not at all.
Click to expand...



I think the accounts of transgender people indicate strongly that what they're experiencing is a world apart from what you're describing above. And I think that the global community of relevant experts - psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and clinicians - have actually now answered to their satisfaction those questions which you've posed here.

And your first paragraph seems to imply that you wonder whether at least some transgender people might either be mistaken or lying about the provenance of their transgender identity. Is that a reasonable representation of your point of view?
 
LondonJohn said:
There's one almighty mess - not just in terms of colloquial usage of words, but also in official usage of words - which is blighting this whole area. And it may prove to be "un-unravelable".

Basically, over the past several centuries and right up to the present day, the general public and legislators alike (in English-speaking countries at least) have entirely conflated the words "female" (as a noun and an adjective) and "woman", and "male" (as a noun and an adjective) and "man". The two words in each group are used more-or-less interchangeably, and they're synonymous with each other.

The medical and scientific communities, in a move which brings a lot of clarity to the situation, have adopted a separation in terminology, to reflect the agreed differences between biological sex and gender: in their deliberations and publications, the words "male" and "female" exclusively refer to biological sex, and the words "man" and "woman" (and "boy" and "girl") refer exclusively to gender.
Click to expand...

I stopped here, because this is all wrong. Not just a little bit off, but completely inaccurate and false.

The term "gender" was synonymous with the noun "sex" as early as the 15th century. They literally meant the same thing. Because the term "sex" had both a noun and a verb version, and the verb meant "sexual intercourse", and was often considered a taboo topic of conversation, the polite term when referring to one's biological sex was "gender".

Throughout the vast majority of english speaking history, "man" was the term for an adult male human, "boy" was the term for a juvenile male human. "Woman" was the term for an adult female human, and "girl" was the term for a juvenile female human. Their usage was exactly analogous to the terms stallion, colt, mare, and filly as they pertain to horses. Thus, the term "man" simultaneously communicates sex and species as being respectively male and human.

The term "gender" to refer to the set of social constructs based on biological sex was popularized in the 1970s by feminists, as an argument against the confining social expectations placed upon female humans, and used as a means to deny those female humans full participation in society.

The terms were not "conflated" prior to modern history. Rather, modern history intentionally separated the terms for political purposes. And that separation was not done at the hands of the medical and scientific communities - they were done by human females trying like hell to get equal treatment in society.

Your entire rant here is based on falsehoods.
 
LondonJohn said:
I'm not altogether minded to play the dupe in a JAQ game, thanks :)
Click to expand...

You can't be the dupe if your arguments are sound.

But okay. For now I'll just put gender fluidity under the same heading of self serving crap as IGLA's attempt to normalize pedophilia. Though not nearly as repugnant, of course.

Wasn't IGLA the same trans activist organization that convinced Collin they must be an anti trans false flag, because of how disturbingly crap their rhetoric is?
 
LondonJohn said:
I think the accounts of transgender people indicate strongly that what they're experiencing is a world apart from what you're describing above. And I think that the global community of relevant experts - psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and clinicians - have actually now answered to their satisfaction those questions which you've posed here.

And your first paragraph seems to imply that you wonder whether at least some transgender people might either be mistaken or lying about the provenance of their transgender identity. Is that a reasonable representation of your point of view?
Click to expand...

All trans people? Or just the ones that you've personally decided are "real trans"?

Perhaps you ought to look into some of what Andrea Long Chu has written, as a transwoman? Or perhaps do some digging into sissification, bimbofication, and forced feminization, and it's relationship to transness?

You have a habit of making sweeping assertions as if they are fact and you some authority... when in reality, you seem to be pulling stuff out of your backside and relying on your arrogant framing to convince others that they should listen to you.
 
theprestige said:
You can't be the dupe if your arguments are sound.

But okay. For now I'll just put gender fluidity under the same heading of self serving crap as IGLA's attempt to normalize pedophilia. Though not nearly as repugnant, of course.

Wasn't IGLA the same trans activist organization that convinced Collin they must be an anti trans false flag, because of how disturbingly crap their rhetoric is?
Click to expand...

That was IGLYO. This is ILGA.

I don't know if they have any direct relationship, but IGLYO focuses on youths.
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
I'm not sure this view is representative of the trans community at large, however. Most of the trans people whose youtube channels I've watched are very aware that their sex does not match their gender, and seem to have no problem stating this. They seem very aware of the objective physical reality of their bodies. Remember, the voices that get the most attention are going to be those that say the most radical things.
Click to expand...

I don't think we are in disagreement as both are essentially true, one for the physical body parts and chromosomes, and the other for an inborn female 'essence'.
This means "I was born in a male body" and "I have always been female" are not contradictory- to their viewpoint.* I don't think many trans women are of the 'girl dick' variety but those types do get a disproportionate amount of attention! (and they are so very obnoxious)

*at least for the subset of AMAB trangender persons with gender dysphoria who identify on the female side of a m/f binary.
 
theprestige said:
Is Biden saying transwomen are women? Or is he saying they have the same human rights as everyone else, regardless of whether they're women or not?

Or is he saying we all have the right to claim a contrafactual sex identity, and be entitled to all the acceptance and privilege that goes with it?
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be sarcastic? He said nothing of the sort. Scroll through and see for yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom