TERFs crash London Pride

[JihadJane]

Gender is not the same as sex.

That's "their" point.

If only it was! I see many transwomen talking about their lady brains, quoting pseudoscience, as being physically different to "cis" brains. Yet gender is not biological. It's ideas about how men and women should behave.

What's your definition of gender?

In context of the OP: Gender defines social roles deemed appropriate for men and women according to, and enforcing, prevailing sex-based power structures

I'm not 100% sure, and it would take a small essay for me to describe what I think is going on there with any real accuracy.

The flawed "in a nutshell" version of "gender identity of those of the female sex" is "has a gender identity which is feminine."

That looks very like a circular definition.

Does "feminine" actually have anything to do with the female sex or is it just something that is imposed on the female sex by society?

You're back you just dogmatically asserting that the word "man" = "is a male" again, for the millionth time.

Don't blame me. Blame evolution. A male (♂) organism is the physiological sex that produces sperm.

I am asserting that men aren't women, that women don't have penises and that men don't have babies. Sorry for my "dogma". I'm aware that saying things like this may be labeled "transphobic hate crime" and put me on the wrong side of the law!

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com...olice-launch-investigation-into-stickerwoman/

 

[JihadJane]

Gender is influenced by social and cultural factors, whereas the Earth's shape is not.

Gender is not influenced by social and factors. It is a social and cultural factor. It has no existence outside of that realm.

 

[JihadJane]

Losing our marbles?

A


B


I think the thing described in claim B is a "subtype" of claim A.

The lie has to be clear in the mind of person A, in order for person A to accurately transmit it into the mind of person B. Person A is just also able to also think about the thought "It's actually not true".

Fair enough. In which case, the statement "Transwomen are men" may be a conscious lie.

I think my definition # 2 does ok..."1) an adult human female 2) a person who self-identifies as having the gender identity of those of female sex"

Changing the meaning of words to suit one's ideology can have far-reaching political and social consequences.

This is particularly true when we are dealing with a subjective, undefined and amorphous concept such as "gender identity".

Right, just like the trans-inclusive uses of the words man and woman, where it's referring to the strictly psychological or sociological "gender identity" of the person.

With a biological lady brain?

When someone uses the word "woman" in a way that's inclusive of transwomen, they're speaking a language that's kind of a distinct thing from "common English", to be completely honest. It's similar to slang, come to think of it, for example "woke". https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/woke-meaning-origin

Yes, it's also similar to cult language.

Wouldn't it be polite, to say the least, to ask women first if they mind having the word they use to describe themselves appropriated by men?

I don't understand why transwomen don't just call themselves transwomen. Why get rid of the 'trans" bit? Why insist (often aggressively and, dare I say it, dogmatically) on being called women?

For all the words that address gender, the lexicographers are debating what changes, if any, to make. http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._the_word_woman_doesn_t_necessarily_mean.html

ETA: In the parlance of tans-inclusiveness, the word for adult human males is "cis-men", and the word for adult human females is "cis-woman."

Another great way of erasing women with language by making them into a sub-group of their own sex.

Someone being silly might argue that it demonstrates a lack of awareness of the difference between sex and gender.

Hold on, I'll check with my lady brain.

In spite of the fact that I'm not in 100% agreement with you, you and Rolfe's posts have significantly impacted my own thinking on this topic.

Hooray! A miracle!

To whatever extent the pink brain/blue brain stuff is scientifically valid and "real in objective reality according to modern neuroscience", most people's brains are apparently like jars filled with both pink and blue marbles.

It's not scientifically valid, as far as I know, to claim that our brains are filled with pink and blue marbles. Society (and our behaviour) adds the colours. Until then they are just marbles.

Transpeople in general really do appear to be accurately self-diagnosing an unusual for their sex portion of pink or blue marbles. Somehow that sometimes gets processed as "I AM the other gender". A lot of times, at least, it really does seem.

I disagree. A lot of women and plenty of men grow up feeling uncomfortable with their ascribed gender roles. That's not a self-diagnosis. It's a political insight into the restrictive nature of gender.

 

[kellyb]

Gender is not influenced by social and factors. It is a social and cultural factor. It has no existence outside of that realm.

If you're going to say "gender is a social and cultural factor", you need to finish the thought/sentence by joining it with something like a preposition and an object.

You can't say, for example, "Obesity is a factor" without completing the thought with something like "to be considered when evaluating cardiovascular health".

 

[kellyb]

Changing the meaning of words according to suit one's ideology can have far-reaching political and social consequences.

OK! Now we're finally getting closer to what I consider the heart of the matter.

You do know that no one is proposing changing the meaning of the word from one thing into another, but rather just adding an additional, totally different meaning, separately, right?

Similar to how
1) Gay= happy ...and also, in generally different contexts..
2) Gay = homosexual

I DO ADMIT that it's a little different with the word woman, because when we're talking about legal rights and some social stuff that's very specific to the female sex, we'd sometimes need to use the prefix "Cis" to clarify that we're talking about females. Personally, that doesn't bother me, but I might be younger than you (I'm in my late 30s) and I'm a little uncomfortable lecturing a significantly older female feminist about how she needs to change her own usage of the word woman, even after she clearly understands WHY I hold the position on the matter which I do and simply disagrees.

I kind of feel like I'm missing something significant about what's so awful about sometimes and in certain contexts calling ourselves ciswomen.

eta:

Wouldn't it be polite, to say the least, to ask women first if they mind having the word they use to describe themselves appropriated by men?

I don't understand why transwomen don't just call themselves transwomen. Why get rid of the 'trans" bit? Why insist (often aggressively and, dare I say it, dogmatically) on being called women?

1) yes, I guess, although it might have been female allies who started it all
2) "why" is really complicated, I suspect. I have my own theories about the normal human desire for group inclusion and self validation etc and so on, but that's a question for a transwoman who feels passionately about it, I guess. My own irl friends who are transwomen don't care how anyone else uses the word woman and just try to stay out of what they see as "drama".

 

[kellyb]

To whatever extent the pink brain/blue brain stuff is scientifically valid and "real in objective reality according to modern neuroscience", most people's brains are apparently like jars filled with both pink and blue marbles.

It's not scientifically valid, as far as I know, to claim that our brains are filled with pink and blue marbles. Society (and our behaviour) adds the colours. Until then they are just marbles.

Here's some of the science.
It's described as "patterns", not marbles, but you get the drift.
https://www.fastcompany.com/4044192...re-is-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain

They repeatedly find that some individual, small sections of the brain indeed show patterns that are more typical of males or more typical of females (although millions of sections show no difference at all).

However, when they look at all the sections together instead of just a small snapshot, they find only about 3% of people have a brain that is fully “male” or fully “female.” In other words, it is extremely rare to find a consistently pink brain or blue brain. The other 97% of people have brains that are a mosaic of pink and blue. Almost all of us have features common in men and features common in women.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-promised-study-shows-structural-differences/

Breakthrough research has revealed for the first time evidence that the brain activity of people who feel they inhabit the wrong body closely resembles that of the gender they want to embrace.

Analysis of around 160 participants showed that biological males with gender dysphoria - the experience of discomfort or distress due to their biological sex - had a brain structure and neurological patterns similar to biological females, and vice versa.

The analysis revealed that the distinct neurological differences are detectable during childhood.

 

[Lithrael]

That doesn't support that most women have a gender identity.

For example, I often have the feeling that performing poorly at a task will reflect badly not only on me but reinforce negative stereotypes about women. And I don't want that to happen because I feel protective of the whole general class of women as a part of it. I think that's extremely common example of female gender identity among women.

When I see an awesome woman in tech fields or sci-fi acting in a great role I get excited because I love to see the, idk, overton window of stuff-women-are-doing, pushed in that direction. I identify with them. As women. I feel like it's one of my teams.

It's different from when I see someone doing great that isn't on one of my 'identity' teams. Seeing them do well is like watching acrobats perform. I'm like 'wow nice one that's some serious core strength' but I'm not like... YES! YOU GO! OMG I AM ROOTING FOR YOU!

This may be a clumsy approach but 'you haven't shown that most people actually have gender identities' is a left field one for me :/

 

[JihadJane]

Here's some of the science.
It's described as "patterns", not marbles, but you get the drift.
https://www.fastcompany.com/4044192...re-is-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-promised-study-shows-structural-differences/

There is very little difference between men's and women's brains so these small observed "structural differences" are very small indeed. It is not clear what they signify. They certainly don't constitute proof that boys are born with innate ladybrains etc. and must therefore transition or they will kill themselves.

Our brain patterns change all the time in response to our environment (including our cultural environment and status) and our behaviour.

Neuroscienc's claims about the relationship between gender, in general, and brain structures and chemistry are questionable, to say the least.

See: Delusions of Gender : The Real Science Behind Sex Differences by Cordelia Fine.

From blurb on back:

"With sparkling wit and humour, Cordelia Fine attacks this 'neurosexism', revealing the mind's remarkable plasticity, the substantial influence of culture on identity and the malleability of what we consider to be 'hardwired' difference. This modern classic shows the surprising extent to which boys and girls, men and women are made - not born."

 

[JihadJane]

If you're going to say "gender is a social and cultural factor", you need to finish the thought/sentence by joining it with something like a preposition and an object.

You can't say, for example, "Obesity is a factor" without completing the thought with something like "to be considered when evaluating cardiovascular health".

I was trying to say that gender (as in "gender identity") is culture. It doesn't exist outside of culture.

 

[3point14]

There is very little difference between men's and women's brains so these small observed "structural differences" are very small indeed. It is not clear what they signify. They certainly don't constitute proof that boys are born with innate ladybrains etc. and must therefore transition or they will kill themselves.

Our brain patterns change all the time in response to our environment (including our cultural environment and status) and our behaviour.

Neuroscienc's claims about the relationship between gender, in general, and brain structures and chemistry are questionable, to say the least.

See: Delusions of Gender : The Real Science Behind Sex Differences by Cordelia Fine.

From blurb on back:

"With sparkling wit and humour, Cordelia Fine attacks this 'neurosexism', revealing the mind's remarkable plasticity, the substantial influence of culture on identity and the malleability of what we consider to be 'hardwired' difference. This modern classic shows the surprising extent to which boys and girls, men and women are made - not born."

This seems to imply that heterosexuality is not innate?

 

[kellyb]

I was trying to say that gender (as in "gender identity") is culture. It doesn't exist outside of culture.

I'm personally agnostic on the topic, but I do consider it possible that gender/"gender identity" is basically a giant fiction we've internalized as a result of societal influence. Like, maybe it really is just a story we just tell ourselves about what being a boy/girl means (beyond biological sex), and the only thing real and true about the story are the very real walls and limits and expectations placed upon us by the outside world (other people).

 

[JihadJane]

OK! Now we're finally getting closer to what I consider the heart of the matter.

You do know that no one is proposing changing the meaning of the word from one thing into another, but rather just adding an additional, totally different meaning, separately, right?

No, I don't know this. If the word "woman", which previously referred exclusively biological women, now also includes biological men , the new meaning has indeed replaced the old meaning. Armed with this new meaning, transwomen claim they are entitled to attend women-only events, use women's sex-based services and occupy their spaces. The old meaning of the word "women" to mean 'only women' has becomes redundant if it includes biological men.

Similar to how
1) Gay= happy ...and also, in generally different contexts..
2) Gay = homosexual

I DO ADMIT that it's a little different with the word woman, because when we're talking about legal rights and some social stuff that's very specific to the female sex, we'd sometimes need to use the prefix "Cis" to clarify that we're talking about females. Personally, that doesn't bother me, but I might be younger than you (I'm in my late 30s) and I'm a little uncomfortable lecturing a significantly older female feminist about how she needs to change her own usage of the word woman, even after she clearly understands WHY I hold the position on the matter which I do and simply disagrees.

I kind of feel like I'm missing something significant about what's so awful about sometimes and in certain contexts calling ourselves ciswomen.

It's a political move. Why not say "real women"?

It's like replacing the word 'birds' with 'flightbirds' because a very few birds don't fly. Labelling flightless birds "flightless birds" seems sufficient to me! The original word 'bird' doesn't need to have anything added onto it. Everyone already knows that birds fly.

 

[Darat]

I was trying to say that gender (as in "gender identity") is culture. It doesn't exist outside of culture.

And therefore....

Seriously so gender is culturally defined, doesn't mean it isn't real. What has that to do with transfolk identifying themselves as one particular gender or using gender as a way to classify folk?

 

[JihadJane]

This seems to imply that heterosexuality is not innate?

How? "Gender identity" isn't a sexual orientation.

 

[kellyb]

There is very little difference between men's and women's brains so these small observed "structural differences" are very small indeed. It is not clear what they signify.

My personal suspicion is that it's basically just a couple of things like males being more biologically-neurologically prone to be obsessed with cars. Not prone as in "all males have the tendency", but prone as in "there's a slightly higher incidence of car obsession among the toddlers with penises."

They certainly don't constitute proof that boys are born with innate ladybrains etc. and must therefore transition or they will kill themselves.

Our brain patterns change all the time in response to our environment (including our cultural environment and status) and our behaviour.

Neuroscienc's claims about the relationship between gender, in general, and brain structures and chemistry are questionable, to say the least.

See: Delusions of Gender : The Real Science Behind Sex Differences by Cordelia Fine.

From blurb on back:

"With sparkling wit and humour, Cordelia Fine attacks this 'neurosexism', revealing the mind's remarkable plasticity, the substantial influence of culture on identity and the malleability of what we consider to be 'hardwired' difference. This modern classic shows the surprising extent to which boys and girls, men and women are made - not born."

Yeah, but...if there is NO "neurological wiring" that exists overwhelmingly as a result of biological sex as opposed to culture/society, we humans would be alone in the animal kingdom in that regard, I think.

See this, which is called a hypothesis, but I'll bet if you ask Rolfe, she'll say it's actually more of a fact at this point.

 

[3point14]

How? "Gender identity" isn't a sexual orientation.

If there is "...very little difference between men's and women's brains" then one has to explain why most men are attracted to women and why most women are attracted to men.

 

[kellyb]

No, I don't know this. If the word "woman", which previously referred exclusively biological women, now also includes biological men , the new meaning has indeed replaced the old meaning. Armed with this new meaning, transwomen claim they are entitled to attend women-only events, use women's sex-based services and occupy their spaces.

No, adding a separate meaning in a dictionary (or in verbal use) does not "naturally" result in the most recent addition eclipsing the ones before.

And people who are being, IMO the "unreasonable" sort of trans rights advocates, are already screaming "transwomen are women" over and over and over again as though they believe the assertion is a statement of some existential truth about gender.

It's a political move.

I've encountered the aggressive weirdos who do seem to want to weaponize the word for nefarious political ends, but I suspect they're actually few in number, though very loud. I think most transwomen and their allies are quietly more like Darat and I, and they simply, genuinely think the cis and trans prefixes are useful tools of communication.

 

[JihadJane]

And therefore....

Seriously so gender is culturally defined, doesn't mean it isn't real. What has that to do with transfolk identifying themselves as one particular gender or using gender as a way to classify folk?

It's not clear what definition of gender you are using here. It seems you may be talking about sex when you talk about a "particular gender".

What comprises a particular gender? How is it defined?

As a purely subjective experience, the internal experience of gender is real in the same way that false memories are real. The phenomenon of feeling that we have been born in the wrong sex body can be questioned in the same way that false memories can be questioned.

I could, on the basis of what my mind tells me, be a victim of organised satanic abuse. My feelings are real. But they may not reflect factual reality.

Feelings aren't facts.

 

[JihadJane]

No, adding a separate meaning in a dictionary (or in verbal use) does not "naturally" result in the most recent addition eclipsing the ones before.

What the word "woman" means has legal implications.

Thus, it is now possible to claim that saying "Women Don't Have Penises" is a transphobic hate crime. The police will take your complaint seriously.

 

[kellyb]

As a purely subjective experience, the internal experience of gender is real in the same way that false memories are real.

I don't disagree, but want to add that whole lot of our "real memories" are so skewed over the years that they're essentially almost a type of false memory, too, according to research. It isn't just satanic abuse where false memories happens. Wiki goes so far as to say "There is a growing body of evidence that false memories are created whenever memories are recalled."

I personally suspect that memory-embellishment and memory-alteration is a much bigger problem for some people compared to others. Online I routinely encounter people who go "I never said that!" about things they just said 2 minutes ago, and will argue and persist with their spontaneous historical revisionism about what was said 3 minutes in the past repeatedly and are loath to give it up, and must be forced to admit the truth through quoting combined with mockery. It can be funny online, but irl it's infuriating. I think there might be something truly neurologically wrong with pathological liars. Or maybe it was just a bad mental habit that re-wired their brain into dysfunction. LOL