Transgender man gives birth

[ponderingturtle]

Why do you have to utter at all? Who asked you? Is it your place to pass judgment, aloud, on everybody else?

Of course it is, didn't you notice he is the emperor of the world.

Next people are going to say that witnessing and calling out that atheists are damned to hell is harassment instead of objective fact.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not confronting people needlessly about their gender issues is an ideology? Minding your own business about things that don't concern you--that's an ideology? I would have thought an ideology would require positive action, not lack of action. Live and let live, that's an ideology, I guess. What a terrible one to follow! I should be ashamed.

They are obligated to witness to the unbelievers their one true faith. To do anything else is immoral to such believers.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes she is, and I will not humor your delusions to the contrary. I'll also decline to be polite about it. You're simply wrong and don't know what a woman is.

But the only proper response to someone say wishing you a merry christmass is to point out how first the story was clearly not set in december near the winter solstice, and second was apocryphal to get Jesus to meet prophesy. Anything else would be denying objective reality.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Far be it for me to be defending it, but psychology and psychiatry are sciences and study real phenomena. Science and objective reality includes more than genitalia and chromosomes (which I haven't observed in 99.99% of the people I have gendered).

The question of gender identity, dysphoria, its nature, how society and culture interact and vice versa, language, permanence, whether quixotic ones exist, etc. are much more relevant. I certainly have counter-trending views that rile those darned SJWs on these matters, but at least I am addressing the actual issues.

Some look to MRI scans and "x brain in y body" if they need crude physicalist explanations.

You are trying to bring science into a religious debate here.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Perhaps the concept of sexes is hazier than previously conceived. Maybe it's the definitions that should be reconsidered, rather than attempting to force reality to fit the definitions we should make the definitions more flexible to describe reality?

Just because Ug and Grug perceived exactly two distinct sexes a hundred thousand years ago doesn't mean we're stuck with that forever, does it?

That is simple heresy. This isn't a matter of facts and science to the faithful but of belief. Science and facts will never win them over.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Even if there is some "objective reality" to gender, it's not like I ask for DNA samples when I meet people. If I think someone is a man and she tells me she's a woman, I'm not going to predicate my embarrassed apology on whether or not she's trans. I probably wouldn't even give her an ocular pat-down. I'd do the right thing and immediately begin objectifying her.

Look we can all agree the only things that matter are the basic examination of their genitals when they are born. That is the word of God and the last time their gender can be questioned.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes it does. You can make up *different* social construct and have 23442534653 genders if you wish, nobody forced to recognize such definition. But there is and will always be 2 sexes, baring evolution of a third over millions of years. The male and the female. There may be error during the development, like many X chromosome kilfner , testosterone resistance, hermaphroditic, but those are errors. Why is it important ? Because you define biology by the normal case, and not by the pathological errors. Thus as such there are only male and female among mammals. If you want something else, pray strongly for a miracle and become, say, a frog or certain species of fish which can change, or something unicellular which has neither. Until that miracle happens there are only male and female.

But You can define what You want as social gender constructs.
With no guarantee that the rest of the world agree on it.
So while I *may* out of politesse call that woman by "he" , she is a surgically changed female biologically.

Just like former women who have had hysterectomies are no longer biologically female.

 

[Aepervius]

Just like former women who have had hysterectomies are no longer biologically female.

And again you are using a pathological case.

If this all you have, then you have nothing.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

You might have a point, but phrasing it like that is never going to convince or even engage someone who believes they are being perfectly objective and scientific.

Anyway, I think you are correct in your assertion that it is more about preconceptions and feelings than some posters might realize or admit.
Reducing the science of gender, sex and identity to clear-cut divisions by chromosomes and genitalia sounds like a scientific sounding justification for existing viewpoints without addressing the complexity of the matter. The 'my opinion is more scientific than yours' line of argument often appears like cherry picking to me.
Like people used to argue that being gay was unnatural, or that there were scientific reasons to view blacks as inferior. (Note that I'm not accusing our posters of those views, don't want to derail the thread).

Biology is complex. The mind is complex. Sometimes nature ***** up, and all we can do is deal with it.
If that means addressing people who have been dealt certain cards differently than I might initially expect, that's a very small price to pay for not making someone who already has more to deal with than the average person uncomfortable.

 

[Belz...]

Like all forms of harassment it can not be a big deal.

Ah, yes. The tried-and-true ponderingturtle strawman. I was wondering what was taking you so long.

 

[Belz...]

It is to someone who has spent years or even decades not wanting to be a 'him'.

I spent decades wanting and not wanting tons of things. The question is whether reality fits the desire. You wouldn't indugle someone claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte by giving them the first French empire. Similarily, I wouldn't call a biological male a woman unless they went through most of the transition.

Just like there's a difference between accidentally using the wrong pronoun, and insisting that you call someone a man or woman because you assert your knowledge of biology trumps theirs.

You say that as if knowledge of biology doesn't trump one's feelings.

There are neurological and hormonal factors that cause transgenderism. Those are just as biological as chromosomes and dangly bits. Just because biology doesn't always play by the rules we think we've discovered doesn't make it less biological.

You're redefining "biology" here, to include psychology. That's like saying that moon rockets are natural because they arise from natural processes.

I'd say that the fact transgender people exist, and cannot change their gender identity is just as objective and/or arbitrary as judging chromosomes or 'looking' male or female.

The fact that other people have delusions is objective too, but it doesn't make the delusion real. Your argument conflates the existence of the feeling itself with the feeling's basis in fact.

But you were talking about biological truth. And this is not some kind of rhetorical trick, I'm genuinely interested... Why does this transition matter to you? It seems a little arbitrary to me to on the one hand define genders by the biological definitions of chromosomes, birth sex, and so on, and at the same time accept that hormonal and surgical alterations can change it 'enough' to warrant a different pronoun.

Well maybe that's because you're making all that up. To answer your question, because transition sufficiently alters the person's body to match the desired sex. Biologically, they are still what they were before the transition.

 

[Belz...]

They are obligated to witness to the unbelievers their one true faith. To do anything else is immoral to such believers.

Considering how much of an ideology the social justice movement is, your comment here is quite ironic. In this case, the one true faith is that one's feelings are the most important thing in the universe.

 

[Aepervius]

You might have a point, but phrasing it like that is never going to convince or even engage someone who believes they are being perfectly objective and scientific.

Anyway, I think you are correct in your assertion that it is more about preconceptions and feelings than some posters might realize or admit.
Reducing the science of gender, sex and identity to clear-cut divisions by chromosomes and genitalia sounds like a scientific sounding justification for existing viewpoints without addressing the complexity of the matter.
Like people used to argue that being gay was unnatural, or that there were scientific reasons to view blacks as inferior. (Note that I'm not accusing our posters of those views, don't want to derail the thread).

Biology is complex. The mind is complex. Sometimes nature ***** up, and all we can do is deal with it.
If that means addressing people who have been dealt certain cards differently than I might initially expect, that's a very small price to pay for not making someone who already has more to deal with than the average person uncomfortable.

Thee is always inherent bias, some positive some negative. If one start to state human are bipedial, and you object saying some are born without leg, some lose them later in life, some are in rollchair, you missed utterly the point. Biologically human are bipedial mammals, and as with all mammals have two sexes. There may be uneasy cases but they are all pathological. That is an important point.

You want to bring more to the conversation, like gender identity, and feel free to this, but sex is far more clear cut. The individual in the op, was pregnant, and gave birth. There is nothing more clear cut than that. Now by CHOICE they may chose the GI of male and by choice we may chose to call use man, he, his, but there is nothing mor eclear cut in this case they are born biologically female.

There may be bias against TG for various reason, but keep in mind you bring your own bias the othee way around when you refuse to admit that people may have a point that she is a surgically changed female a (TG) man. Note how the first part of the sentence is about sex, the second GI.

And no, bringing pathological cases like kilfner syndrom does not make a better case that sex is murky like gender.it only serves to illustrate thatthose cases are pathological, contrary to the case inop which is pretty clear : the person ws born a fertile female and changed it surgically. Pretending that peoplehave "bias" or as i sawin other thread "phobia""icky factor" only illustrate your own prejudice.

Thatsaid would i be before that person would i call her"he"? no,politesse i would use "she" etc...but in common conversation talking about the case, i have no qualm saying it was a female, a pregnant female.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And again you are using a pathological case.

If this all you have, then you have nothing.

I have as much as you do. It isn't like the actual scientists who study gender agree with you remotely.

Here is a simple question what would it take to convince you that transgender people exist?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ah, yes. The tried-and-true ponderingturtle strawman. I was wondering what was taking you so long.

It is a simple stating of your position. You are here arguing for workplace harassment. If you do a really good job you get a gold star when they kill themselves.

 

[uke2se]

I have a solution to this "problem".

When you are faced with a situation in which someone you are sure is a man biologically asks to be referred to with a female pronoun, just remember this simple abbreviation:

DBAD

Don't Be A Dick.

That's all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You might have a point, but phrasing it like that is never going to convince or even engage someone who believes they are being perfectly objective and scientific.

Anyway, I think you are correct in your assertion that it is more about preconceptions and feelings than some posters might realize or admit.
Reducing the science of gender, sex and identity to clear-cut divisions by chromosomes and genitalia sounds like a scientific sounding justification for existing viewpoints without addressing the complexity of the matter. The 'my opinion is more scientific than yours' line of argument often appears like cherry picking to me.
Like people used to argue that being gay was unnatural, or that there were scientific reasons to view blacks as inferior. (Note that I'm not accusing our posters of those views, don't want to derail the thread).

Biology is complex. The mind is complex. Sometimes nature ***** up, and all we can do is deal with it.
If that means addressing people who have been dealt certain cards differently than I might initially expect, that's a very small price to pay for not making someone who already has more to deal with than the average person uncomfortable.

Which is why their insistence about knowing the fundamental truths of reality is best seen as a statement of faith. They know the truth and don't need scientists to tell them what is or isn't real.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Considering how much of an ideology the social justice movement is, your comment here is quite ironic. In this case, the one true faith is that one's feelings are the most important thing in the universe.

And like with global warming all the scientists who study it are all wrong as well. There are no transgender people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thee is always inherent bias, some positive some negative. If one start to state human are bipedial, and you object saying some are born without leg, some lose them later in life, some are in rollchair, you missed utterly the point. Biologically human are bipedial mammals, and as with all mammals have two sexes. There may be uneasy cases but they are all pathological. That is an important point.

You want to bring more to the conversation, like gender identity, and feel free to this, but sex is far more clear cut. The individual in the op, was pregnant, and gave birth. There is nothing more clear cut than that.

Which is why only fertile people can ever really be viewed as male or female. So if someone is postmenopausal or has a hysterectomy their sex is no longer female but neuter. Just like a male after castration.

No one ever considers a Eunuch a Man after all.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Thee is always inherent bias, some positive some negative. If one start to state human are bipedial, and you object saying some are born without leg, some lose them later in life, some are in rollchair, you missed utterly the point. Biologically human are bipedial mammals, and as with all mammals have two sexes. There may be uneasy cases but they are all pathological. That is an important point.

You want to bring more to the conversation, like gender identity, and feel free to this, but sex is far more clear cut. The individual in the op, was pregnant, and gave birth. There is nothing more clear cut than that. Now by CHOICE they may chose the GI of male and by choice we may chose to call use man, he, his, but there is nothing mor eclear cut in this case they are biologically female.

There may be bias against TG for various reason, but keep in mind you bring your own bias the othee way around when you refuse to admit that people may have a point that she is a surgically changed female a (TG) man. Note how the first part of the sentence is about sex, the second GI.

And no, bringing pathological cases like kilfner syndrom does not make a better case that sex is murky like gender.it only serves to illustrate thatthose cases are pathological, contrary to the case inop which is pretty clear : the person ws born a fertile female and changed it surgically. Pretending that peoplehave "bias" or as i sawin other thread "phobia""icky factor" only illustrate your own prejudice.

Thatsaid would i be before that person would i call her"she"? no,politesse etc...but in common conversation talking about the case, i have no qualm saying it was a female, a pregnant female.

Sure. The problem is that we have two words for a whole lot of related and interdependent but separate concepts. Sex, gender, gender roles. We use man and woman for all of those.
Sometimes one word applied in one context, and the other in another. Sometimes the distinction isn't that clear-cut.
Of course the person in the OP has to have a female anatomy in order to give birth. And of course we'd expect medical and scientific literature to use the terminology that is most appropriate. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we let 'feelings' dictate reality, and that we should ignore science because it might hurt someone's feelings.
And yes, transgender and intersex people are a tiny minority, and from a purely clinical standpoint their conditions can be called pathological. But if we use those words outside of a purely clinical context, they carry certain value judgments.

The OP asked why he should call the person described in the article a man. The answer is politeness.
Being polite in a social context does not preclude being truthful or conscious or thorough in a scientific or clinical context. It isn't all black and white, pure fact versus pure feeling.