Transgender man gives birth

[Belz...]

Oh really? Does being told something you'd think you'd know better than anyone else upset you?

Can you really not see the difference between countering a belief with facts, and countering a fact with an accusation?

Once again I must stress how incapable of distinguishing things ideologues are.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't claim to be "most observers" but I haven't been observing the public nekked since, like, ever. So I just make random guesses as to their gender. I've found that it mostly doesn't matter if I'm right or not, given that I'm no longer in search of a mate.

Well, then, it seems you would be terribly unqualified to evaluate the circumstances.

I do see strangers naked, and I am seen naked by strangers. I also find myself fully or partially undressed around friends or acquaintances. Apparently, our circumstances are different, but I think you should try to consider the perspective of people whose circumstances are different than your own.

 

[Belz...]

Well, then, it seems you would be terribly unqualified to evaluate the circumstances.

I do see strangers naked, and I am seen naked by strangers. I also find myself fully or partially undressed around friends or acquaintances. Apparently, our circumstances are different, but I think you should try to consider the perspective of people whose circumstances are different than your own.

It's interesting how often advocates of (superficial) diversity want everybody else to think like them (the opposite of diversity).

 

[tyr_13]

Can you really not see the difference between countering a belief with facts, and countering a fact with an accusation?

Once again I must stress how incapable of distinguishing things ideologues are.

Your 'fact' is actually an accusation as well. You accuse them of being a different gender than they claim.

And again, you're wrong about your 'fact'. Gender doesn't mean what you claim it means.

You're right about ideologues, but you can't identify those very well either. The thing you grew up thinking was true and based entirely on biology, wasn't. Incorporate the new information or deal with people knowing you're wrong. Your contention you can tell someone politely that they're not the gender they are is blatantly false.

 

[xjx388]

If a pre surgical transwoman wants to go to the spa and use the whirlpool before her massage, which lounge should she use? If your answer is "women's," I would imagine the other women in there would mostly be uncomfortable with a penis-possessing person seeing them naked.

This is just a small illustration of the issue. You can't ask people to consider that people with penises might actually be women (or the opposite). I can agree that once they transition fully, they should be treated as the gender they transitioned to. It's the obvious cases like the one in the OP where there's a problem.

 

[Belz...]

Your 'fact' is actually an accusation as well. You accuse them of being a different gender than they claim.

Well, thanks for proving once again that by twisting words you can make them mean anything you like. It's not an accusation to point out that someone is wrong about objective facts.

You're right about ideologues, but you can't identify those very well either. The thing you grew up thinking was true and based entirely on biology, wasn't.

You're calling objective reality an ideology, essentially trying to equivocate like so many creationists saying "but science is a religion, too!"

 

[uke2se]

If a pre surgical transwoman wants to go to the spa and use the whirlpool before her massage, which lounge should she use? If your answer is "women's," I would imagine the other women in there would mostly be uncomfortable with a penis-possessing person seeing them naked.

All the other women, you imagine? Or do you imagine only some of them? What else do you imagine?

This is just a small illustration of the issue. You can't ask people to consider that people with penises might actually be women (or the opposite).

Why not? I consider a trans-woman in the transition phase to be a trans-woman. Why can't you?

I can agree that once they transition fully, they should be treated as the gender they transitioned to. It's the obvious cases like the one in the OP where there's a problem.

What problem is that?

 

[Tony]

Well, thanks for proving once again that by twisting words you can make them mean anything you like. It's not an accusation to point out that someone is wrong about objective facts.



You're calling objective reality an ideology, essentially trying to equivocate like so many creationists saying "but science is a religion, too!"

You've stumbled upon the reasons for these ideologues being labeled "regressive leftists". Like the religious fanatics of the past, shaming, lying, social-pressure bullying tactics, and denial of reality (after all, reality is racist/sexist/problematic) are their tools. Logic and reason are eeevil inventions of the white male cis patriarchy.

 

[tyr_13]

Well, thanks for proving once again that by twisting words you can make them mean anything you like. It's not an accusation to point out that someone is wrong about objective facts.

The objective fact is that you're using a word incorrectly in the context you are talking about. Gender does not mean sex there, so in being wrong you're also being rude. What you cited as your own evidence disproves you. Either move the goalpost, or take the correction.

Or you can keep repeating the phrase 'objective fact'. While an option, it really undercuts your accusations.

You're calling objective reality an ideology, essentially trying to equivocate like so many creationists saying "but science is a religion, too!"

Nope, because again, words have meanings. You were wrong about one. Get over it. Claiming you're just following 'objective reality' is a red herring. It doesn't actually address any of the issues. You're basically just yelling 'she has a dick!' as if that determined everything. It does not.

 

[Aepervius]

All the other women, you imagine? Or do you imagine only some of them? What else do you imagine? ?

Poll shows about 66% acceptance among young women of TG women in women changing room (accepting or not having opinion), and a 33% acceptance in old women. ETA: interestingly it seems similar among gender by age. So the factor on rejection/acceptance is not gender, but age.

Conversely that also means about young women 33% reject their presence, and 66% older women.

The reuter poll is the first I found but a quick glance shows similar polls.

So I think xjx388 contention of some women being uneasy is valid.

 

[tyr_13]

You've stumbled upon the reasons for these ideologues being labeled "regressive leftists". Like the religious fanatics of the past, shaming, lying, social-pressure bullying tactics, and denial of reality (after all, reality is racist/sexist/problematic) are their tools. Logic and reason are eeevil inventions of the white male cis patriarchy.

I've been ignoring most of these, but I'd like to point out that none of the posters so concerned about my 'childish' posting give two rips about abjectly stupid strawmen like these.

Quote anyone in the thread saying anything like that Tony. Go for it.

 

[Aepervius]

The objective fact is that you're using a word incorrectly in the context you are talking about. Gender does not mean sex there

Actually once you start speaking of pregnancy , sex is heavily important in context.

Thus a *pregnant* man giving birth, is in the current state of technology, always of female sex.

 

[tyr_13]

Actually once you start speaking of pregnancy , sex is heavily important in context.

Thus a *pregnant* man giving birth, is in the current state of technology, always of female sex.

Yes, but that wasn't the context. Argumemnon insists he can politely tell someone they're not the gender they claim to be if they are transgendered, not that someone could tell this person from the OP that. Not that they'd need to. Transgender people know their sex doesn't match their gender.

 

[Aepervius]

Yes, but that wasn't the context. Argumemnon insists he can politely tell someone they're not the gender they claim to be if they are transgendered, not that someone could tell this person from the OP that. Not that they'd need to. Transgender people know their sex doesn't match their gender.

That is definitively not how I read his argument, but being biased (since I have a similar argument on sex versus gender) I don't think it is useful I comment on that.

 

[tyr_13]

Take people as you find them and treat them the way you'd want to be treated...or, perhaps better yet, treat them the way you'd want your beloved child to be treated it they were in the same situation. It's pretty hard to go wrong like that, and I highly doubt any municipality will attempt to fine you for it.

I'd like them to be treated to the truth. The truth doesn't have to be told in a way that hurts, but is it wrong of me to want my utterances to correspond to objective reality?

That is definitively not how I read his argument, but being biased (since I have a similar argument on sex versus gender) I don't think it is useful I comment on that.

No, that's exactly his argument. People. Not this person, but people.

EDIT: They also used many examples that were NOT the person from the OP, so, no, his argument is not limited to the context of the incident in the OP at all. If you want someone who has done that, theprestige is the one who did.

 

[p0lka]

Your 'fact' is actually an accusation as well. You accuse them of being a different gender than they claim.

And again, you're wrong about your 'fact'. Gender doesn't mean what you claim it means.

You're right about ideologues, but you can't identify those very well either. The thing you grew up thinking was true and based entirely on biology, wasn't. Incorporate the new information or deal with people knowing you're wrong. Your contention you can tell someone politely that they're not the gender they are is blatantly false.

re: the highlighted, whether you are male or female or anyone in between is based entirely on biology.

Gender is about how you feel, which tends to be a more subjective matter, which is cool, but don't start denying the reality of the biology.

 

[Belz...]

Gender does not mean sex there

The two aren't really distinct at all. The only way to make them distinct, that is to make it possible for a biological man to be a woman in the context under discussion, is to restrict the definition of "woman" to what the person in question believes. I've been assured that this is not the case, but so far I haven't been told what makes a "woman". If one's own belief makes one's gender, and the only way to verify it is to trust one's belief, then it really doesn't tell us anything at all, since we know exactly what people's beliefs are worth.

so in being wrong you're also being rude.

How do you figure that? This word, and its synonyms, are being thrown around way too easily around here. Furthermore, I've already argued that being rude is irrelevant to the discussion. We're debating whether a man can have babies. Politeness has nothing to do with such a question. The only reason to bring up rudeness is to shut down the discussion, in fact.

What you cited as your own evidence disproves you.

How so?

Nope, because again, words have meanings.

Ironic, coming from you using words like "accusation" to mean "assertion".

 

[Belz...]

I've been ignoring most of these, but I'd like to point out that none of the posters so concerned about my 'childish' posting give two rips about abjectly stupid strawmen like these.

Oh, speaking about responding to childish nonsense, is it not childish to expect one's opponents in a discussion to address every single disagreable thing in the discussion in order not to consider them hypocritical? Our friends from the right have the exact same behaviour.

Apparently you're not allowed to criticise one side of the debate without criticising the other side just as much. Were I a more cynical man, I'd think this was a tactic designed to draw your opponents away from your own posts, making them waste time and effort on others. Fortunately I'm not that cynical, but the thought has crossed my mind.

Argumemnon insists he can politely tell someone they're not the gender they claim to be if they are transgendered

Well, no, that's not what I said. But I've stopped expecting posters here to be able to tell an apple from an oxcart now. If you're really interested, I suggest you look up the post in question and read it again. In fact, try to read it as if you were making that argument. Perhaps that'll help remove the assumption that I'm wrong to begin with, and help you with comprehension.

 

[tyr_13]

re: the highlighted, whether you are male or female or anyone in between is based entirely on biology.

Gender is about how you feel, which tends to be a more subjective matter, which is cool, but don't start denying the reality of the biology.

Oh I haven't, and neither has anyone else in the thread that I've seen. That straw man keeps being brought up, but I don't think anyone has even slipped up and said 'female' when they meant 'woman', besides of course those arguing that they are the exact same thing. Despite some insisting that's what people like myself are saying (and there being some extremist out there who do put that and similar ideas forward), that's not what is going on.

Gender is also about how you live and are treated in societal context, as well as how you feel. Some societies have more than two genders because of that. Social gender roles, traditions, allowances, and norms are rarely based on biological truth in modern times besides things like birth and menstruation.

 

[tyr_13]

The two aren't really distinct at all. The only way to make them distinct, that is to make it possible for a biological man to be a woman in the context under discussion, is to restrict the definition of "woman" to what the person in question believes. I've been assured that this is not the case, but so far I haven't been told what makes a "woman". If one's own belief makes one's gender, and the only way to verify it is to trust one's belief, then it really doesn't tell us anything at all, since we know exactly what people's beliefs are worth.



How do you figure that? This word, and its synonyms, are being thrown around way too easily around here. Furthermore, I've already argued that being rude is irrelevant to the discussion. We're debating whether a man can have babies. Politeness has nothing to do with such a question. The only reason to bring up rudeness is to shut down the discussion, in fact.



How so?



Ironic, coming from you using words like "accusation" to mean "assertion".

You're already been shown the dictionary definitions and rejected what it said.

I haven't confused 'accusation' and 'assertion'.

Others have, and I have, explained other factors besides personal belief many times.

The rest addressed below.

Oh, speaking about responding to childish nonsense, is it not childish to expect one's opponents in a discussion to address every single disagreable thing in the discussion in order not to consider them hypocritical? Our friends from the right have the exact same behaviour.

Apparently you're not allowed to criticise one side of the debate without criticising the other side just as much. Were I a more cynical man, I'd think this was a tactic designed to draw your opponents away from your own posts, making them waste time and effort on others. Fortunately I'm not that cynical, but the thought has crossed my mind.

You're making a massive straw man. I did not say people had to criticize each side equally, you're making that up. It is pointing out that any who claim to be objecting to things like my 'childish' mirroring are not doing it because they disagree with the form of the argument, nor consistent logic in general, nor keeping the 'level of debate' high (or anything like that). They would have to disagree with the argument for other reasons, such as they're on the 'other side' or personal animosity or whatnot.

It's basically to dispel the illusion of some high horse about 'my opponents are the lying side'.

Well, no, that's not what I said. But I've stopped expecting posters here to be able to tell an apple from an oxcart now. If you're really interested, I suggest you look up the post in question and read it again. In fact, try to read it as if you were making that argument. Perhaps that'll help remove the assumption that I'm wrong to begin with, and help you with comprehension.

I quoted you. I quoted the post you were responding too. I read before and after that.

EDIT: Eh, some stuff got cut off. Not too important, at least not important enough to type out again.