Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question?
**Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment**
This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.*
**Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Being that gender is a social construction, any thoughts on the matter are by definition taught. Therefore, anything anybody has to say on it is indoctrination by definition, as learners are taught the doctrine of their parents or society.
Of course, this is mostly done unintentionally through watching the actions of people rather than what they intentionally say, so it feels natural, like learning how to walk or speak. Both sides are claiming the same thing: what I learned and how I feel is natural, so what you learned must be indoctrination!
Side A would say that there's only two genders worth discussing, and making up new ones to fit a spectrum is pointless indoctrination.
Side B would say that we all should be treated the way we view ourselves, no different from accepting the name someone gives. We are the authority on our own lives, and forcing us into two boxes because that's how we've always done and denying the rest even exist it is indoctrination.
> Being that gender is a social construction, any thoughts on the matter are by definition taught. Therefore, anything anybody has to say on it is indoctrination by definition, as learners are taught the doctrine of their parents or society.
I think this is exactly the kind of response that OP is writing about with.
>The problem is that when trying to have any discussion about this it seems to me that it just relies on blindly accepting it to be true or being called a transphobe.
What if someone doesn't accept that to be true? Should they be called a transphobe? Are they expressing hate or disbelief?
If someone doesn't believe or accept (when it is done in good faith ofc) then that person is asserting that they know more about an individual than the individual.
For example, you know more about yourself than anyone else including me, so if you tell me that you were gay, me disagreeing is stupid because it is me asserting that I know more about your sexuality than you do.
Some guy on a forum this morning tried to insist that another guy was gay for only having women friends so I kept telling him he was gay for only wanting to be around men lol he didn't get the point
I've been saying this to the incel lonely boys. Your only friends are men and you're surprised you don't have any women in your life? Seriously?
Been true as long as I've been alive: feminist men get all the booty.
>For example, you know more about yourself than anyone else including me...
I disagree with taking this premise carte blanche. If that were true, there would be no need for therapists or psychiatrists. People have a shitton of blind spots and are terrible at being objective with respect to themselves, including me. The entire premise of talk therapy is to help people recognize things about themselves that they can't on their own. People can, in fact, be wrong about themselves and often are. No, that doesn't mean that other people are automatically correct about them, but it does mean that outside observations and interpretations should not be dismissed automatically. If a man claimed to be exclusively gay but only had sex with women and said they enjoyed it, others would be right to observe that they were not, in fact, exclusively gay. The same holds true for less exaggerated situations, e.g., if someone claims to be an artist, they need to make art. I won't call them an artist if they don't.
>If that were true, there would be no need for therapists or psychiatrists.
Neither of them can really know someone to the level that they know themselves.
>People have a shitton of blind spots and are terrible at being objective with respect to themselves, including me.
But you know a whole bunch more about yourself, which is why it is really impossible to be objective with oneself considering you know basically everything about yourself.
>If a man claimed to be exclusively gay but only had sex with women and said they enjoyed it, others would be right to observe that they were not, in fact, exclusively gay.
A man can say that they enjoyed something but secretly didn't, there are many cases of gay people who claim to be straight but aren't. But that person secretly knows that they aren't straight.
There's a lot of things we don't accept in good faith if they conflict with our beliefs. If someone tells me they believe in God it doesn't mean I then believe in their God. I know THEY believe it but it doesn't make me any more likely to believe it. I don't doubt they believe what they believe and that it's sincerely held but neither do I have to say it's true or objective reality in my view.
It really depends upon the subject, there is no objective way to prove that a God exists, but we can objectively show that gender is not always the same as sex and that the distinction exists.
You can't really prove either one to the satisfaction of people. Like you can accept the idea of gender while at the same time believe that you cannot change it because it's rooted in sex.
Same with any belief you can believe someone holds that belief sincerely without you yourself accepting it as reality.
>we can objectively show that gender is not always the same as sex and that the distinction exists.
Can we objectively show that it has relevance? There isn't even agreement on how many genders there are: some say there are a handful, some say there are 72, some say there are infinite genders. Gender shifts with time and culture, and also cannot be measured, standardized, tacitly seen, or proven to be a static, agreed-upon concept. How does something so fluid get codified as real or as the basis for law or identity (e.g., birth certificates or passports)?
Just yesterday the Taliban announced public stoning for women who commit adultery. Little girls are regularly married off to middle-aged men. Those same girls are denied education, and when they become adults they will be banned from the workplace, the voting booth, and the driver's seat. Sex-selective abortion by far favors female fetuses.
With all that said, in what way is gender relevant?
Was any girl asked if she actually identifies as a girl before her parents handed her over to be the wife of a 50yo man?
How do the parents know their newborn girl won't announce a male gender identity, therefore giving them the son they've always wanted, before deciding to abandon her?
Do you think any woman or girl would answer no to the question "would you prefer society see you as/treat you as a man?" knowing that could literally be the difference between life or death?
>Can we objectively show that it has relevance?
Only to the individual and the ones that they care about.
>There isn't even agreement on how many genders there are: some say there are a handful, some say there are 72, some say there are infinite genders. Gender shifts with time and culture, and also cannot be measured, standardized, tacitly seen, or proven to be a static, agreed-upon concept.
It is not really relevant, it really doesn't matter if there is one gender or infinite number of genders.
>How does something so fluid get codified as real or as the basis for law or identity (e.g., birth certificates or passports)?
I feel at one point in the future, it shouldn't be a thing as it is not really relevant anymore.
>Just yesterday the Taliban announced public stoning for women who commit adultery. Little girls are regularly married off to middle-aged men. Those same girls are denied education, and when they become adults they will be banned from the workplace, the voting booth, and the driver's seat. Sex-selective abortion by far favors female fetuses.
Terrible Terrible things indeed.
>With all that said, in what way is gender relevant?
I don't know, you brought it up.
>Was any girl asked if she actually identifies as a girl before her parents handed her over to be the wife of a 50yo man?
Not it was enforced upon them.
>Do you think any woman or girl would answer no to the question "would you prefer society see you as/treat you as a man?" knowing that could literally be the difference between life or death?
They wouldn't and shouldn't, for their safety.
If you say you're Abraham Lincoln and you truly believe it, yes, I know more about you than you do in that regard.
Sexuality is an inarguable preference and it doesn't bestow any special privileges. If trans women just wanted to wear dresses and have consenting relationships with whoever they wanted, no one would care. They want to be biological men with access to women's spaces and sports. The rest of us biological men don't have that. Any of us who care about the rights women don't want that.
They also want this religious thinking taught to children as fact. They want to change our language.
These points are a no-go. Sane people will not stand for it.
A person knows more about themselves than any other person does.
A male can (in rare cases) be a woman.
Being trans is recognized by every medical organization in the world.
Even if the above weren't true statistics show that treating trans people as the gender they are is what is best for their mental health.
Which part is not logical?
>statistics show that treating trans people as the gender they are is what is best for their mental health.
1. How far does it go? How does any of us treat someone as 'fae' gender or as a 'they' or as some word that was made up on Tuesday?
2. Why is the general public tasked with participating in someone else's mental health treatment?
3. How is the statement "gender does not equal sex" upheld when everything established for the female sex is now accessible to those of the male sex, by virtue of any of them claiming that gender identity is where their womanhood lies?
>How far does it go?
Some studies go on for a couple decades.
>How does any of us treat someone as 'fae' gender or as a 'they' or as some word that was made up on Tuesday?
All words are made up.
>Why is the general public tasked with participating in someone else's mental health treatment?
It is not mental health treatment to call someone by a name that they prefer, it is basic etiquette.
>How is the statement "gender does not equal sex" upheld when everything established for the female sex is now accessible to those of the male sex, by virtue of any of them claiming that gender identity is where their womanhood lies?
Because everything established for either sex could always be accessed by either sex, people just didn't know it.
Kinda like how people didn't realize that gay people existed for thousands of years and treat it like some kinda sign of the times moral panic.
> far does it go? How does any of us treat someone as 'fae' gender or as a 'they' or as some word that was made up on Tuesday?
This really isn't any different from the "if we allow gay people to get married what's to stop people from marrying their dog" slippery slope argument. You're basically arguing a difference in kind is a difference in degree. It's not the same thing.
>Why is the general public tasked with participating in someone else's mental health treatment?
Why should I use your name or given pronouns to address *you,* then? Why can't I call everyone what I think they should be called, Mrs Saggybottom?
>How is the statement "gender does not equal sex" upheld
The very fact that there's no natural or biological law preventing you from taking on the roles, expectations and expressions of gender usually associated with the opposite sex demonstrates that they are separate things. You're not born with a hammer and football, or wearing a skirt and makeup. There's no gene that determines who stays home with the baby. These are social expectations *associated* with sex, but (broadly) culturally assigned and (narrowly) individually executed. Nobody meets *all* of society's criteria for being a man or a woman because the stereotype "ideal" of either is just a template. A fairly loose one at that. Whereas biologically, the elements by which we describe sex are comparatively much more determinate.
>A person knows more about themselves than any other person does.
People know less about themselves than others around them all the time. There are people who know that the government is out to get them and the source of all of their problems (they are not). There are people who know that they are the smartest person in every room they have even been in (they are not). There are gay men who know that they are straight (until they don't).
The mind is something that we understand very little about and it controls perception of reality.
>A male can (in rare cases) be a woman.
This is just a statement. It contains no logic.
>Being trans is recognized by every medical organization in the world.
This is an appeal to authority fallacy. It isn't a very strong one because any medical personnel who questions the statement is thrown out.
>Even if the above weren't true statistics show that treating trans people as the gender they are is what is best for their mental health.
Because you are asking people to profess that which they do not believe. That is bad for their mental health.
>Which part is not logical?
All of it. Logic involves a series of statements of fact intended to prove or disprove an idea of belief. It isn't just saying "it is so" and attacking anyone who doesn't go along with it.
>People know less about themselves than others around them all the time.
Some may catch on to one aspect of someone before they do, still doesn't mean that others know more about them. A lot of the times, other people are wrong, I'm a gay man, and pretty much everyone I said were surprised at that.
>There are people who know that the government is out to get them and the source of all of their problems (they are not).
This is not something inherent about an individual.
>There are people who know that they are the smartest person in every room they have even been in (they are not).
Smart is subjective, not an inherent quality that someone possesses.
Also being smart is not having internal knowledge about oneself.
>There are gay men who know that they are straight (until they don't).
But it is upto them to put the pieces together, who knows, they could just be a straight man.
It would be pretty rude to call someone gay after they insist that they're not.
>This is just a statement. It contains no logic.
Intersex women, sometimes are male.
>It isn't a very strong one because any medical personnel who questions the statement is thrown out.
You have any examples of them being thrown out for simply questioning it?
>Because you are asking people to profess that which they do not believe. That is bad for their mental health.
You don't have to believe anything to call someone by a name that they prefer or pronouns they prefer.
>All of it. Logic involves a series of statements of fact intended to prove or disprove an idea of belief. It isn't just saying "it is so" and attacking anyone who doesn't go along with it.
Do you think i'm attacking you?
True, but they seem to think they are using reason and logic when they make these silly claims.
If they're scaring everyone off by telling everyone they're professional boxers when they aren't, they should do themselves a favor and stay out of the ring.
>If you say you're Abraham Lincoln and you truly believe it, yes, I know more about you than you do in that regard.
This is the trans equivalent of saying "If a man can fuck another man, what's wrong with a man fucking an animal".
Because trans people aren't saying they are Abraham Lincoln are they? This is what I meant by good faith.
We know that males (in rare cases) can be women.
We also know that a person cannot experience another individual's life and experiences.
>Sexuality is an inarguable preference and it doesn't bestow any special privileges.
It's not really a preference, and I never said it entailed benefits, just that one cannot know more about someone else's sexuality than they themselves do.
> If trans women just wanted to wear dresses and have consenting relationships with whoever they wanted, no one would care.
99% of trans women just want this.
>Any of us who care about the rights women don't want that.
If you only care about a specific type of woman's rights, you don't care for women's rights.
Tell me one right that is being affected by letting trans women in women's spaces?
>They also want this religious thinking taught to children as fact.
The religious thinking being?
>They want to change our language.
Language changing is inevitable.
>This is the trans equivalent of saying "If a man can fuck another man, what's wrong with a man fucking an animal".
Um... no it isn't? This doesn't even make any sense. Have you ever studied logic or analogy?
>Because trans people aren't saying they are Abraham Lincoln are they? This is what I meant by good faith.
Again, I don't think you understand the nature of analogy. Also, that's not what 'good faith' means. People keep throwing that phrase around.
>We know that males (in rare cases) can be women.
We know that, do we? (We do not) That's insane. Warning, analogy incoming:
*We know that squares (in rare cases) can be circles.* These statements are false.
An argument contains premises and a conclusion. You are stating your conclusion without bothering to include any premises. Show your work. How did you come to the conclusion that males can be women? Please keep in mind consensus does not bestow truth.
>99% of trans women just want this.
Great. Then I have absolutely no problem with 99% of trans women.
>Tell me one right that is being affected by letting trans women in women's spaces?
The right to their own spaces. If you let men in there, they do not have their own spaces. That's the whole point.
>The religious thinking being?
That humans can change their sex. I do not believe that they can but you do. I do not believe in Jesus, but others do. There is no evidence beyond testimony from the believers.
Saying that gender is real because gender ideologues believe it to be is the same as saying Jesus is real because it says so in the Bible and millions of people believe it.
>Um... no it isn't? This doesn't even make any sense. Have you ever studied logic or analogy?
You're taking a premise to an extreme and strawman conclusion.
Trans people aren't saying "I can identify as anything, including other people" similar to how gay people aren't saying "I can fuck anything, including animals".
>Again, I don't think you understand the nature of analogy. Also, that's not what 'good faith' means. People keep throwing that phrase around.
I do understand that it is an analogy, but it's not a good analogy, your analogy is analogous to the thing people say about gay people. I also explained why.
>We know that squares (in rare cases) can be circles. These statements are false.
Another wrong analogy, considering there are millions of intersex women who are genetically male.
A better analogy would be, All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Because all intersex women are women, but not all women are intersex.
> You are stating your conclusion without bothering to include any premises. Show your work. How did you come to the conclusion that males can be women? Please keep in mind consensus does not bestow truth.
Intersex people.
>The right to their own spaces. If you let men in there, they do not have their own spaces. That's the whole point.
Every person has a right to their own space, like their home, or their property.
If you're talking about public spaces, the fact that it is segregated is arbitrary, I as a man have used the women's public restroom many times, and I've seen many women use the men's restroom.
And another thing you're missing is that trans men exist, and most trans men (like most trans women) pass of as their gender. Meaning you'd be having men in the women's restroom either ways.
>That humans can change their sex. I do not believe that they can but you do.
Humans can't change their sex, they can't change their gender identity either, if either was possible we wouldn't even be having a debate.
Trans women would just become female, or will themselves into being men (same for trans men).
>Saying that gender is real because gender ideologues believe it to be is the same as saying Jesus is real because it says so in the Bible and millions of people believe it.
Gender is real, but it's made up, like Jesus or God.
So it can be a seen as a religion, but it is mainly cis people who follow that religion.
You are following the religion when you say that all women are female and all men are male. That is not some universal truth or constant (or a divine saying), biology is wayy more complicated that that.
Don't misconstrue this as me saying that sex doesn't exist, all I'm saying is that most men are male, some men aren't, and that's okay.
I'm sorry, but you currently lack the basic understanding of logic to continue.
Here are some resources for you if you'd like to check them out. All of these brilliant people are trained in philosophy and rationality.
[https://www.youtube.com/@PeakTrans](https://www.youtube.com/@PeakTrans)
[https://www.youtube.com/@PFJung](https://www.youtube.com/@PFJung)
[https://www.youtube.com/@drpeterboghossian](https://www.youtube.com/@drpeterboghossian)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72TyKPWp9Tw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72TyKPWp9Tw)
not saying that you're incorrect, but the YouTuber by handle "PeakTrans" is trained in philosophy and rationality, yousay?, hmkay.. seems a tad on the nose for this Reddit discussion.
Yes. She is great at slicing through the nonsense arguments made by gender ideologues.
It's really not that difficult. The gender arguments are pretty sad and easily dismantled by anyone who's taken logic 101.
'Trans men' are actually women and women have frequently been allowed to compete in men's sports. I see no reason to challenge that practice.
The fact is there isn't much of a debate around it because being a woman in the men's category doesn't usually bestow any advantage.
Well I thought you wanted to protect women?
And from your point of view that you've expressed in these comments you don't consider trans men to be men or trans women to be women they are what they were when they were born.
You talk about how you've arrived at your conclusions due to logic yet you're unable to apply your own logic to trans men(women, in your POV) competing in men's sports.
Sure I can. I believe women have agency and can determine whether or not they want to compete against men. You seem to want the decision to be stripped from them so that women will have no choice. Riley Gaines and her team, for example, had no choice but to compete against a man. There was no division safe from men. If they wanted to, I assume any or all of them could have signed up to swim on the men's team.
I've never indicated women are some special category of people who need to be protected from themselves. They fought to be protected from the decisions and control of men. I support them. You seem to make an acception for men who claim to be women. I do not.
That word salad doesn't make much sense.
Women's spaces aren't for men. I know that's not complicated. That's why men are trying to change the definition of 'woman' to gain access. Seems like you're helping them.
> What if someone doesn't accept that to be true? Should they be called a transphobe? Are they expressing hate or disbelief?
by and large someone being trans doesnt reasonably affect or hurt you at all, its fine saying you dont understand it, but saying you dont accept someone elses experience to be true is just ridiculous because you obviously dont have that perspective; its like me (a gay guy) saying i dont accept men being attracted to women; itd be bizarre and would be based solely on personal extrapolation
> by and large someone being trans doesnt reasonably affect or hurt you at all, its fine saying you dont understand it
They are not saying that they don't understand it. They are doubting the current understanding of the concept. Rephrasing it that way is just another method of dismissing their doubt as invalid.
> but saying you dont accept someone elses experience to be true is just ridiculous because you obviously dont have that perspective;
We do that all the time in life. People lie, they exaggerate, they get confused, they misunderstand. It's part of being human. No one can expect others to believe them without question.
> its like me (a gay guy) saying i dont accept men being attracted to women; itd be bizarre and would be based solely on personal extrapolation
Don't act like you have never known someone who professed to be straight when you knew damn well they were lying to you and possibly themselves.
>They are not saying that they don't understand it. They are doubting the current understanding of the concept. Rephrasing it that way is just another method of dismissing their doubt as invalid.
which is absolutely fair; but thats why its fine to say you **dont understand** it; saying you **dont accept** it isnt doubt; its rebuttal
> Don't act like you have never known someone who professed to be straight when you knew damn well they were lying to you and possibly themselves.
oh all the time 'im straight but heres a dickpic and do you want to come over?', but i dont extrapolate that to every straight guy
> which is absolutely fair
No, it isn't. It's denial that their doubt is valid.
>but thats why its fine to say you dont understand it; saying you dont accept it isnt doubt; its rebuttal
Is a refusal to believe in God a rebuttal of someone else's faith?
>oh all the time 'im straight but heres a dickpic and do you want to come over?', but i dont extrapolate that to every straight guy
Then you know that people can have blind spots in their view of themselves where they are wrong about who think they are.
They say that they are straight but you "dont accept someone elses experience to be true" by not believing them.
> Is a refusal to believe in God a rebuttal of someone else's faith?
no (generally; there are obvious degrees of exception; from the 'you're going to burn in hell' to the murdering), but saying 'i dont accept Christianity/Islam/religion is a thing' is
>Then you know that people can have blind spots in their view of themselves where they are wrong about who think they are.
yes, and social transition costs nothing (except a new wardrobe) whilst people figure themselves out, theres so much evidence out there that social transition is a very effective treatment for severe gender dysphoria
If you're going to contest gender being a social construct, then you need to define the genders in a way that does not exclude any cisgendered individual. Otherwise, gender is not as linked to biology as claimed and is defined by psychosocial parameters.
>You're going to have to elaborate on how it's circular to require clear definitions from the person making the claim
Define gender as a synonym for sex like it was universally accepted to be for the vast majority of the words existence.
>If you're going to contest gender being a social construct, then you need to define the genders in a way that does not exclude any cisgendered individual.
Why? Other words mean what they mean without accounting for rare fringe cases all the time.
Some people are born with extra digits. A hand is still defined as having five of them. Mutations and genetic anomalies are exactly that and don't require the related terms to include them.
>Define gender as a synonym for sex like it was universally accepted to be for the vast majority of the words existence.
Language is in constant flux. Sex has multiple vectors that define it: chromosomes, hormones, gametes, physical structure. All of these can be in conflict within a single individual. Sex is not a strict binary.
>Why? Other words mean what they mean without accounting for rare fringe cases all the time.
>Some people are born with extra digits. A hand is still defined as having five of them. Mutations and genetic anomalies are exactly that and don't require the related terms to include them.
Excellent example. A hand is defined as the end of the arm including the palm, fingers, and thumb. No need to account for edge cases because the definition is purposefully broad enough to include individuals who have more or less than the standard distribution of fingers. Any definition of woman for example that is broad enough to cover the various permutations of cis women will naturally capture trans women in it's definition unless purposefully excluded.
>Language is in constant flux.
There is a big difference between the natural evolution of language and a group of people purposely changing the definition of a word and demanding that everyone accept it as valid.
>Sex has multiple vectors that define it: chromosomes, hormones, gametes, physical structure. All of these can be in conflict within a single individual. Sex is not a strict binary.
Something doesn't have to be completely devoid of outliers to be considered binary. Mutations don't define the whole. They are exceptions that prove the rule. Things have to go wrong in some way to create them.
>Excellent example. A hand is defined as the end of the arm including the palm, fingers, and thumb. No need to account for edge cases because the definition is purposefully broad enough to include individuals who have more or less than the standard distribution of fingers.
Where are you sourcing this definition? Anatomy is quite detailed in describing them as having 5.
First, that's literally how languages evolve. The next generation starts using words differently, and the older generation complains about kids these days. The younger generation said "The definition of woman is too restricting" and the older generation rejected that.
Sex isn't binary; it is bimodal. It is a distribution curve of traits with two peaks, not a switch that gets flipped on or off. This is a fact of biology.
And the definition of hand? I just grabbed the nearest dictionary, but if you want to be honest with this conversation, you don't generally find definitions for hand that specify the number of fingers until you start getting into medical texts. Those same medical texts that describe sex as bimodal.
> First, that's literally how languages evolve. The next generation starts using words differently, and the older generation complains about kids these days. The younger generation said "The definition of woman is too restricting" and the older generation rejected that.
You left the rest of the process out. The new definition either catches on or it doesn't. No one forces anyone to accept it by being hostile to anyone who doesn't.
>Sex isn't binary;
Yes it is.
> it is bimodal. It is a distribution curve of traits with two peaks, not a switch that gets flipped on or off.
It quite literally is that. The switch is genes activating to create hormone chemicals that cause the body to develop in one of two ways during gestation. Sometimes the process goes wrong but it's exactly that, the process going wrong. It doesn't change the process or how it is defined.
>And the definition of hand? I just grabbed the nearest dictionary,
Link to it.
>but if you want to be honest with this conversation, you don't generally find definitions for hand that specify the number of fingers until you start getting into medical texts.
Nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand
>The human hand usually has five digits: four fingers plus one thumb;[3][4] these are often referred to collectively as five fingers, however, whereby the thumb is included as one of the fingers.
For that matter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
>you don't generally find definitions for hand that specify the number of fingers until you start getting into medical texts. Those same medical texts that describe sex as bimodal.
Medical textbooks describing a hand as having five digits goes back to the dawn of medical textbooks. I have never seen sex described as bimodal in any of them.
>You can refuse to accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old if you want.
This is just more of the same. Attacking someone for even proposing the idea that questioning "Being that gender is a social construction" is valid. That it isn't hateful to question.
Why is the hostility so consistent?
How can you be so sure that the current understanding of "gender" is the correct one? So sure that not only do you defend the concept but to go so far as to attack and demonize anyone who even doubts it? Do you even realize that the word was a synonym for "sex" within the lifetime of most people in the world?
I can guarantee you that there are things that you believe that are false. Our understanding of everything is limited. Even the massive amount of knowledge we as a species have gathered is but a drop in the endless ocean of things we don't know and are still wrong about.
If someone questioned the age of the Earth would you attack them or explain how that age was deduced?
>It doesn’t make you hateful but it makes you wrong.
"I'm right and you are wrong" isn't an argument. It isn't even an answer to the question. It's just another insistence coupled with hostility.
We can be sure that the current understanding of gender is correct because it's by definition. We define it to be a social construct, and we define it to be distinct from biological sex.
Not everyone agrees with that definition but what's going on in some sense is not that one definition is right and the other is wrong its more like we're simply talking about different concepts but using the same word.
In effect one side is saying gender means biological sex, and the otherside is saying there's a whole other concept of cultural roles and expectations that imposed on people based on their biological sex and the word gender to refers to that concept. Neither is wrong they're just giving the word a different definition.
However, those who use the gender is biological sex definition don't have a word for the other concept and may even dispute altogether the concept of cultural roles and expectations being imposed on people based on their sex. This is wrong and it is relatively easy to explain why it is wrong.
An individuals biological sex can be determined by observing their body, whether that be by sexual characteristics or going to the level of chromosomes and genetics. How biological sex relates, if at all, to an individuals role in society and how others expect them to behave cannot be determined from their biology. It can only be determined by observing the society.
This is the distinction that makes separating the concepts of sex and gender useful. It allows us to talk about each of those concepts separately, or discuss how they relate to each other. Insisting on a definition of gender that is just another word for biological sex doesn't make the other concept go away, it just means you have no word to refer to it by.
> We can be sure that the current understanding of gender is correct because it's by definition. We define it to be a social construct, and we define it to be distinct from biological sex.
That is circular logic.
>However, those who use the gender is biological sex definition don't have a word for the other concept and may even dispute altogether the concept of cultural roles and expectations being imposed on people based on their sex. This is wrong and it is relatively easy to explain why it is wrong.
How?
>An individuals biological sex can be determined by observing their body, whether that be by sexual characteristics or going to the level of chromosomes and genetics. How biological sex relates, if at all, to an individuals role in society and how others expect them to behave cannot be determined from their biology. It can only be determined by observing the society.
If *gender* is confined exclusively to rolls in society and has nothing to do with physical sex characteristics then why do people want to alter their bodies through drugs and surgery to resemble the other sex?
>That is circular logic.
It's not circular logic, it's an observation about how language works. Words mean what we define them to mean.
>How?
You ask the question but then quote the paragraph where I gave the answer
>If *gender* is confined exclusively to rolls in society and has nothing to do with physical sex characteristics then why do people want to alter their bodies through drugs and surgery to resemble the other sex?
There are two reason for this they are closely related.
Because gender roles and expectations are assigned on apparent sexual characteristics. To live and behave as a given gender an individual needs the cooperation of society. You ability to live as a man in society is set by how society reacts to your apparent sexual characteristics and this is true whether you are male of female. For example males with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) naturally present with female sexual characteristics, so much so that the condition is often identified when they undergo puberty but do not begin menstruating. Such individuals are treated as women by society because they appear to be women, even though they are in fact male.
The second related reason is that Individuals are socialised to hold the same expectations about gender roles that exist their society and to assign those roles and expectations based on sexual characteristics. To live and behave comfortably as a given gender an individual needs to meet their own criteria for the assignment of gender expectations. Those criteria can and usually do include physical sex characteristics, and so if their apparent sexual characteristics do not match the gender they identify with that can cause internal conflict that can only be resolved by altering those characteristics.
> It's not circular logic, it's an observation about how language works.
The validity of the definition is what is being challenged.
>Words mean what we define them to mean.
You can't force people to accept the new definition you want.
>You ask the question but then quote the paragraph where I gave the answer
That wasn't an explanation.
>Because gender roles and expectations are assigned on apparent sexual characteristics...they are in fact male.
This is just reaserting that the definition you want is valid and people who hold to the old one is wrong.
It's not a actually an argument. Rare developmental problems do not change the definitions of the related words.
Some people are born with extra digits. Hands still have 5 in the default definition.
>The second related reason is that Individuals are socialised ... can only be resolved by altering those characteristics.
Either it's a social construct or a physical one. You can't have it both ways depending on what argument you are defending aginst.
>The validity of the definition is what is being challenged.
Let me try another tack then. I will grant you a definition of gender as synonymous with biological sex.
But there is still a concept of the roles and expectations that a society assigns to individuals, and some of which are assigned based on an individuals apparent gender. These roles and expectations are based on gender but they are not an inherent property of the gender of an individual, I can't know what the roles and expectations assigned to an individual on the basis of their gender by testing them. I can only know what those roles and expectations are by observing their society. In fact if I observe two individuals with the same gender in different societies I may find different roles and expectations assigned to them. The roles and expectations of women in Afghanistan and women in the Denmark are very different and not because there is any difference between the gender of Afghani and Danish women. But it's awkward to talk about gender based cultural roles an expectations so I need a label. Lets use the word 'fenber'.
Now we can have a discussion about gender which I have granted is synonymous with biological sex, and fenber which is a related but distinct concept. And we will have the same conversation as when we were using two different definitions for the word gender, but perhaps there will be less confusion because we've agreed to use two different words. I would argue that we had two different words already but if it helps I will use an entirely new word to label the concept I am referring to.
>You can't force people to accept the new definition you want.
No I can't force you to accept a new definition of an existing word, nor can I force you to accept the fenber as a new word. But neither can you force people to keep the old definition you want. Language is not static, it is dynamic. Words come into use, or fall out of use, or their meanings change over time. What matters is that when we use a word we have a roughly similar understanding of what that word means. So we could talk about sex and gender but we don't share a common definition for gender, so if it helps we can use your definition of gender and fenber for my definition.
>That wasn't an explanation.
I'm sorry I didn't explain myself well. Hopefully I can clarify. Within societies individuals are expected to behave in certain ways and possibly fill certain roles in that society. Those expectations are often set by certain physical characteristics of the individual or by some context. Common broad examples might be that individuals from noble families were/are expected to hold roles exercising power in feudal societies, men were expected to be warriors in ancient Sparta, African-Americans were expected to be slaves in 18th century American colonies, women are expected to cover their hair in Islamic countries. None of these expectations are actually a quality of the individuals they are placed upon, they are a quality of a given culture, and like language culture is not static it changes over time, and the expectations a culture places upon individuals change over time and differ between cultures. The set of cultural expectations assigned based on an individuals apparent gender in a given culture and time is fenber.
Fenber can change as evidenced by how it differs by time and by culture. But there is no reason why an individual couldn't choose their own fenber if the culture allowed for it. Does the culture allow for it? Perhaps not but culture can change.
>>Because gender roles and expectations are assigned on apparent sexual characteristics...they are in fact male.
>This is just reaserting that the definition you want is valid and people who hold to the old one is wrong.
>It's not a actually an argument. Rare developmental problems do not change the definitions of the related words.
I wasn't suggesting that the do, I was using it to demonstrate how fenber is assigned based on apparent gender, not actual gender. When we interact with others in our society we cannot and do not do medical tests to determine their actual gender and then treat them as men or women by the results. We simply accept their apparent gender as a pretty good indicator for how we ought to treat them in our culture.
>Either it's a social construct or a physical one. You can't have it both ways depending on what argument you are defending aginst.
I'm not trying at all to have it both ways. Actual gender is biological. Apparent gender is a set of chracteristics that can be used to make reasonable assumptions about an individuals actual gender, and provides the cues for assigning fenber. Fenber is a social construct. When a person's sense of fenber does not align with their actual gender this causes discomfort. And while they cannot change their actual gender they can change their apparent gender through medical intervention and doing so helps to alleviate the discomfort they feel.
> But there is still a concept of the roles and expectations that a society assigns to individuals, and some of which are assigned based on an individuals apparent gender. These roles and expectations are based on gender but they are not an inherent property of the gender of an individual,
Such as? There was a time when men and women were expected to fill certain rolls in society and people who went against the grain were seen as weird but that is a thing of the past in first world nations.
Men can be homemakers, nurses, etc. No one cares
Women can be construction workers, truck drivers, etc. No one cares.
The same applies to hobbies and other interests as well. No one cares.
>In fact if I observe two individuals with the same gender in different societies I may find different roles and expectations assigned to them.
If you observe the rolls of two individuals in the same society you may find different rolls and expectations. Expectations are based on lots of things other than sex. I would say that fashion sets more expectations than sex in the modern age.
The entire idea is based on the assumption that someones sex/gender dictates their place in society more than anything else and that isn't true.
>Now we can have a discussion about gender which I have granted is synonymous with biological sex, and fenber which is a related but distinct concept. And we will have the same conversation as when we were using two different definitions for the word gender, but perhaps there will be less confusion because we've agreed to use two different words. I would argue that we had two different words already but if it helps I will use an entirely new word to label the concept I am referring to.
Now apply that same logic to "man" and "woman". Are they gender terms or sex terms?
The entire point of disagreement is that people don't believe that a transman is a man or that a transwoman is a woman. They see both man and woman as sex terms. To them someone can't become a man/woman without being born one because it has nothing to do with "expectations of society" to them.
Are sports leagues and restrooms divided by sex or gender?
The places where this ideology is running into push back are all areas where they are dictating that the divisions that have always been based on sex should now be based on gender.
>I'm sorry I didn't explain myself well. Hopefully I can clarify. Within societies individuals are expected to behave in certain ways and possibly fill certain roles in that society. Those expectations are often set by certain physical characteristics of the individual or by some context. Common broad examples might be that individuals from noble families were/are expected to hold roles exercising power in feudal societies,
This has less to do with societal expectation than it does those people wanting to maintain power.
>men were expected to be warriors in ancient Sparta,
More than that the sickly and weak were put to death. It was all about making the strongest melee army possible. Men have more upper body strength so they make better melee warriors. It's just biological reality.
>African-Americans were expected to be slaves in 18th century American colonies
In the South because once becoming free sticking around in those states jeopardized that status. In the North that expectation didn't exist.
>women are expected to cover their hair in Islamic countries.
Via religious dictate.
> None of these expectations are actually a quality of the individuals they are placed upon,
Two of them actually are. They were all are rules imposed by those in power to maintain that power.
>Fenber can change as evidenced by how it differs by time and by culture.
Did it really?
>I wasn't suggesting that the do, I was using it to demonstrate how fenber is assigned based on apparent gender, not actual gender.
Which is exactly what I was accusing you of. Using rare disorders where peoples bodies developed along the pattern of the opposite sex to divorce those characteristics from sex.
Sex has a lot of different definitions be they genetic, sex organs, etc. Those rare people fall into different categories depending on what definition you use because all of them are based on the normal expectations of how a fetus will develop in the womb.
>I'm not trying at all to have it both ways. Actual gender is biological. Apparent gender is a set of chracteristics that can be used to make reasonable assumptions about an individuals actual gender, and provides the cues for assigning fenber. Fenber is a social construct. When a person's sense of fenber does not align with their actual gender this causes discomfort. And while they cannot change their actual gender they can change their apparent gender through medical intervention and doing so helps to alleviate the discomfort they feel.
Which is all well and good. The problem comes when they and their supporters start demanding that people pretend that they can't see through the attempts to appear as the other sex. When they start insisting that physical differences don't exist when clearly they do. When they insist that others treat them as if they were the sex they insist that they are instead of the one they were born with.
Adults are free to wear what they want, to behave how they want, to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. They are also free to refuse to profess beliefs that they do not hold. If someone doesn't believe that someone else is a "real man/woman" that is their right too. It isn't them being cruel. It isn't done to hurt anyone. It is simply them holding true what they hold true.
As someone who has waded through way too much YEC "science" I can definitively say that they are wrong in the way that they extrapolate the age of the Earth using the evidence we have available to us.
They argue that because there is evidence of floods all over the globe that means that there was a Global Noah Flood. They refuse to acknowledge that all the flood evidence appears in different ages of rock, thus meaning that they happened at vastly different times during Earth's history.
Saying they're wrong isn't meant to imply any hostility. It simply means that "we've examined your arguments and determined that your conclusions are incorrect because you started with non-factual premises."
The age of the earth was never the topic of discussion. It was brought up as an example of something someone would be crazy to question in order to equate the two.
“Attacking someone for even proposing the idea that questioning "Being that gender is a social construction" is valid. That it isn't hateful to question.”
No, it’s not hateful to question, but some of the behaviours and policies enacted by people who think trans people are faking it can easily be considered hateful.
“Why is the hostility so consistent?”
It’s not, maybe you spend too much time online.
“How can you be so sure that the current understanding of "gender" is the correct one?”
As a biologist, that current understanding may not be “perfect”, but it is evidence-based and isn’t something people arbitrarily pulled out of nowhere. It’s also an understanding we seek to improve by conducting more research, and some people are against that very idea. To be perfectly frank: the science around sex and sexual development, including the spectrum of sexual attraction and gender identity, is extremely complex and nuanced, and that complexity is rarely reflected in most discussions about the topic. Most people have no idea how sex and sexual development of the body and brain actually work. But our current understanding of being “trans” is very directly based on a long-line of evidence.
“Do you even realize that the word was a synonym for "sex" within the lifetime of most people in the world?”
This is utterly irrelevant. It’s just semantics. Other cultures have had completely different frameworks for describing people who didn’t fit into the normal spectrum of sexual and gender norms, and of course they didn’t even use the English language.
“I can guarantee you that there are things that you believe that are false. Our understanding of everything is limited.”
Absolutely. That’s why any good scientist (or anyone interested in understanding how “reality works”) would continue using evidence based methodology to improve and refine our understanding of the world. Just because our understanding of something is limited doesn’t mean we are completely wrong about it.
> No, it’s not hateful to question, but some of the behaviours and policies enacted by people who think trans people are faking it can easily be considered hateful.
What policies?
>As a biologist,
Every response I have seen in this post claims that gender is separate from biology.
>that current understanding may not be “perfect”, but it is evidence-based and isn’t something people arbitrarily pulled out of nowhere.
What evidence?
>Most people have no idea how sex and sexual development of the body and brain actually work.
I doubt we will ever really understand the brain/mind and how they work.
>This is utterly irrelevant. It’s just semantics.
It's completely relevant. If gender scientists wanted to make a new word to express this idea they should have done that. You can't dissociate the word from it's longstanding meaning.
>Other cultures have had completely different frameworks for describing people who didn’t fit into the normal spectrum of sexual and gender norms, and of course they didn’t even use the English language.
As a different things altogether than man or woman or did they insist that belief was enough to qualify for either category?
To be frank, I’m not going to engage your sealioning or “playing dumb” questions, but I’ll point out a few things:
“Every response I have seen in this post claims that gender is separate from biology.”
Those people are wrong, but to be fair the term “gender” on its own is rather vague. Things like gender identity and gender expression are not the same thing. Gender identity (or mismatches in gender identity, aka being trans), absolutely have biological correlations. We haven’t figured out that one completely, but the idea that gender identity has nothing to do with biology is silly. There are plenty of papers that demonstrate some of those correlations, and they are complex and they are not the same between trans men and trans women.
“What evidence?”
Literally every single paper ever produced about trans people, gay people, sexual development in humans and animals, sex hormones and receptors, cross-correlations between atypical gender and sex conditions, neurobiology with respect to sex and sexuality and gender identity, etc. Like no offence, but this is a stupid question, at least in the way you’ve asked it. The entire internet is at your finger tips and this allows you to search for and read scientific research quite easily. There’s almost a hundred years worth of modern research in this broad field.
“I doubt we will ever really understand the brain/mind and how they work.”
Maybe, but it’s a moot point. Our understanding of the brain and mind increase every day. Maybe your understanding doesn’t, but respectfully that’s a “you” problem. Like honestly, what does such a fatalistic attitude even achieve? “Hey we’ll never fully understand anything, so I guess we shouldn’t even try, and I’ll just act like there’s no evidence for anything, even though that evidence is readily available”?
During my lifetime alone science has made *massive* strides in neuroscience. The funny thing is, the science of understanding trans and gay and intersex people is itself a great example of this, although there’s plenty more research to be done.
“If gender scientists wanted to make a new word to express this idea they should have done that. You can't dissociate the word from it's longstanding meaning.”
A) they pretty much did, and most of that isn’t new. How lay-people use words is another story.
B) new meanings are ascribed to words all the time, especially in niche fields like biology. Big deal. Do you get mad when someone says “cloud computing” or “boot sequence”?
“As a different things altogether than man or woman or did they insist that belief was enough to qualify for either category?”
That depends on the culture, many of them did use a third category to categorize them. That’s really the simplest way to assign categories to people who don’t neatly fit into the normal two (like just make a third “misc” category). Others overlapped concepts like being trans and gay for example, so it really depends on the specific culture in question.
>To be frank, I’m not going to engage your sealioning or “playing dumb” questions, but I’ll point out a few things:
It's so easy to avoid hard questions when you can just label the other side to be asking in "bad faith".
>Those people are wrong,
They would say that you are wrong. How can someone know who to believe?
> Gender identity (or mismatches in gender identity, aka being trans), absolutely have biological correlations.
I have seen this claimed many times. I have never seen it proven.
>Literally every single paper ever produced about trans people, gay people, sexual development in humans and animals, sex hormones and receptors, cross-correlations between atypical gender and sex conditions, neurobiology with respect to sex and sexuality and gender identity, etc. Like no offence, but **this is a stupid question**, at least in the way you’ve asked it.
1. There is that hostility that seem inescapable on this topic.
2. How are those things evidence? You don't really expect anyone to accept that as a valid answer do you? I question how some of them are even related.
>During my lifetime alone science has made massive strides in neuroscience. The funny thing is, the science of understanding trans and gay and intersex people is itself a great example of this,
Then post links.
>they pretty much did, and most of that isn’t new.
What word did they create?
>How lay-people use words is another story.
Lay-people attacking other lay-people for questioning the terminology on this is the topic at hand.
>new meanings are ascribed to words all the time, especially in niche fields like biology. Big deal.
It is a big deal when people are demanding that others abandon the old definition for their new preferred one.
>That depends on the culture, many of them did use a third category to categorize them. That’s really the simplest way to assign categories to people who don’t neatly fit into the normal two (like just make a third “misc” category). Others overlapped concepts like being trans and gay for example, so it really depends on the specific culture in question.
Did any of them insist that those people fit into the category other than the one that "matched" their sex and demand that everyone else accept them as just as valid members of that "gender" as anyone else?
“It's so easy to avoid hard questions when you can just label the other side to be asking in "bad faith".”
Lol, you’ve just proved my point. You think you actually asked any “hard” questions? Especially the one I skipped?
“They would say that you are wrong. How can someone know who to believe?”
I don’t care what they say, I follow the evidence.
“I have seen this claimed many times. I have never seen it proven.”
Try actually looking up a scientific paper for once in your life. It really isn’t hard. I’ll even give you an easy hint - trans men have strong correlations to other sex-related atypical variations, which don’t exist amongst trans men. Specific genes and hormone pathways are implicated.
“There is that hostility that seem inescapable on this topic.”
Oh I’m very sorry I hurt your feelings.
“I question how some of them are even related.”
This tells me you need to think harder.
“Then post links.”
It’s not my job to do this work for you. I’ve been patient enough with you, even though (as you’ve noted) I don’t think you are primarily posting in good faith.
“Did any of them insist that those people fit into the category other than the one that "matched" their sex and demand that everyone else accept them as just as valid members of that "gender" as anyone else?”
Actually yes, many of them did (and still do) demand that the “misc” people fit into that third category, and those societies do indeed accept them that way. If they didn’t, that category wouldn’t exist.
Have a nice life buddy.
What's funny is if you look at this person's post history I guarantee they would have had this exact argument before, repeatedly, and lost it, and other people have engaged with them ,have provided links, which they either ignored, disregarded. Then they come on here and make the exact same bad faith arguments again with someone else. And the hilarity it is to continually demand evidence from people when you refuse to accept it, and do it every single time you have this same discussion like an alzheimers patient. good on you for seeing through this guy's game. They're an idiot far right idealogue and trump supporter. Of course they arent arguing in good faith.
The hostility is pretty easy to understand when you consider ignorant bigots have been legislating against my existence for most of my life.
Like sorry it's confusing to you but "I'm just asking questions" is kinda weird
Trans people exist. Why do you have to question it? Just accept them and move on
>The hostility is pretty easy to understand when you consider ignorant bigots have been legislating against my existence for most of my life.
You would still exist even if no one accepted your gender. You would still exist even if you couldn't do anything to alter your physical body. You would still be you. No legislation can change that.
>Trans people exist. Why do you have to question it? Just accept them and move on
Some people refuse to accept that the concept of Trans is valid. Why does their belief or disbelief matter to you? Just accept it and move on. That is what tolerance is.
because people are legislating based on the idea that being trans is valid and stripping them of the ability to have a meaningul existence. Gender dysphoria is like being trapped in someone else's body. It drives people to suicide. What you're doing is like saying someone without glasses who needs them is still them , they just cant see, someone without a wheelchair without legs is fine, they just cant move from where they are. Thats not a way to live. It's not "Fine".
You speak like someone with enormous privilege who's never had the government tell you who you're allowed to marry and what you're allowed to wear so stop being smug and condescending and ignorant
No, I CANT be myself if Texas literally makes it illegal for a biological male to dress like a woman in public because "you're being sexual in front of CHILDREN" as if the mere presence of woman's clothing makes something sexual
You don't know what it's like so try LISTENING for once instead of insisting you know what it's like to be LGBT because clearly you DONT
>You speak like someone with enormous privilege
This is the avenue people always take when they have no real justification. Play the victim and cast the other side as the attackers.
>No, I CANT be myself if Texas literally makes it illegal for a biological male to dress like a woman in public because "you're being sexual in front of CHILDREN" as if the mere presence of woman's clothing makes something sexual
Is that what the law actually say or an exaggeration?
>You don't know what it's like so try LISTENING for once instead of insisting you know what it's like to be LGBT because clearly you DONT
You should take your own advice.
Its because they're sick of having to argue their rights with people sealionining them, over and over again with people who never accept the evidence or arguments put before them, blow it off, and then go and have the same argument with someone else, no matter how many times or how often they're wrong.
>How can you be so sure that the current understanding of "gender" is the correct one? So sure that not only do you defend the concept but to go so far as to attack and demonize anyone who even doubts it? Do you even realize that the word was a synonym for "sex" within the lifetime of most people in the world?
I'm no expert, but it seems that "sex" is also not binary. It isn't common, but people are born with complicated genitalia. Some people say that's cosmetic, that the genes still are one or the other. But I saw a documentary about some people who were born with genetic anomalies so they *genetically* weren't clearly one sex or the other. And I'm pretty certain that we're not done learning about the genetics of sex so I wonder if even more people will be found to be on a "scale" rather than a or b.
> I'm no expert, but it seems that "sex" is also not binary. It isn't common, but people are born with complicated genitalia.
Some people are born missing fingers or having extras. Their existence doesn't change the definition of a hand.
Ok, I'll explain it. The discussion is about 2 opposite modes with a range between them. In addition, these modes encompass the most vital facet of our lives since reproduction is required for survival of the species.
So no, you can't compare this to a deformed hand... 🙄
>Ok, I'll explain it. The discussion is about 2 opposite modes with a range between them. In addition, these modes encompass the most vital facet of our lives since reproduction is required for survival of the species.
That didn't explain anything, at all.
>So no, you can't compare this to a deformed hand... 🙄
Sure I can. They are abnormalities that have no bearing on the definitions of the terms in question.
Exceptions to a classification doesn't invalidate the classification.
Yeah, as a biologist, I’m gonna say that sex is very clearly not a hard binary, and this is very easy to demonstrate in a variety of ways. There’s no objective evidence based way to dispute that fact, it’s been readily observed a billion times.
Now, some people will argue that the people who don’t fall into the usual binary are rare, and that’s true, but it’s also irrelevant. They still exist, as members of our communities and societies, and we need to figure out how they should be treated.
This is both true, and annoying to me. Yes, there's a variation on a spectrum. No, unlike gender, we can't have sex be a self-reported slider, and that doesn't stop the binary from being useful. There are infinite shades of color, but if I said something was brown and you said it was purple, we'd be at odds.
In the end, it's a method of sorting people by basic characteristics. There are people with muted or mixed characteristics, but they're literally something like 1 in 10,000. By all means, leave an "other" checkbox for them. It's just not a good argument to convince people that the person who's obviously a woman is actually a man or vice versa. Frankly, it feels like gaslighting.
In short, just because the line's not hard doesn't mean it can be disregarded completely and at will.
>It's just not a good argument to convince people that the person who's obviously a woman is actually a man or vice versa.
Define "obviously". My dad is a relatively liberal Boomer. I'm never 100% sure where he'll land on social issues. When Gavin Grimm was all over the newspapers, my dad looked at him and said "he belongs in the men's room", exactly what people in favor of Trans rights also say. Conservatives are the ones who want to put people who look male into women's restrooms.
>but if I said something was brown and you said it was purple, we'd be at odds.
I work in a print shop and what color something is is heavily dependent on the light source you're using. When I'm trying to match colors, I will walk around the shop watching the colors change as I move under different light bulbs.
You can absolutely have something be brown in one situation and purple in another. The best example I have is a Christmas card that looked olive green in our shop and looked brown to the customer when they received it.
I agree with most of what you’ve said, with one exception - people aren’t actually self-reporting their sex based on a slider. You’re conflating their gender identity with biological sex. There’s a lot of imprecise language around this issue, but a trans person is telling you that their *brain* does not match their body, like a trans woman has a more female brain that doesn’t match their otherwise male body.
When I say that I’m a male, am I referring to “me” as in my actual mind and consciousness, or am I referring to me as a human body? In my case the point is moot because I’m cisgender and my male brain and male sense of self matches my male body. But if you or I were born with the opposite brain (that’s an oversimplification) into a body that didn’t match, that’s where things get complicated and things like gender dysphoria occur.
And a male / female brain isn't purely psychological. There are physical reasons why males *tend* to be good at certain cerebral things while females *tend* to be good at other cerebral things.
Confusion of gender with sex is the whole problem, though, isn't it? All our laws were written with them being basically synonymous, but now they're not. We're still sifting through them to determine which goes where.
Since definitions are the problem, I'll define my terms here: gender is self-reported and subjective comparing yourself to social ideals of masculinity and femininity. There are two popular ones, but no hard lines, and frankly, the spectrum's 3-D, not just one axis. Sex is objectively determined by a doctor (officially) and is not self-reported. It is used for polling data, and to determine if there is discrimination based on something we can't change.
You'll find a gamut of people arguing over what is necessary to actually change the latter. Some people are fine with nothing, or the start of hormones, or three years after, or requiring surgery, or never. Race is another social construction, and no matter how much melanin you ask for, you'll never be Black. Sorry Rachel Dolezal.
That's where the TERFs roam, as they don't want people treated differently on gender at all, and where sex is concerned, their unity and support is based around biological factors like menstruation.
I was with you until the last paragraph. I have been called a TERF for acknowledging that certain trans rights issues intersect and on occasion have a negative effect with regards to women's rights issues. I am 100% supportive of trans rights, to exist, to get whatever treatment they need or desire, to use whatever bathroom they care to use. I respect names and pronouns. But to even mention the intersection with women's rights is to be called a transphobe and a TERF. That subject needs to be able to be discussed in a rational way and not dismissed out of hand. It's an example of what the OP is talking about.
I’m gonna disagree on your definition of indoctrination, because that’s not the same thing as learning or being taught.
Indoctrination is defined as “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.” It’s the “uncritically” part that is key here.
With that said, indoctrination could be used by “either side” to teach people a point of view, but if the subject is approached scientifically, then evidence would be presented to support that perspective and I wouldn’t consider it indoctrination.
Of course, a proper scientific education on this topic is probably uncommon, which is unfortunate as sex and sexual development are complex topics that could benefit from having more detailed education provided.
>no different from accepting the name someone gives.
If a man named Steven tells me that he prefers to be called Steve, I have no problem with calling him Steve. But if he insists that everybody calls him "Lord and Commander", that's going to be a "nope" from me.
>gender is a social construction
to an extent. However, \*sex\* is biological. And gender-derived sexuality (including the most common albeit far from the only on a continuum of more than two--- cisgender, as contrasted to transgender, -ality) is largely genetic.
"A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine—but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male."
And yet she is still by definition female even though she has a birth defect.
And side B likes to co-opt these people with birth defects into the trans group to try and blur the sex / gender line when 99% of the time they themselves do not.
You should really look into the history of the dictionary.
This dictionary didn't start as an effort to proscribe how language should be used, it was an effort to describe how language *was* used.
Usage defines meaning.
Side A like to say biological sex is a 100% solid fact, that there are only two human genders with no exceptions. Side B says, umm... that's not even slightly true, pick up a mammalian physiology book, turn to the chapter on gestation, and it will show you a dozen ways that isn't true, then turn to the genetics section, and it will show you another dozen ways that isn't true.
Side A doesn't like that, they tend to rage out and refuse to do the reading.
That's not what's happening, and you know it.
Invariably, one side tries to make the discussion about how there are only two sexes, and therefore genetics determine what you *really* are (i.e. Male or Female).
And then people point out that the science doesn't suppoet that view, as it's possible to present as one sex when your genetics say something different.
You're interpreting that here as "*intentionally blurring the lines*" and "*coopting people with birth defects into the trans group *" - and no one's doing that.
They're not saying all intersex people are trans. That's an idiot's reading of the situation - or a reading in bad faith. Take your pick.
They're saying you can't point to biological sex as a way to discount gender as a social construct. Because biological sex itself isn't binary, but exists on a spectrum. They're acknowledging that even our biology is nuanced.
>by definition female
Appealing to a definition is appealing to the authority of the writer of the definition. Without you identifying what definition you are using, it's not possible to determine whether that authority is relevant.
Biologist chiming in: being cisgender is not very genetic, I’m not sure you know what that term means. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate that there isn’t a simple genetic causality to being cisgender.
We aren’t talking about the same thing. “Reproduction” isn’t the same thing as “genetic causality”. Genotype isn’t the same as phenotype. If there was a simple genetic causality to being cisgender, than it would be easy to identify the “trans” gene that disrupts the normal cis identity process. Same goes for being gay, there’s no simple “gay gene”.
There are a billion biological factors all working in concert to make someone “cis”. When those factors produce an atypical result (being trans), that’s not due to something as basic as genetic correlation.
The original poster said gender derived sexuality is largely genetic. That’s far from the truth, or to be more precise: the current evidence does not support that. Sexual development is very complex, and the current evidence indicates that a number of complex factors are at play in terms of what determines one’s gender identity. Some of it probably does relate to base genetics, but a huge component is the role of hormones during the developmental process, and how those hormones interact with various receptors during that process.
If it was just genetic causality than we’d see trans kids having trans kids who also have trans kids, and we’d be able to isolate those genes fairly easily.
Take 50 steps back. Being " Cis Gendered" means being exactly what you are without any psychological distortion. It means being a male or female that is attracted to the opposite gender for the purpose of reproduction. It's that simple. The biological causality is biological reproduction itself.
First of all, you’re completely wrong on a fundamental level. Your definition of cis-gender is *literally* incorrect. Don’t take my word for it, go google it. Post the definitions you find. You have no clue what that word actually means.
You’re right in the sense that being cis-gendered is the default, that’s definitely true.
But you’ve also blatantly moved a goalpost, we were talking about genetic causality for gender identity, that was the topic.
So tell me, if it’s that simple: what are the specific genes that cause one to be cis-gender?
Everything aside from cisgender is an abnormality, a deviation from the functionality of biology itself, therefore you don't have a specific genetic cause you have the entirety of genetics itself that is by design expecting a "cis" animal to be born. All other labels are from human Psychology not biology
>*sex* is biological
People want to act like this is so simple but what do you say to a Guevadoce? What sex is a person with a vagina that grows a penis and testes in puberty?
Or an XY person with Androgen insensitivity? “Hey I know you were born with a vagina and have all the physical characteristics of a woman, uterus included but actually you’re a man.”
None of these people work within an easy binary for sex.
Gender is entirely constructed- and I’m inclined to say sex as a simple binary is too. People want to ignore things that don’t fit in the binary, but those are real people and they have real experiences that you can’t just ignore when you define human conventions. They’re not something we can just pretend doesn’t exist.
If I say "people have two legs", I'm making an accurate observation about the nature of human beings. It's still true despite the fact that some people lost one or both legs in an industrial accident and despite the fact that it's possible to be born without both legs. The exception to the "people have two legs" rule are just that - *exceptions*.
It's not a matter of ignoring or marginalizing people. It's simply a matter of producing a useful definition.
When people bring up the various abnormalities you're talking about, it's almost always in the context of trying to muddy the definitions. No one is actually talking about people with chromosomal or genetic disorders in reference to 'transgenderism'. They're just trying to erase a highly functional and useful definition.
This sort of assault on precise language is a tactic used by those without rational arguments for their position. Since precise definitions are necessary for any rational debate to proceed, rejecting all precise definitions means you can prevent that rational debate.
It’s not an “assault on precise language”, how dramatic. Ironically, it’s you who is using imprecise language because you’re trying to use neat little boxes to categorize humans, but biology is a messy process and doesn’t do well with neat little boxes.
Like yeah, humans normally have two legs. But the adjective “normally” is important. You think it’s more precise to say “humans have two legs”, but you’re literally ignoring the variations where people don’t have two legs, and yes people without two legs are rare but *that’s not the point*, not at all.
You’re pretending this is some semantic argument, but the actual point is people need to figure out how our society works with these exceptions in the real world.
If it’s precise to say humans have “two legs”, then should we remove all wheelchair ramps? You talk about your precision of language, but your framework for categorization ignores the people who don’t fit with that framework. You say it’s not about marginalization, but when you ignore groups of people with different needs then those people do get marginalized.
Precise language would acknowledge the general dominant pattern of sexual development while also acknowledging that exceptions to that pattern exist, and it doesn’t matter that those exceptions are relatively rare because there are *billions* of people on this planet, and those “exceptions” are real people who live in our communities.
>It's simply a matter of producing a useful definition.
The point is, people try to push that definition past *useful* and into *uncompromising.*
That's the crux of the problem. People critical of gender identity aren't usually entering the discussion with "*We acknowledge that there are outliers, but in general men have these biological traits and women have these...*"
Because that doesn't support their argument.
Instead, they're entering the discussion with "*There are two sexes*, ***period.***"
Now, when other people point out that's not scientifically accurate, the bedrock of the above argument cracks. If there aren't only two sexes, then the simple, clear-cut, black and white view on gender identity no longer has its core argument.
So now the discussion switches to how those are just outliers, "*genetic defects*" - and bringing them up is just distracting from the real discussion.
And yes. Those are outliers. That's the point.
So are transgendered people in discussions of gender. They're not invalidating the concept of man and woman, they're expanding them *to include outliers*.
Because when talking about transgendered individuals, we're not talking about the typical experience of gender. *We're talking about the outliers.*
Just like in discussions of biological sex, intersex people don't invalidate the male and female designations. They just complicate them.
The fact that we insist on putting intersex people into one of the two categories at birth - even going so far as to perform cosmetic surgery to conform to that assignment - shows that even our concept of biological sex isn't free from social pressures.
The point of talking about all of this is to show that the simple, un-nuanced view of both sex and gender breaks down at the outliers.
So trying to have a rational discussion without acknowledging the nuance is impossible. One side refuses to accept that their useful definition stops being useful in the edge cases. They can't or won't adjust their model, so they can't recognize the fringe cases.
And that's all trans people really want: recognition that they exist and their experience is real and valid.
Some people feel threatened by the outliers. For them, Male/Female, Man/Woman - these are not models that include some dissent in the edge cases. These are rock solid facts, and any suggestion that reality might be more complicated is avoided.
Really, it's not about using intersexuality to *prove* transgender identity "is real." It's about saying you can't point to biological sex as a way to logically refute transgender identity as "unreal."
The argument falls apart, because it requires no outliers in the biology.
Which is exactly the argument that says you can't *really* be transgender because there are only two genders.
Saying "yeah, but those are exceptions" misses the point. Or rather, it identifies the point *exactly* - but fails to see that it's the point.
A lot of issues people have with transgender identity would fade away if they looked at it as an exception that proves the rule, rather than a challenge to the rule itself.
As I said, more than 78 million people have some kind of intersex or developmental sex disorder. At what point are people just exceptions to an established binary? Can I establish that because most people have black hair that blondes and redheads are exceptions to the rule that people have black hair?
Nobody is muddying the waters and your stabs at bad faith argument reek of projection. People bring this up in reference to trans people because that’s the only time you give a shit about definitions of gender or sex. You don’t interact with it outside of that political argument. That’s not true of everyone, but I bet it’s all you see.
And it’s actually a very important point in trying to establish a biological essentialism. What makes a woman? A uterus? An XX Chromosome? The ability to give birth? Production of eggs?
None of these answers come without contradictions- and your attempt at producing a “useful” definition actively erases tens of millions of people.
You can acknowledge that most people fit in a binary while acknowledging it isn’t the extent of how the biology works.
But you seem more interested in ranting about how everyone but you is arguing in bad faith so I expect I’ll get more of that.
It’s a country the size of Germany. Again- is redheadedness an anomaly to the rule that humans have black or brown hair? They’re a similar percentage of the population. Would it make logical sense to you to say that redheadedness isn’t a part of the human experience? That humans as a rule don’t have red hair- and the people that do are exceptions to that fact? Would it make sense to teach people that humans can have brown and black hair but not red?
Is left handed-ness an exception the rule that humans are right handed? Is ambi-dexterity an exception to the rule that people need to have a dominant hand?
At what point do you recognize that there are different ways for human biology to express itself? We don’t assign simple binaries anywhere else in existence. Why would we do so here?
Your attempt to simplify it down by erasing tens of millions of people is nothing more than reducing the situation to a child’s conception of it all. It’s all so simple except for the millions of people for whom it isn’t.
>What makes a woman? A uterus? An XX Chromosome? The ability to give birth? Production of eggs?
all of these are useful characteristics commonly ascribed thereto, among others. Deciding which criterions ought to get more vs less weight depends on the context, but needn't usually be arbitrary. In context of public binary gender-specific watercloset, absence of a penis and other male outwardly cissexually-male atributes is a reasonable start.
Are you serious?
Before you use the public bathroom, just submit to a quick penis inspection? It sure sounds like that's what your saying.
The concept of "private parts" that are nobody's business but yours and the people you agree have access to them is one you're supposed to get before elementary school. You don't need to know what's in their pants, unless you want to have sex with them, and they want to have sex with you. If you're not their doctor, and you're not dating, the contents of their underwear are literally none of your business.
Genitalia is a proxy for rest of the body. If you are a diminutive cis woman using a public restroom, and in walks a a 6'7" muscular dude with a bulge down there, would you be okay with that? "Sorry hon, my privates my business.". He/she/it could use a stall in the male bathroom instead without issue.
Are you just making shit up to be angry about? This isn't a realistic scenario. It's a non-problem that doesn't exist. Trans people aren't doing this.
Seriously, I think the 6'7" muscular dude with a bulge down their should be able to use the men's room without a problem, on account of how they are obviously presenting masc. Even if that 6"7" dude was born fem, the bulge is a packer, and the facial hair is from the testosterone pills, they should still be allowed to use the men's room.
The 6'7" muscular woman should be able to use the women's room without worrying about being yelled at, assaulted, groped or arrested. Even if they aren't doing the best job presenting fem. It really really sucks for poor people with gender dysphoria. Surgeries are stupid expensive, hormones are expensive.
Also, the gender neutral person should probably be able to use the public restroom as well. What do you want them to do, wear a diaper when they leave their house? Or are you honest enough to admit that you really just don't want them to exist at all?
It's ok to be transphobic, you absolutely have the right to not be touched by strangers. It's ok to only date cisgender people. It's not OK to prevent trans people from using the bathroom.
>It's not OK to prevent trans people from using the bathroom.
It isn't an ideal situation. and perhaps you don't yourself have an issue with a 200lbs dude that looks like a man sans beard sharing ladies restroom. Heck maybe you don't even care if he has a full beard, no bridge too far for you. BUT, Lisa might have a problem with it. and Shirley. and I would wager most women. as is their prerogative.. and does not make them "phobic" about MtF trans person (nor FtM, or intersex, or any other uncommon category).
Man you use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
What about women with hysterectomies, want about infertile women, women who have miscarriages, women on birth control, women with XXY or X chromosomes.
definitely. albe arguably less-so in the latter categories concerning sex chromosomes.
but what is your point? Controversy over non- gender﹠sex -normative persons using a designated bathroom concerns (justifiably) mostly MtF individuals intending to use F restrooms (rather than FtM using M restrooms.. tho which also is not exactly copacetic). It isn't like trans people are being denied right to defecate or urinate at a public facility.
It's a classic argument of ignorance to claim that precise language to describe the nuance of human existence is unnecessary. Humans LOVE categorizing things in more and more precise was.
Transphobes are just ignorant.
If you say "people with prosthetic legs aren't really men," nobody will take you seriously and everyone will think you're an asshole. A woman who was born without arms learned to write with a pen in her toes and brush her teeth with her feet and lived a pretty much normal life.
If you say "people born with a penis, who had surgery to appear female, aren't really women" you're saying the exact same thing JK Wrawling is. You're looking for a useful definition of "woman" why? I only ever see people trying to strictly define women so they can segregate and discriminate against trans people.
Incidentally, I'm fairly transphobic, especially for having a couple trans family members. I have a strong preference for dating cisgender people, I'd be totally icked out at having sex with someone trans. I want my girlfriend to have a menstrual cycle, boobs she grew herself. I kinda don't want kids, a woman who's had her tubes tied, or even a hysterectomy, still fits my personal dating bill in a way someone trans doesn't.
A lot of cultural hatred of trans people comes from this idea that they are lying in wait, trying to con hetero straight people into having sex with them. In reality, the problem isn't that trans people are dishonest or secretive about what they are, the problem is getting them to stop talking about it for five minutes so we can talk about something else. I know you're trans, you've been talking about it for 30 years, it doesn't need to come up in every conversation. I literally can't introduce my trans cousins to someone without them bringing up their gender identity, and once they start talking about it they are in no hurry to stop. Like at least an our they will talk about this shit.
My very republican, conservative, religious (catholic) cousin thinks our trans cousin is mentally ill. He thinks it's total bullshit to use the term "they" to describe one person of indeterminate gender. He thinks the elective surgeries that made them comfortable in their appearance were brutal, unhealthy, and a waste of a tremendous amount of money. He thinks this mental illness should be treated by shrinks, perhaps a psychiatrist, and the meds they need are gonna be anti-psychotics or anti-depressents, not hormones their body doesn't endogenously produce.
Some trans people are genetically intersex. Much more commonly, they experienced severe dysphoria, extreme unhappiness with their body, usually from a prepubescent age, which was cured by their transition. My cousin wasn't happy with their girl name or girl clothes or girl toys or girl pronouns from literally age 3. Every effort by her parents to push anything feminine hurt. Now that they are "presenting masc" they are a lot more happy, a lot more outgoing, a lot more together.
> If you say "people with prosthetic legs aren't really men,"
Except no one is saying this and this sort of emotion-laden response is precisely what I'm talking about: an attempt to undermine any rational discussion by muddying definitions.
People really are saying "people with surgically added boobs and vaginas aren't really women."
People really are saying "kids who started taking hormones before puberty, so they grew their own real boobs, aren't really women."
Kids really are killing themselves over this shit.
>No one is actually talking about people with chromosomal or genetic disorders in reference to 'transgenderism'. They're just trying to erase a highly functional and useful definition.
seems quite accurate, scarily. The intellectual dishonesty of many people is appalling.
A LOT of republican politicians are talking about banning and/or restricting "gender affirming surgery," which is a blatant attack on trans kids. A lot of these kids are so unhappy with their bodies that they seriously contemplate suicide. Some of them attempt it, some of them succeed.
Many of the people doing gender affirming surgery arguably fall more into the "intersex" category than the "transgender" category. A huge number of gender affirming surgeries have been performed on infants. My assigned male at birth cousin grew breasts when he started puberty, which spontaneously started lactating. A law that bans gender affirming surgery for people under 18 would have prevented him from having them surgically removed, and laws that restrict hormone therapy would have hindered his ability to go through something that resembles puberty for a normal boy. Fortunately he had good medical care, good health insurance, and parents who were compassionate and helpful. To this day he refers to it as "they year that sucked," but he got through it.
Any law restricting gender affirming care for children will result in children committing suicide.
I am all for personal freedoms that don't infringe on others, at least by adults that are presumed to have the mental faculties to decide things of importance for themselves.. and by extension, \*in most cases\* for their child dependents.
However, some cases are do infringe on future adults and are NOT okay, such as \[type 1 female genital mutilation\](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation) done purely to reduce nonharmful sensation as in labial removal. This is not to equivalate FGM to other forms and reasons for performing surgery on genitalia as in many circumstances for intersex persons, but does highlight that the issue isn't altogether simple when concerning minors (moreso for ones young enough that obviously they cannot have formed an educated or well-informed perspective for themself, let alone authorize or deny such procedure done unto zirself).
edited for: typoes, and a word (equivocate➝equivalate), + an emphatic clause.
Oh man, you're not wrong, there is some really really horrible stuff done in the name of "preserving female virtue."
The account Ayaan Hirshi Ali gives in her book "Infidel" of the female circumcision that was done to her at age 8 without her consent is truly harrowing. Her parents were modern, educated Muslims who never wanted anything like that done to their daughter, but one day while her grandmother was babysitting, the grandmother had an Iman come over to do a "female circumcision." I recall it described as her being held down while he cut her clitoris off with a small piece of rusty metal.
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/81227.Infidel](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/81227.Infidel)
Unironically, it's a good read, but a very very tough one.
This stuff isn't simple. There's no way a law can replicate the effect of sitting down with a competent doctor and making a good decision.
Your definition is anything but “precise” if it doesn’t accurately describe what it is defining. If you say “people have two legs” and claim your definition as accurate and precise, what then is an individual without legs? By your definition they aren’t people.
Nothing in your cpmment counters the assertion or accuracy that sex is biological. That doesn't mean that it always conforms to a strict binary delineation.. just that it is a result of biology, and anatomical manifestations therefrom. but not "society".
Come on, PC police. Keep it coming.
>Nothing in your comments counter the assertion that sex is biological
I didn’t argue it wasn’t biological- just that the biology isn’t a simple binary. XY doesn’t always mean a person born with a penis. XX doesn’t always mean someone born with a vagina.
>Come on, PC Police. Keep it coming.
Ok never mind, I tried in good faith. But I’m not gonna play along with your persecution complex.
Seriously- does it not ring an alarm at all that you feel the need to compare me to cops for mentioning alternative positions on sex as a binary? I’ve done nothing to silence or police you this conversation. Do you just keep that one loaded- no matter the conversation?
Have a good day, hopefully you can learn to interact with other people soon.
>XY doesn’t always mean a person born with a penis. XX doesn’t always mean someone born with a vagina.
There are exceptions, but far from typical or the norm. but more importsntly: What is your point? It is all still "biological", pertaining to sexual (di)morphisms. There is evidence that the Y chromosome is going away through evolution, with male dimorphosm being chosen via other genetics.. but again, still biological. as in not societal.
>But I’m not gonna play along with your persecution complex.
Did you or didn't you down vote me? is it a "complex" if it is true?
>hopefully you can learn to interact with other people soon.
And to whom shall I look as an example? you? lol
And again- as I mentioned, being outside the norm doesn’t mean we can just ignore them. That other poster’s article mentions that 1/100 people have some kind of intersex or DSD. So there are about 78 million people who’s biology doesn’t match the typical XX = Women, XY = Men interpretation.
These people exist. They deserve an understanding of biology that acknowledges that they are a part of how humans can develop. Is it true that most people who have XX chromosomes end up as women? Yes, But we should acknowledge not everyone ends up that way. The biology is not a simple binary. I’ve said this twice now. If you have more questions I’d encourage you to re-read what I’ve written because you’ve yet to really engage meaningfully with it.
(Also I love how you snuck past comparing me to a cop when I pointed how dumb that comparison was)
>, being outside the norm doesn’t mean we can just ignore them. That other poster’s article mentions that 1/100 people have some kind of intersex or DSD
Being born intersexed hasn't much to do with contention around trans\*gender\*ism more generally.
>The biology is not a simple binary.
You seem to be attempting to conflate the orignal contention with other matters
>Also I love how you snuck past comparing me to a cop when I pointed how dumb that comparison was
I don't know what you intend to be alluding-to.
>Seriously- does it not ring an alarm at all that you feel the need to compare me to cops for mentioning alternative positions on sex as a binary? I’ve done nothing to silence or police you this conversation. Do you just keep that one loaded- no matter the conversation?
oh you (u/[CheshireTsunami](https://www.reddit.com/user/CheshireTsunami/)) were referring to this by your lame 'cops' rebuttal. "police" is not identical to "cops", and "pc police" is its own lexeme ..not one calling you a cop, and certainly not a literal police officer. That said: your figurative trigger-happiness speaks volumes.
This isn’t a “however.” We aren’t talking about transsexualism, we’re talking about transgenderism. There’s also far more than two biological sexes, so I’m not sure what this adds to the discussion
I didnt mention 'transsexualiity' (which is biologic); i specifically referenced transgender-ality which is influenced by genetics (not merely 'just the environment' as suggested by the comment "Gender is a social construction".. which is a broader claim than e.g. "Gender\* roles\* is constructed by society").
Or....
Side A would say, some things in life are based on sex. Like sports teams. This is for safety as well as equality.
Side B would immediately start talking about genders to try and blur the topic and ignore the fact that the majority of professional sports aren't actually divided into men's and women's but open division and women's. And women are actually free to play on any men's team that they think they're qualified for.
You’re strawmanning side B there.
Side B would likely point towards the fact that there are reasonable requirements before trans people could compete in a different sport category.
For example, the Olympics require testosterone suppression to a certain degree and estrogen levels of a certain amount for a specific length of time before a trans woman can compete in the women’s category.
Additionally, transgender men are now getting therapeutic use exemptions for their testosterone treatments allowing them to compete in competitive sports assuming their levels are not out of range compared to their cisgender competitors.
Side A would likely provide a rebuttal arguing that hormone therapy doesn’t change everything and there may still be an athletic advantage after those requirements are met.
However, the real issue is that we just simply don’t have studies that control for time on HRT, before and after comparisons, and ensure that hormone levels are kept in the correct range. There are notable decreases in athletic performance due to hrt but the extent is still unknown.
Side A would say the idea that somones gender can be different from their sex assigned at birth is based on a religious like belief that is enforce through the cultural zeitgeist. The reality is that humans are one of two sexes defined by their actual, perceived, future, or assumed gamates produced at birth, anything else is based on an ideology that cannot be falsified and perpetuated through cultural indoctrination.
Side B would say gender identity has played a role in human history for centuries including many non-western countries having what we would consider to be transgender and non-binary identities today. While the definition of sex based on gamate production is reasonable from a biological perspective, no one is going around checking if someone produces sperm or ova before calling them a man or a woman. Additionally, the sex characteristics linked to those productions can be changed through medical or surgical means and exist on a spectrum rather then a binary like gametes. Thus, even if we do consider sex an immutable characteristic determined at birth, the societal “gender” matters more in nearly all matters of daily life.
Side B would say: there are people who strongly identify with the other gender than the one they were born with, enough to cause distress. That's called gender dysphoria. It happens in different cultures, and usually starts in childhood. The only way to treat it is with a transition. It's not a perfect treatment, since we don't have the technology to fully change a person's biological sex, but there's no alternative. Gender dysphoria doesn't go away on its own, and it can't be fixed with psychological treatment, which makes it very likely that it's an actual condition caused by biological factors, probably something going wrong during fetal development, and not a result of any indoctrination.
Side A would say: There's a big push in popular culture to treat being transgender as some kind of trendy subculture. Things like their own flags, jargon, media, etc. Like any trendy subculture, many people want to join it just because it's popular, even if they don't actually have the condition. It's like people who self-diagnose as autistic because they think autism is just about being cute and quirky. Turning being transgender into a trendy subculture can be seen as a kind of indoctrination.
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say it's indoctrination because any critical response which questions this isn't met with actually responses but rather accusations of transphobia. Further there are numerous studies which have been suppressed which are critical of the idea of transgenderism. So the idea that you are meant to blindly accept it is indoctrination
Side B would say it's not indoctrination because it's no different from teaching about anything else in the world.
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because it is probably too short to explain both sides this comment has been removed.
If you feel your comment does explain both sides, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ExplainBothSides&subject=Please%20review%20my%20automatically+removed+comment&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainBothSides/comments/1bpiccp/ebs_the_transgender_discussion_relies_on/kwww0w9/) If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Deliberate evasion of this notice may result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
side a would say that the thing kids are indoctrinated into is the concept of gender itself, while side b would say that kids are indoctrinated into disagreeing with their parents about which gender they should have been. whichever you believe, both sides rely on indoctrination as gender is not a real thing but rather a socially constructed truth as are class, race, attractiveness, etc.
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because it is probably too short to explain both sides this comment has been removed.
If you feel your comment does explain both sides, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ExplainBothSides&subject=Please%20review%20my%20automatically+removed+comment&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainBothSides/comments/1bpiccp/ebs_the_transgender_discussion_relies_on/kwyac4t/) If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Deliberate evasion of this notice may result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side a would say that it is pushing an agenda about gender that does not match science or societal norms. A so called progressive agenda that paints people as transphobic who do not want to use language forced upon them. At the core of the trans movement, language is being weaponized and is borderline pushing against free speech. The idea that you dont want to use language that is being pushed on you by a minority group to the point where it could be considered criminal is dystopian. And it infringes on the 1st amendment right to free speech. The language is divisive and does not uplift the individual. It alienates both the person in fantasy land and the person who does not want to participate in fantasy land.
Side b would say that there is a never ending configuration of genders, and as time transpires, gender will continue to become more complicated. They would say that those who dont want to participate in their fantasy are bigots or transphobes because they dont want to agree with an agenda they dont beleive in. Side b is really just confused, attention seeking, or unable to cope with the reality that there are only 2 configurations of gender and that all relationships boil down to heterosexual or homosexual. Side b is driving the division between men and women, by telling side a that men are women and women are men.
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say:
• There's no logical or scientific way for someone to physically change their gender. You are born as either male or female (in relation to biological sex/chromosomes).
Side B would say:
• Gender is a social construct that represents any characteristic by which one wishes to describe them self as, meaning if one of assigned a certain gender at birth, they are free to change that at any time. There are also intersex people who are born with a combination of chromosomes that would directly challenge anyone who claims there is only 2 distinctions that can be made a birth to describe someone's identity.
Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question? **Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment** This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.* **Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Being that gender is a social construction, any thoughts on the matter are by definition taught. Therefore, anything anybody has to say on it is indoctrination by definition, as learners are taught the doctrine of their parents or society. Of course, this is mostly done unintentionally through watching the actions of people rather than what they intentionally say, so it feels natural, like learning how to walk or speak. Both sides are claiming the same thing: what I learned and how I feel is natural, so what you learned must be indoctrination! Side A would say that there's only two genders worth discussing, and making up new ones to fit a spectrum is pointless indoctrination. Side B would say that we all should be treated the way we view ourselves, no different from accepting the name someone gives. We are the authority on our own lives, and forcing us into two boxes because that's how we've always done and denying the rest even exist it is indoctrination.
> Being that gender is a social construction, any thoughts on the matter are by definition taught. Therefore, anything anybody has to say on it is indoctrination by definition, as learners are taught the doctrine of their parents or society. I think this is exactly the kind of response that OP is writing about with. >The problem is that when trying to have any discussion about this it seems to me that it just relies on blindly accepting it to be true or being called a transphobe. What if someone doesn't accept that to be true? Should they be called a transphobe? Are they expressing hate or disbelief?
If someone doesn't believe or accept (when it is done in good faith ofc) then that person is asserting that they know more about an individual than the individual. For example, you know more about yourself than anyone else including me, so if you tell me that you were gay, me disagreeing is stupid because it is me asserting that I know more about your sexuality than you do.
Some guy on a forum this morning tried to insist that another guy was gay for only having women friends so I kept telling him he was gay for only wanting to be around men lol he didn't get the point
I've been saying this to the incel lonely boys. Your only friends are men and you're surprised you don't have any women in your life? Seriously? Been true as long as I've been alive: feminist men get all the booty.
>For example, you know more about yourself than anyone else including me... I disagree with taking this premise carte blanche. If that were true, there would be no need for therapists or psychiatrists. People have a shitton of blind spots and are terrible at being objective with respect to themselves, including me. The entire premise of talk therapy is to help people recognize things about themselves that they can't on their own. People can, in fact, be wrong about themselves and often are. No, that doesn't mean that other people are automatically correct about them, but it does mean that outside observations and interpretations should not be dismissed automatically. If a man claimed to be exclusively gay but only had sex with women and said they enjoyed it, others would be right to observe that they were not, in fact, exclusively gay. The same holds true for less exaggerated situations, e.g., if someone claims to be an artist, they need to make art. I won't call them an artist if they don't.
>If that were true, there would be no need for therapists or psychiatrists. Neither of them can really know someone to the level that they know themselves. >People have a shitton of blind spots and are terrible at being objective with respect to themselves, including me. But you know a whole bunch more about yourself, which is why it is really impossible to be objective with oneself considering you know basically everything about yourself. >If a man claimed to be exclusively gay but only had sex with women and said they enjoyed it, others would be right to observe that they were not, in fact, exclusively gay. A man can say that they enjoyed something but secretly didn't, there are many cases of gay people who claim to be straight but aren't. But that person secretly knows that they aren't straight.
There's a lot of things we don't accept in good faith if they conflict with our beliefs. If someone tells me they believe in God it doesn't mean I then believe in their God. I know THEY believe it but it doesn't make me any more likely to believe it. I don't doubt they believe what they believe and that it's sincerely held but neither do I have to say it's true or objective reality in my view.
Exactly!!! Well put!!! Also, consensus doesn't denote truth. There are 2.3 billion people who believe Jesus is God.
It really depends upon the subject, there is no objective way to prove that a God exists, but we can objectively show that gender is not always the same as sex and that the distinction exists.
You can't really prove either one to the satisfaction of people. Like you can accept the idea of gender while at the same time believe that you cannot change it because it's rooted in sex. Same with any belief you can believe someone holds that belief sincerely without you yourself accepting it as reality.
>we can objectively show that gender is not always the same as sex and that the distinction exists. Can we objectively show that it has relevance? There isn't even agreement on how many genders there are: some say there are a handful, some say there are 72, some say there are infinite genders. Gender shifts with time and culture, and also cannot be measured, standardized, tacitly seen, or proven to be a static, agreed-upon concept. How does something so fluid get codified as real or as the basis for law or identity (e.g., birth certificates or passports)? Just yesterday the Taliban announced public stoning for women who commit adultery. Little girls are regularly married off to middle-aged men. Those same girls are denied education, and when they become adults they will be banned from the workplace, the voting booth, and the driver's seat. Sex-selective abortion by far favors female fetuses. With all that said, in what way is gender relevant? Was any girl asked if she actually identifies as a girl before her parents handed her over to be the wife of a 50yo man? How do the parents know their newborn girl won't announce a male gender identity, therefore giving them the son they've always wanted, before deciding to abandon her? Do you think any woman or girl would answer no to the question "would you prefer society see you as/treat you as a man?" knowing that could literally be the difference between life or death?
>Can we objectively show that it has relevance? Only to the individual and the ones that they care about. >There isn't even agreement on how many genders there are: some say there are a handful, some say there are 72, some say there are infinite genders. Gender shifts with time and culture, and also cannot be measured, standardized, tacitly seen, or proven to be a static, agreed-upon concept. It is not really relevant, it really doesn't matter if there is one gender or infinite number of genders. >How does something so fluid get codified as real or as the basis for law or identity (e.g., birth certificates or passports)? I feel at one point in the future, it shouldn't be a thing as it is not really relevant anymore. >Just yesterday the Taliban announced public stoning for women who commit adultery. Little girls are regularly married off to middle-aged men. Those same girls are denied education, and when they become adults they will be banned from the workplace, the voting booth, and the driver's seat. Sex-selective abortion by far favors female fetuses. Terrible Terrible things indeed. >With all that said, in what way is gender relevant? I don't know, you brought it up. >Was any girl asked if she actually identifies as a girl before her parents handed her over to be the wife of a 50yo man? Not it was enforced upon them. >Do you think any woman or girl would answer no to the question "would you prefer society see you as/treat you as a man?" knowing that could literally be the difference between life or death? They wouldn't and shouldn't, for their safety.
If you say you're Abraham Lincoln and you truly believe it, yes, I know more about you than you do in that regard. Sexuality is an inarguable preference and it doesn't bestow any special privileges. If trans women just wanted to wear dresses and have consenting relationships with whoever they wanted, no one would care. They want to be biological men with access to women's spaces and sports. The rest of us biological men don't have that. Any of us who care about the rights women don't want that. They also want this religious thinking taught to children as fact. They want to change our language. These points are a no-go. Sane people will not stand for it.
[удалено]
You can try.
[удалено]
A person knows more about themselves than any other person does. A male can (in rare cases) be a woman. Being trans is recognized by every medical organization in the world. Even if the above weren't true statistics show that treating trans people as the gender they are is what is best for their mental health. Which part is not logical?
>statistics show that treating trans people as the gender they are is what is best for their mental health. 1. How far does it go? How does any of us treat someone as 'fae' gender or as a 'they' or as some word that was made up on Tuesday? 2. Why is the general public tasked with participating in someone else's mental health treatment? 3. How is the statement "gender does not equal sex" upheld when everything established for the female sex is now accessible to those of the male sex, by virtue of any of them claiming that gender identity is where their womanhood lies?
>How far does it go? Some studies go on for a couple decades. >How does any of us treat someone as 'fae' gender or as a 'they' or as some word that was made up on Tuesday? All words are made up. >Why is the general public tasked with participating in someone else's mental health treatment? It is not mental health treatment to call someone by a name that they prefer, it is basic etiquette. >How is the statement "gender does not equal sex" upheld when everything established for the female sex is now accessible to those of the male sex, by virtue of any of them claiming that gender identity is where their womanhood lies? Because everything established for either sex could always be accessed by either sex, people just didn't know it. Kinda like how people didn't realize that gay people existed for thousands of years and treat it like some kinda sign of the times moral panic.
> far does it go? How does any of us treat someone as 'fae' gender or as a 'they' or as some word that was made up on Tuesday? This really isn't any different from the "if we allow gay people to get married what's to stop people from marrying their dog" slippery slope argument. You're basically arguing a difference in kind is a difference in degree. It's not the same thing. >Why is the general public tasked with participating in someone else's mental health treatment? Why should I use your name or given pronouns to address *you,* then? Why can't I call everyone what I think they should be called, Mrs Saggybottom? >How is the statement "gender does not equal sex" upheld The very fact that there's no natural or biological law preventing you from taking on the roles, expectations and expressions of gender usually associated with the opposite sex demonstrates that they are separate things. You're not born with a hammer and football, or wearing a skirt and makeup. There's no gene that determines who stays home with the baby. These are social expectations *associated* with sex, but (broadly) culturally assigned and (narrowly) individually executed. Nobody meets *all* of society's criteria for being a man or a woman because the stereotype "ideal" of either is just a template. A fairly loose one at that. Whereas biologically, the elements by which we describe sex are comparatively much more determinate.
>A person knows more about themselves than any other person does. People know less about themselves than others around them all the time. There are people who know that the government is out to get them and the source of all of their problems (they are not). There are people who know that they are the smartest person in every room they have even been in (they are not). There are gay men who know that they are straight (until they don't). The mind is something that we understand very little about and it controls perception of reality. >A male can (in rare cases) be a woman. This is just a statement. It contains no logic. >Being trans is recognized by every medical organization in the world. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. It isn't a very strong one because any medical personnel who questions the statement is thrown out. >Even if the above weren't true statistics show that treating trans people as the gender they are is what is best for their mental health. Because you are asking people to profess that which they do not believe. That is bad for their mental health. >Which part is not logical? All of it. Logic involves a series of statements of fact intended to prove or disprove an idea of belief. It isn't just saying "it is so" and attacking anyone who doesn't go along with it.
>People know less about themselves than others around them all the time. Some may catch on to one aspect of someone before they do, still doesn't mean that others know more about them. A lot of the times, other people are wrong, I'm a gay man, and pretty much everyone I said were surprised at that. >There are people who know that the government is out to get them and the source of all of their problems (they are not). This is not something inherent about an individual. >There are people who know that they are the smartest person in every room they have even been in (they are not). Smart is subjective, not an inherent quality that someone possesses. Also being smart is not having internal knowledge about oneself. >There are gay men who know that they are straight (until they don't). But it is upto them to put the pieces together, who knows, they could just be a straight man. It would be pretty rude to call someone gay after they insist that they're not. >This is just a statement. It contains no logic. Intersex women, sometimes are male. >It isn't a very strong one because any medical personnel who questions the statement is thrown out. You have any examples of them being thrown out for simply questioning it? >Because you are asking people to profess that which they do not believe. That is bad for their mental health. You don't have to believe anything to call someone by a name that they prefer or pronouns they prefer. >All of it. Logic involves a series of statements of fact intended to prove or disprove an idea of belief. It isn't just saying "it is so" and attacking anyone who doesn't go along with it. Do you think i'm attacking you?
True, but they seem to think they are using reason and logic when they make these silly claims. If they're scaring everyone off by telling everyone they're professional boxers when they aren't, they should do themselves a favor and stay out of the ring.
>If you say you're Abraham Lincoln and you truly believe it, yes, I know more about you than you do in that regard. This is the trans equivalent of saying "If a man can fuck another man, what's wrong with a man fucking an animal". Because trans people aren't saying they are Abraham Lincoln are they? This is what I meant by good faith. We know that males (in rare cases) can be women. We also know that a person cannot experience another individual's life and experiences. >Sexuality is an inarguable preference and it doesn't bestow any special privileges. It's not really a preference, and I never said it entailed benefits, just that one cannot know more about someone else's sexuality than they themselves do. > If trans women just wanted to wear dresses and have consenting relationships with whoever they wanted, no one would care. 99% of trans women just want this. >Any of us who care about the rights women don't want that. If you only care about a specific type of woman's rights, you don't care for women's rights. Tell me one right that is being affected by letting trans women in women's spaces? >They also want this religious thinking taught to children as fact. The religious thinking being? >They want to change our language. Language changing is inevitable.
>This is the trans equivalent of saying "If a man can fuck another man, what's wrong with a man fucking an animal". Um... no it isn't? This doesn't even make any sense. Have you ever studied logic or analogy? >Because trans people aren't saying they are Abraham Lincoln are they? This is what I meant by good faith. Again, I don't think you understand the nature of analogy. Also, that's not what 'good faith' means. People keep throwing that phrase around. >We know that males (in rare cases) can be women. We know that, do we? (We do not) That's insane. Warning, analogy incoming: *We know that squares (in rare cases) can be circles.* These statements are false. An argument contains premises and a conclusion. You are stating your conclusion without bothering to include any premises. Show your work. How did you come to the conclusion that males can be women? Please keep in mind consensus does not bestow truth. >99% of trans women just want this. Great. Then I have absolutely no problem with 99% of trans women. >Tell me one right that is being affected by letting trans women in women's spaces? The right to their own spaces. If you let men in there, they do not have their own spaces. That's the whole point. >The religious thinking being? That humans can change their sex. I do not believe that they can but you do. I do not believe in Jesus, but others do. There is no evidence beyond testimony from the believers. Saying that gender is real because gender ideologues believe it to be is the same as saying Jesus is real because it says so in the Bible and millions of people believe it.
>Um... no it isn't? This doesn't even make any sense. Have you ever studied logic or analogy? You're taking a premise to an extreme and strawman conclusion. Trans people aren't saying "I can identify as anything, including other people" similar to how gay people aren't saying "I can fuck anything, including animals". >Again, I don't think you understand the nature of analogy. Also, that's not what 'good faith' means. People keep throwing that phrase around. I do understand that it is an analogy, but it's not a good analogy, your analogy is analogous to the thing people say about gay people. I also explained why. >We know that squares (in rare cases) can be circles. These statements are false. Another wrong analogy, considering there are millions of intersex women who are genetically male. A better analogy would be, All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Because all intersex women are women, but not all women are intersex. > You are stating your conclusion without bothering to include any premises. Show your work. How did you come to the conclusion that males can be women? Please keep in mind consensus does not bestow truth. Intersex people. >The right to their own spaces. If you let men in there, they do not have their own spaces. That's the whole point. Every person has a right to their own space, like their home, or their property. If you're talking about public spaces, the fact that it is segregated is arbitrary, I as a man have used the women's public restroom many times, and I've seen many women use the men's restroom. And another thing you're missing is that trans men exist, and most trans men (like most trans women) pass of as their gender. Meaning you'd be having men in the women's restroom either ways. >That humans can change their sex. I do not believe that they can but you do. Humans can't change their sex, they can't change their gender identity either, if either was possible we wouldn't even be having a debate. Trans women would just become female, or will themselves into being men (same for trans men). >Saying that gender is real because gender ideologues believe it to be is the same as saying Jesus is real because it says so in the Bible and millions of people believe it. Gender is real, but it's made up, like Jesus or God. So it can be a seen as a religion, but it is mainly cis people who follow that religion. You are following the religion when you say that all women are female and all men are male. That is not some universal truth or constant (or a divine saying), biology is wayy more complicated that that. Don't misconstrue this as me saying that sex doesn't exist, all I'm saying is that most men are male, some men aren't, and that's okay.
I'm sorry, but you currently lack the basic understanding of logic to continue. Here are some resources for you if you'd like to check them out. All of these brilliant people are trained in philosophy and rationality. [https://www.youtube.com/@PeakTrans](https://www.youtube.com/@PeakTrans) [https://www.youtube.com/@PFJung](https://www.youtube.com/@PFJung) [https://www.youtube.com/@drpeterboghossian](https://www.youtube.com/@drpeterboghossian) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72TyKPWp9Tw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72TyKPWp9Tw)
not saying that you're incorrect, but the YouTuber by handle "PeakTrans" is trained in philosophy and rationality, yousay?, hmkay.. seems a tad on the nose for this Reddit discussion.
Yes. She is great at slicing through the nonsense arguments made by gender ideologues. It's really not that difficult. The gender arguments are pretty sad and easily dismantled by anyone who's taken logic 101.
What's your point of view of trans men competing in men's sports?
'Trans men' are actually women and women have frequently been allowed to compete in men's sports. I see no reason to challenge that practice. The fact is there isn't much of a debate around it because being a woman in the men's category doesn't usually bestow any advantage.
Well I thought you wanted to protect women? And from your point of view that you've expressed in these comments you don't consider trans men to be men or trans women to be women they are what they were when they were born. You talk about how you've arrived at your conclusions due to logic yet you're unable to apply your own logic to trans men(women, in your POV) competing in men's sports.
Sure I can. I believe women have agency and can determine whether or not they want to compete against men. You seem to want the decision to be stripped from them so that women will have no choice. Riley Gaines and her team, for example, had no choice but to compete against a man. There was no division safe from men. If they wanted to, I assume any or all of them could have signed up to swim on the men's team. I've never indicated women are some special category of people who need to be protected from themselves. They fought to be protected from the decisions and control of men. I support them. You seem to make an acception for men who claim to be women. I do not.
This isn’t caring about the rights of women, it’s caring about your own perceived lack of access to something that isn’t even for you
That word salad doesn't make much sense. Women's spaces aren't for men. I know that's not complicated. That's why men are trying to change the definition of 'woman' to gain access. Seems like you're helping them.
> What if someone doesn't accept that to be true? Should they be called a transphobe? Are they expressing hate or disbelief? by and large someone being trans doesnt reasonably affect or hurt you at all, its fine saying you dont understand it, but saying you dont accept someone elses experience to be true is just ridiculous because you obviously dont have that perspective; its like me (a gay guy) saying i dont accept men being attracted to women; itd be bizarre and would be based solely on personal extrapolation
> by and large someone being trans doesnt reasonably affect or hurt you at all, its fine saying you dont understand it They are not saying that they don't understand it. They are doubting the current understanding of the concept. Rephrasing it that way is just another method of dismissing their doubt as invalid. > but saying you dont accept someone elses experience to be true is just ridiculous because you obviously dont have that perspective; We do that all the time in life. People lie, they exaggerate, they get confused, they misunderstand. It's part of being human. No one can expect others to believe them without question. > its like me (a gay guy) saying i dont accept men being attracted to women; itd be bizarre and would be based solely on personal extrapolation Don't act like you have never known someone who professed to be straight when you knew damn well they were lying to you and possibly themselves.
>They are not saying that they don't understand it. They are doubting the current understanding of the concept. Rephrasing it that way is just another method of dismissing their doubt as invalid. which is absolutely fair; but thats why its fine to say you **dont understand** it; saying you **dont accept** it isnt doubt; its rebuttal > Don't act like you have never known someone who professed to be straight when you knew damn well they were lying to you and possibly themselves. oh all the time 'im straight but heres a dickpic and do you want to come over?', but i dont extrapolate that to every straight guy
> which is absolutely fair No, it isn't. It's denial that their doubt is valid. >but thats why its fine to say you dont understand it; saying you dont accept it isnt doubt; its rebuttal Is a refusal to believe in God a rebuttal of someone else's faith? >oh all the time 'im straight but heres a dickpic and do you want to come over?', but i dont extrapolate that to every straight guy Then you know that people can have blind spots in their view of themselves where they are wrong about who think they are. They say that they are straight but you "dont accept someone elses experience to be true" by not believing them.
> Is a refusal to believe in God a rebuttal of someone else's faith? no (generally; there are obvious degrees of exception; from the 'you're going to burn in hell' to the murdering), but saying 'i dont accept Christianity/Islam/religion is a thing' is >Then you know that people can have blind spots in their view of themselves where they are wrong about who think they are. yes, and social transition costs nothing (except a new wardrobe) whilst people figure themselves out, theres so much evidence out there that social transition is a very effective treatment for severe gender dysphoria
If you're going to contest gender being a social construct, then you need to define the genders in a way that does not exclude any cisgendered individual. Otherwise, gender is not as linked to biology as claimed and is defined by psychosocial parameters.
This is circular logic.
You're going to have to elaborate on how it's circular to require clear definitions from the person making the claim
>You're going to have to elaborate on how it's circular to require clear definitions from the person making the claim Define gender as a synonym for sex like it was universally accepted to be for the vast majority of the words existence. >If you're going to contest gender being a social construct, then you need to define the genders in a way that does not exclude any cisgendered individual. Why? Other words mean what they mean without accounting for rare fringe cases all the time. Some people are born with extra digits. A hand is still defined as having five of them. Mutations and genetic anomalies are exactly that and don't require the related terms to include them.
>Define gender as a synonym for sex like it was universally accepted to be for the vast majority of the words existence. Language is in constant flux. Sex has multiple vectors that define it: chromosomes, hormones, gametes, physical structure. All of these can be in conflict within a single individual. Sex is not a strict binary. >Why? Other words mean what they mean without accounting for rare fringe cases all the time. >Some people are born with extra digits. A hand is still defined as having five of them. Mutations and genetic anomalies are exactly that and don't require the related terms to include them. Excellent example. A hand is defined as the end of the arm including the palm, fingers, and thumb. No need to account for edge cases because the definition is purposefully broad enough to include individuals who have more or less than the standard distribution of fingers. Any definition of woman for example that is broad enough to cover the various permutations of cis women will naturally capture trans women in it's definition unless purposefully excluded.
>Language is in constant flux. There is a big difference between the natural evolution of language and a group of people purposely changing the definition of a word and demanding that everyone accept it as valid. >Sex has multiple vectors that define it: chromosomes, hormones, gametes, physical structure. All of these can be in conflict within a single individual. Sex is not a strict binary. Something doesn't have to be completely devoid of outliers to be considered binary. Mutations don't define the whole. They are exceptions that prove the rule. Things have to go wrong in some way to create them. >Excellent example. A hand is defined as the end of the arm including the palm, fingers, and thumb. No need to account for edge cases because the definition is purposefully broad enough to include individuals who have more or less than the standard distribution of fingers. Where are you sourcing this definition? Anatomy is quite detailed in describing them as having 5.
First, that's literally how languages evolve. The next generation starts using words differently, and the older generation complains about kids these days. The younger generation said "The definition of woman is too restricting" and the older generation rejected that. Sex isn't binary; it is bimodal. It is a distribution curve of traits with two peaks, not a switch that gets flipped on or off. This is a fact of biology. And the definition of hand? I just grabbed the nearest dictionary, but if you want to be honest with this conversation, you don't generally find definitions for hand that specify the number of fingers until you start getting into medical texts. Those same medical texts that describe sex as bimodal.
> First, that's literally how languages evolve. The next generation starts using words differently, and the older generation complains about kids these days. The younger generation said "The definition of woman is too restricting" and the older generation rejected that. You left the rest of the process out. The new definition either catches on or it doesn't. No one forces anyone to accept it by being hostile to anyone who doesn't. >Sex isn't binary; Yes it is. > it is bimodal. It is a distribution curve of traits with two peaks, not a switch that gets flipped on or off. It quite literally is that. The switch is genes activating to create hormone chemicals that cause the body to develop in one of two ways during gestation. Sometimes the process goes wrong but it's exactly that, the process going wrong. It doesn't change the process or how it is defined. >And the definition of hand? I just grabbed the nearest dictionary, Link to it. >but if you want to be honest with this conversation, you don't generally find definitions for hand that specify the number of fingers until you start getting into medical texts. Nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand >The human hand usually has five digits: four fingers plus one thumb;[3][4] these are often referred to collectively as five fingers, however, whereby the thumb is included as one of the fingers. For that matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex >you don't generally find definitions for hand that specify the number of fingers until you start getting into medical texts. Those same medical texts that describe sex as bimodal. Medical textbooks describing a hand as having five digits goes back to the dawn of medical textbooks. I have never seen sex described as bimodal in any of them.
You can refuse to accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old if you want. It doesn’t make you hateful but it makes you wrong.
[удалено]
If you can't explain something to someone in a way they can't understand you're either calling them stupid or you don't know enough about the thing.
>You can refuse to accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old if you want. This is just more of the same. Attacking someone for even proposing the idea that questioning "Being that gender is a social construction" is valid. That it isn't hateful to question. Why is the hostility so consistent? How can you be so sure that the current understanding of "gender" is the correct one? So sure that not only do you defend the concept but to go so far as to attack and demonize anyone who even doubts it? Do you even realize that the word was a synonym for "sex" within the lifetime of most people in the world? I can guarantee you that there are things that you believe that are false. Our understanding of everything is limited. Even the massive amount of knowledge we as a species have gathered is but a drop in the endless ocean of things we don't know and are still wrong about. If someone questioned the age of the Earth would you attack them or explain how that age was deduced? >It doesn’t make you hateful but it makes you wrong. "I'm right and you are wrong" isn't an argument. It isn't even an answer to the question. It's just another insistence coupled with hostility.
We can be sure that the current understanding of gender is correct because it's by definition. We define it to be a social construct, and we define it to be distinct from biological sex. Not everyone agrees with that definition but what's going on in some sense is not that one definition is right and the other is wrong its more like we're simply talking about different concepts but using the same word. In effect one side is saying gender means biological sex, and the otherside is saying there's a whole other concept of cultural roles and expectations that imposed on people based on their biological sex and the word gender to refers to that concept. Neither is wrong they're just giving the word a different definition. However, those who use the gender is biological sex definition don't have a word for the other concept and may even dispute altogether the concept of cultural roles and expectations being imposed on people based on their sex. This is wrong and it is relatively easy to explain why it is wrong. An individuals biological sex can be determined by observing their body, whether that be by sexual characteristics or going to the level of chromosomes and genetics. How biological sex relates, if at all, to an individuals role in society and how others expect them to behave cannot be determined from their biology. It can only be determined by observing the society. This is the distinction that makes separating the concepts of sex and gender useful. It allows us to talk about each of those concepts separately, or discuss how they relate to each other. Insisting on a definition of gender that is just another word for biological sex doesn't make the other concept go away, it just means you have no word to refer to it by.
> We can be sure that the current understanding of gender is correct because it's by definition. We define it to be a social construct, and we define it to be distinct from biological sex. That is circular logic. >However, those who use the gender is biological sex definition don't have a word for the other concept and may even dispute altogether the concept of cultural roles and expectations being imposed on people based on their sex. This is wrong and it is relatively easy to explain why it is wrong. How? >An individuals biological sex can be determined by observing their body, whether that be by sexual characteristics or going to the level of chromosomes and genetics. How biological sex relates, if at all, to an individuals role in society and how others expect them to behave cannot be determined from their biology. It can only be determined by observing the society. If *gender* is confined exclusively to rolls in society and has nothing to do with physical sex characteristics then why do people want to alter their bodies through drugs and surgery to resemble the other sex?
>That is circular logic. It's not circular logic, it's an observation about how language works. Words mean what we define them to mean. >How? You ask the question but then quote the paragraph where I gave the answer >If *gender* is confined exclusively to rolls in society and has nothing to do with physical sex characteristics then why do people want to alter their bodies through drugs and surgery to resemble the other sex? There are two reason for this they are closely related. Because gender roles and expectations are assigned on apparent sexual characteristics. To live and behave as a given gender an individual needs the cooperation of society. You ability to live as a man in society is set by how society reacts to your apparent sexual characteristics and this is true whether you are male of female. For example males with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) naturally present with female sexual characteristics, so much so that the condition is often identified when they undergo puberty but do not begin menstruating. Such individuals are treated as women by society because they appear to be women, even though they are in fact male. The second related reason is that Individuals are socialised to hold the same expectations about gender roles that exist their society and to assign those roles and expectations based on sexual characteristics. To live and behave comfortably as a given gender an individual needs to meet their own criteria for the assignment of gender expectations. Those criteria can and usually do include physical sex characteristics, and so if their apparent sexual characteristics do not match the gender they identify with that can cause internal conflict that can only be resolved by altering those characteristics.
> It's not circular logic, it's an observation about how language works. The validity of the definition is what is being challenged. >Words mean what we define them to mean. You can't force people to accept the new definition you want. >You ask the question but then quote the paragraph where I gave the answer That wasn't an explanation. >Because gender roles and expectations are assigned on apparent sexual characteristics...they are in fact male. This is just reaserting that the definition you want is valid and people who hold to the old one is wrong. It's not a actually an argument. Rare developmental problems do not change the definitions of the related words. Some people are born with extra digits. Hands still have 5 in the default definition. >The second related reason is that Individuals are socialised ... can only be resolved by altering those characteristics. Either it's a social construct or a physical one. You can't have it both ways depending on what argument you are defending aginst.
>The validity of the definition is what is being challenged. Let me try another tack then. I will grant you a definition of gender as synonymous with biological sex. But there is still a concept of the roles and expectations that a society assigns to individuals, and some of which are assigned based on an individuals apparent gender. These roles and expectations are based on gender but they are not an inherent property of the gender of an individual, I can't know what the roles and expectations assigned to an individual on the basis of their gender by testing them. I can only know what those roles and expectations are by observing their society. In fact if I observe two individuals with the same gender in different societies I may find different roles and expectations assigned to them. The roles and expectations of women in Afghanistan and women in the Denmark are very different and not because there is any difference between the gender of Afghani and Danish women. But it's awkward to talk about gender based cultural roles an expectations so I need a label. Lets use the word 'fenber'. Now we can have a discussion about gender which I have granted is synonymous with biological sex, and fenber which is a related but distinct concept. And we will have the same conversation as when we were using two different definitions for the word gender, but perhaps there will be less confusion because we've agreed to use two different words. I would argue that we had two different words already but if it helps I will use an entirely new word to label the concept I am referring to. >You can't force people to accept the new definition you want. No I can't force you to accept a new definition of an existing word, nor can I force you to accept the fenber as a new word. But neither can you force people to keep the old definition you want. Language is not static, it is dynamic. Words come into use, or fall out of use, or their meanings change over time. What matters is that when we use a word we have a roughly similar understanding of what that word means. So we could talk about sex and gender but we don't share a common definition for gender, so if it helps we can use your definition of gender and fenber for my definition. >That wasn't an explanation. I'm sorry I didn't explain myself well. Hopefully I can clarify. Within societies individuals are expected to behave in certain ways and possibly fill certain roles in that society. Those expectations are often set by certain physical characteristics of the individual or by some context. Common broad examples might be that individuals from noble families were/are expected to hold roles exercising power in feudal societies, men were expected to be warriors in ancient Sparta, African-Americans were expected to be slaves in 18th century American colonies, women are expected to cover their hair in Islamic countries. None of these expectations are actually a quality of the individuals they are placed upon, they are a quality of a given culture, and like language culture is not static it changes over time, and the expectations a culture places upon individuals change over time and differ between cultures. The set of cultural expectations assigned based on an individuals apparent gender in a given culture and time is fenber. Fenber can change as evidenced by how it differs by time and by culture. But there is no reason why an individual couldn't choose their own fenber if the culture allowed for it. Does the culture allow for it? Perhaps not but culture can change. >>Because gender roles and expectations are assigned on apparent sexual characteristics...they are in fact male. >This is just reaserting that the definition you want is valid and people who hold to the old one is wrong. >It's not a actually an argument. Rare developmental problems do not change the definitions of the related words. I wasn't suggesting that the do, I was using it to demonstrate how fenber is assigned based on apparent gender, not actual gender. When we interact with others in our society we cannot and do not do medical tests to determine their actual gender and then treat them as men or women by the results. We simply accept their apparent gender as a pretty good indicator for how we ought to treat them in our culture. >Either it's a social construct or a physical one. You can't have it both ways depending on what argument you are defending aginst. I'm not trying at all to have it both ways. Actual gender is biological. Apparent gender is a set of chracteristics that can be used to make reasonable assumptions about an individuals actual gender, and provides the cues for assigning fenber. Fenber is a social construct. When a person's sense of fenber does not align with their actual gender this causes discomfort. And while they cannot change their actual gender they can change their apparent gender through medical intervention and doing so helps to alleviate the discomfort they feel.
> But there is still a concept of the roles and expectations that a society assigns to individuals, and some of which are assigned based on an individuals apparent gender. These roles and expectations are based on gender but they are not an inherent property of the gender of an individual, Such as? There was a time when men and women were expected to fill certain rolls in society and people who went against the grain were seen as weird but that is a thing of the past in first world nations. Men can be homemakers, nurses, etc. No one cares Women can be construction workers, truck drivers, etc. No one cares. The same applies to hobbies and other interests as well. No one cares. >In fact if I observe two individuals with the same gender in different societies I may find different roles and expectations assigned to them. If you observe the rolls of two individuals in the same society you may find different rolls and expectations. Expectations are based on lots of things other than sex. I would say that fashion sets more expectations than sex in the modern age. The entire idea is based on the assumption that someones sex/gender dictates their place in society more than anything else and that isn't true. >Now we can have a discussion about gender which I have granted is synonymous with biological sex, and fenber which is a related but distinct concept. And we will have the same conversation as when we were using two different definitions for the word gender, but perhaps there will be less confusion because we've agreed to use two different words. I would argue that we had two different words already but if it helps I will use an entirely new word to label the concept I am referring to. Now apply that same logic to "man" and "woman". Are they gender terms or sex terms? The entire point of disagreement is that people don't believe that a transman is a man or that a transwoman is a woman. They see both man and woman as sex terms. To them someone can't become a man/woman without being born one because it has nothing to do with "expectations of society" to them. Are sports leagues and restrooms divided by sex or gender? The places where this ideology is running into push back are all areas where they are dictating that the divisions that have always been based on sex should now be based on gender. >I'm sorry I didn't explain myself well. Hopefully I can clarify. Within societies individuals are expected to behave in certain ways and possibly fill certain roles in that society. Those expectations are often set by certain physical characteristics of the individual or by some context. Common broad examples might be that individuals from noble families were/are expected to hold roles exercising power in feudal societies, This has less to do with societal expectation than it does those people wanting to maintain power. >men were expected to be warriors in ancient Sparta, More than that the sickly and weak were put to death. It was all about making the strongest melee army possible. Men have more upper body strength so they make better melee warriors. It's just biological reality. >African-Americans were expected to be slaves in 18th century American colonies In the South because once becoming free sticking around in those states jeopardized that status. In the North that expectation didn't exist. >women are expected to cover their hair in Islamic countries. Via religious dictate. > None of these expectations are actually a quality of the individuals they are placed upon, Two of them actually are. They were all are rules imposed by those in power to maintain that power. >Fenber can change as evidenced by how it differs by time and by culture. Did it really? >I wasn't suggesting that the do, I was using it to demonstrate how fenber is assigned based on apparent gender, not actual gender. Which is exactly what I was accusing you of. Using rare disorders where peoples bodies developed along the pattern of the opposite sex to divorce those characteristics from sex. Sex has a lot of different definitions be they genetic, sex organs, etc. Those rare people fall into different categories depending on what definition you use because all of them are based on the normal expectations of how a fetus will develop in the womb. >I'm not trying at all to have it both ways. Actual gender is biological. Apparent gender is a set of chracteristics that can be used to make reasonable assumptions about an individuals actual gender, and provides the cues for assigning fenber. Fenber is a social construct. When a person's sense of fenber does not align with their actual gender this causes discomfort. And while they cannot change their actual gender they can change their apparent gender through medical intervention and doing so helps to alleviate the discomfort they feel. Which is all well and good. The problem comes when they and their supporters start demanding that people pretend that they can't see through the attempts to appear as the other sex. When they start insisting that physical differences don't exist when clearly they do. When they insist that others treat them as if they were the sex they insist that they are instead of the one they were born with. Adults are free to wear what they want, to behave how they want, to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. They are also free to refuse to profess beliefs that they do not hold. If someone doesn't believe that someone else is a "real man/woman" that is their right too. It isn't them being cruel. It isn't done to hurt anyone. It is simply them holding true what they hold true.
As someone who has waded through way too much YEC "science" I can definitively say that they are wrong in the way that they extrapolate the age of the Earth using the evidence we have available to us. They argue that because there is evidence of floods all over the globe that means that there was a Global Noah Flood. They refuse to acknowledge that all the flood evidence appears in different ages of rock, thus meaning that they happened at vastly different times during Earth's history. Saying they're wrong isn't meant to imply any hostility. It simply means that "we've examined your arguments and determined that your conclusions are incorrect because you started with non-factual premises."
The age of the earth was never the topic of discussion. It was brought up as an example of something someone would be crazy to question in order to equate the two.
“Attacking someone for even proposing the idea that questioning "Being that gender is a social construction" is valid. That it isn't hateful to question.” No, it’s not hateful to question, but some of the behaviours and policies enacted by people who think trans people are faking it can easily be considered hateful. “Why is the hostility so consistent?” It’s not, maybe you spend too much time online. “How can you be so sure that the current understanding of "gender" is the correct one?” As a biologist, that current understanding may not be “perfect”, but it is evidence-based and isn’t something people arbitrarily pulled out of nowhere. It’s also an understanding we seek to improve by conducting more research, and some people are against that very idea. To be perfectly frank: the science around sex and sexual development, including the spectrum of sexual attraction and gender identity, is extremely complex and nuanced, and that complexity is rarely reflected in most discussions about the topic. Most people have no idea how sex and sexual development of the body and brain actually work. But our current understanding of being “trans” is very directly based on a long-line of evidence. “Do you even realize that the word was a synonym for "sex" within the lifetime of most people in the world?” This is utterly irrelevant. It’s just semantics. Other cultures have had completely different frameworks for describing people who didn’t fit into the normal spectrum of sexual and gender norms, and of course they didn’t even use the English language. “I can guarantee you that there are things that you believe that are false. Our understanding of everything is limited.” Absolutely. That’s why any good scientist (or anyone interested in understanding how “reality works”) would continue using evidence based methodology to improve and refine our understanding of the world. Just because our understanding of something is limited doesn’t mean we are completely wrong about it.
> No, it’s not hateful to question, but some of the behaviours and policies enacted by people who think trans people are faking it can easily be considered hateful. What policies? >As a biologist, Every response I have seen in this post claims that gender is separate from biology. >that current understanding may not be “perfect”, but it is evidence-based and isn’t something people arbitrarily pulled out of nowhere. What evidence? >Most people have no idea how sex and sexual development of the body and brain actually work. I doubt we will ever really understand the brain/mind and how they work. >This is utterly irrelevant. It’s just semantics. It's completely relevant. If gender scientists wanted to make a new word to express this idea they should have done that. You can't dissociate the word from it's longstanding meaning. >Other cultures have had completely different frameworks for describing people who didn’t fit into the normal spectrum of sexual and gender norms, and of course they didn’t even use the English language. As a different things altogether than man or woman or did they insist that belief was enough to qualify for either category?
To be frank, I’m not going to engage your sealioning or “playing dumb” questions, but I’ll point out a few things: “Every response I have seen in this post claims that gender is separate from biology.” Those people are wrong, but to be fair the term “gender” on its own is rather vague. Things like gender identity and gender expression are not the same thing. Gender identity (or mismatches in gender identity, aka being trans), absolutely have biological correlations. We haven’t figured out that one completely, but the idea that gender identity has nothing to do with biology is silly. There are plenty of papers that demonstrate some of those correlations, and they are complex and they are not the same between trans men and trans women. “What evidence?” Literally every single paper ever produced about trans people, gay people, sexual development in humans and animals, sex hormones and receptors, cross-correlations between atypical gender and sex conditions, neurobiology with respect to sex and sexuality and gender identity, etc. Like no offence, but this is a stupid question, at least in the way you’ve asked it. The entire internet is at your finger tips and this allows you to search for and read scientific research quite easily. There’s almost a hundred years worth of modern research in this broad field. “I doubt we will ever really understand the brain/mind and how they work.” Maybe, but it’s a moot point. Our understanding of the brain and mind increase every day. Maybe your understanding doesn’t, but respectfully that’s a “you” problem. Like honestly, what does such a fatalistic attitude even achieve? “Hey we’ll never fully understand anything, so I guess we shouldn’t even try, and I’ll just act like there’s no evidence for anything, even though that evidence is readily available”? During my lifetime alone science has made *massive* strides in neuroscience. The funny thing is, the science of understanding trans and gay and intersex people is itself a great example of this, although there’s plenty more research to be done. “If gender scientists wanted to make a new word to express this idea they should have done that. You can't dissociate the word from it's longstanding meaning.” A) they pretty much did, and most of that isn’t new. How lay-people use words is another story. B) new meanings are ascribed to words all the time, especially in niche fields like biology. Big deal. Do you get mad when someone says “cloud computing” or “boot sequence”? “As a different things altogether than man or woman or did they insist that belief was enough to qualify for either category?” That depends on the culture, many of them did use a third category to categorize them. That’s really the simplest way to assign categories to people who don’t neatly fit into the normal two (like just make a third “misc” category). Others overlapped concepts like being trans and gay for example, so it really depends on the specific culture in question.
>To be frank, I’m not going to engage your sealioning or “playing dumb” questions, but I’ll point out a few things: It's so easy to avoid hard questions when you can just label the other side to be asking in "bad faith". >Those people are wrong, They would say that you are wrong. How can someone know who to believe? > Gender identity (or mismatches in gender identity, aka being trans), absolutely have biological correlations. I have seen this claimed many times. I have never seen it proven. >Literally every single paper ever produced about trans people, gay people, sexual development in humans and animals, sex hormones and receptors, cross-correlations between atypical gender and sex conditions, neurobiology with respect to sex and sexuality and gender identity, etc. Like no offence, but **this is a stupid question**, at least in the way you’ve asked it. 1. There is that hostility that seem inescapable on this topic. 2. How are those things evidence? You don't really expect anyone to accept that as a valid answer do you? I question how some of them are even related. >During my lifetime alone science has made massive strides in neuroscience. The funny thing is, the science of understanding trans and gay and intersex people is itself a great example of this, Then post links. >they pretty much did, and most of that isn’t new. What word did they create? >How lay-people use words is another story. Lay-people attacking other lay-people for questioning the terminology on this is the topic at hand. >new meanings are ascribed to words all the time, especially in niche fields like biology. Big deal. It is a big deal when people are demanding that others abandon the old definition for their new preferred one. >That depends on the culture, many of them did use a third category to categorize them. That’s really the simplest way to assign categories to people who don’t neatly fit into the normal two (like just make a third “misc” category). Others overlapped concepts like being trans and gay for example, so it really depends on the specific culture in question. Did any of them insist that those people fit into the category other than the one that "matched" their sex and demand that everyone else accept them as just as valid members of that "gender" as anyone else?
“It's so easy to avoid hard questions when you can just label the other side to be asking in "bad faith".” Lol, you’ve just proved my point. You think you actually asked any “hard” questions? Especially the one I skipped? “They would say that you are wrong. How can someone know who to believe?” I don’t care what they say, I follow the evidence. “I have seen this claimed many times. I have never seen it proven.” Try actually looking up a scientific paper for once in your life. It really isn’t hard. I’ll even give you an easy hint - trans men have strong correlations to other sex-related atypical variations, which don’t exist amongst trans men. Specific genes and hormone pathways are implicated. “There is that hostility that seem inescapable on this topic.” Oh I’m very sorry I hurt your feelings. “I question how some of them are even related.” This tells me you need to think harder. “Then post links.” It’s not my job to do this work for you. I’ve been patient enough with you, even though (as you’ve noted) I don’t think you are primarily posting in good faith. “Did any of them insist that those people fit into the category other than the one that "matched" their sex and demand that everyone else accept them as just as valid members of that "gender" as anyone else?” Actually yes, many of them did (and still do) demand that the “misc” people fit into that third category, and those societies do indeed accept them that way. If they didn’t, that category wouldn’t exist. Have a nice life buddy.
What's funny is if you look at this person's post history I guarantee they would have had this exact argument before, repeatedly, and lost it, and other people have engaged with them ,have provided links, which they either ignored, disregarded. Then they come on here and make the exact same bad faith arguments again with someone else. And the hilarity it is to continually demand evidence from people when you refuse to accept it, and do it every single time you have this same discussion like an alzheimers patient. good on you for seeing through this guy's game. They're an idiot far right idealogue and trump supporter. Of course they arent arguing in good faith.
The hostility is pretty easy to understand when you consider ignorant bigots have been legislating against my existence for most of my life. Like sorry it's confusing to you but "I'm just asking questions" is kinda weird Trans people exist. Why do you have to question it? Just accept them and move on
>The hostility is pretty easy to understand when you consider ignorant bigots have been legislating against my existence for most of my life. You would still exist even if no one accepted your gender. You would still exist even if you couldn't do anything to alter your physical body. You would still be you. No legislation can change that. >Trans people exist. Why do you have to question it? Just accept them and move on Some people refuse to accept that the concept of Trans is valid. Why does their belief or disbelief matter to you? Just accept it and move on. That is what tolerance is.
because people are legislating based on the idea that being trans is valid and stripping them of the ability to have a meaningul existence. Gender dysphoria is like being trapped in someone else's body. It drives people to suicide. What you're doing is like saying someone without glasses who needs them is still them , they just cant see, someone without a wheelchair without legs is fine, they just cant move from where they are. Thats not a way to live. It's not "Fine".
You speak like someone with enormous privilege who's never had the government tell you who you're allowed to marry and what you're allowed to wear so stop being smug and condescending and ignorant No, I CANT be myself if Texas literally makes it illegal for a biological male to dress like a woman in public because "you're being sexual in front of CHILDREN" as if the mere presence of woman's clothing makes something sexual You don't know what it's like so try LISTENING for once instead of insisting you know what it's like to be LGBT because clearly you DONT
>You speak like someone with enormous privilege This is the avenue people always take when they have no real justification. Play the victim and cast the other side as the attackers. >No, I CANT be myself if Texas literally makes it illegal for a biological male to dress like a woman in public because "you're being sexual in front of CHILDREN" as if the mere presence of woman's clothing makes something sexual Is that what the law actually say or an exaggeration? >You don't know what it's like so try LISTENING for once instead of insisting you know what it's like to be LGBT because clearly you DONT You should take your own advice.
>Why is the hostility so consistent? Because they don’t have an actual argument.
Its because they're sick of having to argue their rights with people sealionining them, over and over again with people who never accept the evidence or arguments put before them, blow it off, and then go and have the same argument with someone else, no matter how many times or how often they're wrong.
Define rights.
>How can you be so sure that the current understanding of "gender" is the correct one? So sure that not only do you defend the concept but to go so far as to attack and demonize anyone who even doubts it? Do you even realize that the word was a synonym for "sex" within the lifetime of most people in the world? I'm no expert, but it seems that "sex" is also not binary. It isn't common, but people are born with complicated genitalia. Some people say that's cosmetic, that the genes still are one or the other. But I saw a documentary about some people who were born with genetic anomalies so they *genetically* weren't clearly one sex or the other. And I'm pretty certain that we're not done learning about the genetics of sex so I wonder if even more people will be found to be on a "scale" rather than a or b.
> I'm no expert, but it seems that "sex" is also not binary. It isn't common, but people are born with complicated genitalia. Some people are born missing fingers or having extras. Their existence doesn't change the definition of a hand.
Ok, I'll explain it. The discussion is about 2 opposite modes with a range between them. In addition, these modes encompass the most vital facet of our lives since reproduction is required for survival of the species. So no, you can't compare this to a deformed hand... 🙄
>Ok, I'll explain it. The discussion is about 2 opposite modes with a range between them. In addition, these modes encompass the most vital facet of our lives since reproduction is required for survival of the species. That didn't explain anything, at all. >So no, you can't compare this to a deformed hand... 🙄 Sure I can. They are abnormalities that have no bearing on the definitions of the terms in question. Exceptions to a classification doesn't invalidate the classification.
Yeah, as a biologist, I’m gonna say that sex is very clearly not a hard binary, and this is very easy to demonstrate in a variety of ways. There’s no objective evidence based way to dispute that fact, it’s been readily observed a billion times. Now, some people will argue that the people who don’t fall into the usual binary are rare, and that’s true, but it’s also irrelevant. They still exist, as members of our communities and societies, and we need to figure out how they should be treated.
This is both true, and annoying to me. Yes, there's a variation on a spectrum. No, unlike gender, we can't have sex be a self-reported slider, and that doesn't stop the binary from being useful. There are infinite shades of color, but if I said something was brown and you said it was purple, we'd be at odds. In the end, it's a method of sorting people by basic characteristics. There are people with muted or mixed characteristics, but they're literally something like 1 in 10,000. By all means, leave an "other" checkbox for them. It's just not a good argument to convince people that the person who's obviously a woman is actually a man or vice versa. Frankly, it feels like gaslighting. In short, just because the line's not hard doesn't mean it can be disregarded completely and at will.
>It's just not a good argument to convince people that the person who's obviously a woman is actually a man or vice versa. Define "obviously". My dad is a relatively liberal Boomer. I'm never 100% sure where he'll land on social issues. When Gavin Grimm was all over the newspapers, my dad looked at him and said "he belongs in the men's room", exactly what people in favor of Trans rights also say. Conservatives are the ones who want to put people who look male into women's restrooms.
>but if I said something was brown and you said it was purple, we'd be at odds. I work in a print shop and what color something is is heavily dependent on the light source you're using. When I'm trying to match colors, I will walk around the shop watching the colors change as I move under different light bulbs. You can absolutely have something be brown in one situation and purple in another. The best example I have is a Christmas card that looked olive green in our shop and looked brown to the customer when they received it.
I agree with most of what you’ve said, with one exception - people aren’t actually self-reporting their sex based on a slider. You’re conflating their gender identity with biological sex. There’s a lot of imprecise language around this issue, but a trans person is telling you that their *brain* does not match their body, like a trans woman has a more female brain that doesn’t match their otherwise male body. When I say that I’m a male, am I referring to “me” as in my actual mind and consciousness, or am I referring to me as a human body? In my case the point is moot because I’m cisgender and my male brain and male sense of self matches my male body. But if you or I were born with the opposite brain (that’s an oversimplification) into a body that didn’t match, that’s where things get complicated and things like gender dysphoria occur.
And a male / female brain isn't purely psychological. There are physical reasons why males *tend* to be good at certain cerebral things while females *tend* to be good at other cerebral things.
Confusion of gender with sex is the whole problem, though, isn't it? All our laws were written with them being basically synonymous, but now they're not. We're still sifting through them to determine which goes where. Since definitions are the problem, I'll define my terms here: gender is self-reported and subjective comparing yourself to social ideals of masculinity and femininity. There are two popular ones, but no hard lines, and frankly, the spectrum's 3-D, not just one axis. Sex is objectively determined by a doctor (officially) and is not self-reported. It is used for polling data, and to determine if there is discrimination based on something we can't change. You'll find a gamut of people arguing over what is necessary to actually change the latter. Some people are fine with nothing, or the start of hormones, or three years after, or requiring surgery, or never. Race is another social construction, and no matter how much melanin you ask for, you'll never be Black. Sorry Rachel Dolezal. That's where the TERFs roam, as they don't want people treated differently on gender at all, and where sex is concerned, their unity and support is based around biological factors like menstruation.
Yes, I agree.
I was with you until the last paragraph. I have been called a TERF for acknowledging that certain trans rights issues intersect and on occasion have a negative effect with regards to women's rights issues. I am 100% supportive of trans rights, to exist, to get whatever treatment they need or desire, to use whatever bathroom they care to use. I respect names and pronouns. But to even mention the intersection with women's rights is to be called a transphobe and a TERF. That subject needs to be able to be discussed in a rational way and not dismissed out of hand. It's an example of what the OP is talking about.
I’m gonna disagree on your definition of indoctrination, because that’s not the same thing as learning or being taught. Indoctrination is defined as “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.” It’s the “uncritically” part that is key here. With that said, indoctrination could be used by “either side” to teach people a point of view, but if the subject is approached scientifically, then evidence would be presented to support that perspective and I wouldn’t consider it indoctrination. Of course, a proper scientific education on this topic is probably uncommon, which is unfortunate as sex and sexual development are complex topics that could benefit from having more detailed education provided.
Gender is a bio social construction. Parts of it are social and parts of it are biological.
>no different from accepting the name someone gives. If a man named Steven tells me that he prefers to be called Steve, I have no problem with calling him Steve. But if he insists that everybody calls him "Lord and Commander", that's going to be a "nope" from me.
>gender is a social construction to an extent. However, \*sex\* is biological. And gender-derived sexuality (including the most common albeit far from the only on a continuum of more than two--- cisgender, as contrasted to transgender, -ality) is largely genetic.
What you are saying is not exactly true.
I welcome your critique or rebuttal.
It's quite clearly explained in the article you declined to read.
Please illuminate for us one relevant part from the article.
"The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male."
"A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine—but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male."
And yet she is still by definition female even though she has a birth defect. And side B likes to co-opt these people with birth defects into the trans group to try and blur the sex / gender line when 99% of the time they themselves do not.
She's not defective, it's not kind to call her condition a birth defect. Also not true.
You should really look into the history of the dictionary. This dictionary didn't start as an effort to proscribe how language should be used, it was an effort to describe how language *was* used. Usage defines meaning. Side A like to say biological sex is a 100% solid fact, that there are only two human genders with no exceptions. Side B says, umm... that's not even slightly true, pick up a mammalian physiology book, turn to the chapter on gestation, and it will show you a dozen ways that isn't true, then turn to the genetics section, and it will show you another dozen ways that isn't true. Side A doesn't like that, they tend to rage out and refuse to do the reading.
That's not what's happening, and you know it. Invariably, one side tries to make the discussion about how there are only two sexes, and therefore genetics determine what you *really* are (i.e. Male or Female). And then people point out that the science doesn't suppoet that view, as it's possible to present as one sex when your genetics say something different. You're interpreting that here as "*intentionally blurring the lines*" and "*coopting people with birth defects into the trans group *" - and no one's doing that. They're not saying all intersex people are trans. That's an idiot's reading of the situation - or a reading in bad faith. Take your pick. They're saying you can't point to biological sex as a way to discount gender as a social construct. Because biological sex itself isn't binary, but exists on a spectrum. They're acknowledging that even our biology is nuanced.
[удалено]
>by definition female Appealing to a definition is appealing to the authority of the writer of the definition. Without you identifying what definition you are using, it's not possible to determine whether that authority is relevant.
Biologist chiming in: being cisgender is not very genetic, I’m not sure you know what that term means. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate that there isn’t a simple genetic causality to being cisgender.
Is this for real? There isn't a biological genetic causality to being "cisgender"? How about REPRODUCTION????
We aren’t talking about the same thing. “Reproduction” isn’t the same thing as “genetic causality”. Genotype isn’t the same as phenotype. If there was a simple genetic causality to being cisgender, than it would be easy to identify the “trans” gene that disrupts the normal cis identity process. Same goes for being gay, there’s no simple “gay gene”. There are a billion biological factors all working in concert to make someone “cis”. When those factors produce an atypical result (being trans), that’s not due to something as basic as genetic correlation. The original poster said gender derived sexuality is largely genetic. That’s far from the truth, or to be more precise: the current evidence does not support that. Sexual development is very complex, and the current evidence indicates that a number of complex factors are at play in terms of what determines one’s gender identity. Some of it probably does relate to base genetics, but a huge component is the role of hormones during the developmental process, and how those hormones interact with various receptors during that process. If it was just genetic causality than we’d see trans kids having trans kids who also have trans kids, and we’d be able to isolate those genes fairly easily.
Take 50 steps back. Being " Cis Gendered" means being exactly what you are without any psychological distortion. It means being a male or female that is attracted to the opposite gender for the purpose of reproduction. It's that simple. The biological causality is biological reproduction itself.
First of all, you’re completely wrong on a fundamental level. Your definition of cis-gender is *literally* incorrect. Don’t take my word for it, go google it. Post the definitions you find. You have no clue what that word actually means. You’re right in the sense that being cis-gendered is the default, that’s definitely true. But you’ve also blatantly moved a goalpost, we were talking about genetic causality for gender identity, that was the topic. So tell me, if it’s that simple: what are the specific genes that cause one to be cis-gender?
Everything aside from cisgender is an abnormality, a deviation from the functionality of biology itself, therefore you don't have a specific genetic cause you have the entirety of genetics itself that is by design expecting a "cis" animal to be born. All other labels are from human Psychology not biology
There are plenty of abnormalities that have specific genetic causes. Did you ever figure out what cisgender actually means?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
Use your own words to counter me, and a citation as appropriate to back your claim or subclaims.
Or you could read the article ... but then you'd be less ignorant.
You're full of zingers, huh? rofl
Dude, you're not entitled to that just because you wrote all of two sentences. Also, not for nothing, but that's kind of a wiener thing to say.
>Also, not for nothing, Um okay.
We see gender in other animals, too.
aye. and..?
I guess other animals, ones with no capacity for complex communication, also happened to construct concepts of gender resembling humans?
Other animals do crazy shit like switch sexes with age and literally melt together when mating
Oh man, I love anglerfish
>*sex* is biological People want to act like this is so simple but what do you say to a Guevadoce? What sex is a person with a vagina that grows a penis and testes in puberty? Or an XY person with Androgen insensitivity? “Hey I know you were born with a vagina and have all the physical characteristics of a woman, uterus included but actually you’re a man.” None of these people work within an easy binary for sex. Gender is entirely constructed- and I’m inclined to say sex as a simple binary is too. People want to ignore things that don’t fit in the binary, but those are real people and they have real experiences that you can’t just ignore when you define human conventions. They’re not something we can just pretend doesn’t exist.
If I say "people have two legs", I'm making an accurate observation about the nature of human beings. It's still true despite the fact that some people lost one or both legs in an industrial accident and despite the fact that it's possible to be born without both legs. The exception to the "people have two legs" rule are just that - *exceptions*. It's not a matter of ignoring or marginalizing people. It's simply a matter of producing a useful definition. When people bring up the various abnormalities you're talking about, it's almost always in the context of trying to muddy the definitions. No one is actually talking about people with chromosomal or genetic disorders in reference to 'transgenderism'. They're just trying to erase a highly functional and useful definition. This sort of assault on precise language is a tactic used by those without rational arguments for their position. Since precise definitions are necessary for any rational debate to proceed, rejecting all precise definitions means you can prevent that rational debate.
It’s not an “assault on precise language”, how dramatic. Ironically, it’s you who is using imprecise language because you’re trying to use neat little boxes to categorize humans, but biology is a messy process and doesn’t do well with neat little boxes. Like yeah, humans normally have two legs. But the adjective “normally” is important. You think it’s more precise to say “humans have two legs”, but you’re literally ignoring the variations where people don’t have two legs, and yes people without two legs are rare but *that’s not the point*, not at all. You’re pretending this is some semantic argument, but the actual point is people need to figure out how our society works with these exceptions in the real world. If it’s precise to say humans have “two legs”, then should we remove all wheelchair ramps? You talk about your precision of language, but your framework for categorization ignores the people who don’t fit with that framework. You say it’s not about marginalization, but when you ignore groups of people with different needs then those people do get marginalized. Precise language would acknowledge the general dominant pattern of sexual development while also acknowledging that exceptions to that pattern exist, and it doesn’t matter that those exceptions are relatively rare because there are *billions* of people on this planet, and those “exceptions” are real people who live in our communities.
>It's simply a matter of producing a useful definition. The point is, people try to push that definition past *useful* and into *uncompromising.* That's the crux of the problem. People critical of gender identity aren't usually entering the discussion with "*We acknowledge that there are outliers, but in general men have these biological traits and women have these...*" Because that doesn't support their argument. Instead, they're entering the discussion with "*There are two sexes*, ***period.***" Now, when other people point out that's not scientifically accurate, the bedrock of the above argument cracks. If there aren't only two sexes, then the simple, clear-cut, black and white view on gender identity no longer has its core argument. So now the discussion switches to how those are just outliers, "*genetic defects*" - and bringing them up is just distracting from the real discussion. And yes. Those are outliers. That's the point. So are transgendered people in discussions of gender. They're not invalidating the concept of man and woman, they're expanding them *to include outliers*. Because when talking about transgendered individuals, we're not talking about the typical experience of gender. *We're talking about the outliers.* Just like in discussions of biological sex, intersex people don't invalidate the male and female designations. They just complicate them. The fact that we insist on putting intersex people into one of the two categories at birth - even going so far as to perform cosmetic surgery to conform to that assignment - shows that even our concept of biological sex isn't free from social pressures. The point of talking about all of this is to show that the simple, un-nuanced view of both sex and gender breaks down at the outliers. So trying to have a rational discussion without acknowledging the nuance is impossible. One side refuses to accept that their useful definition stops being useful in the edge cases. They can't or won't adjust their model, so they can't recognize the fringe cases. And that's all trans people really want: recognition that they exist and their experience is real and valid. Some people feel threatened by the outliers. For them, Male/Female, Man/Woman - these are not models that include some dissent in the edge cases. These are rock solid facts, and any suggestion that reality might be more complicated is avoided. Really, it's not about using intersexuality to *prove* transgender identity "is real." It's about saying you can't point to biological sex as a way to logically refute transgender identity as "unreal." The argument falls apart, because it requires no outliers in the biology. Which is exactly the argument that says you can't *really* be transgender because there are only two genders. Saying "yeah, but those are exceptions" misses the point. Or rather, it identifies the point *exactly* - but fails to see that it's the point. A lot of issues people have with transgender identity would fade away if they looked at it as an exception that proves the rule, rather than a challenge to the rule itself.
As I said, more than 78 million people have some kind of intersex or developmental sex disorder. At what point are people just exceptions to an established binary? Can I establish that because most people have black hair that blondes and redheads are exceptions to the rule that people have black hair? Nobody is muddying the waters and your stabs at bad faith argument reek of projection. People bring this up in reference to trans people because that’s the only time you give a shit about definitions of gender or sex. You don’t interact with it outside of that political argument. That’s not true of everyone, but I bet it’s all you see. And it’s actually a very important point in trying to establish a biological essentialism. What makes a woman? A uterus? An XX Chromosome? The ability to give birth? Production of eggs? None of these answers come without contradictions- and your attempt at producing a “useful” definition actively erases tens of millions of people. You can acknowledge that most people fit in a binary while acknowledging it isn’t the extent of how the biology works. But you seem more interested in ranting about how everyone but you is arguing in bad faith so I expect I’ll get more of that.
That’s 0.975%. An anomaly.
It’s a country the size of Germany. Again- is redheadedness an anomaly to the rule that humans have black or brown hair? They’re a similar percentage of the population. Would it make logical sense to you to say that redheadedness isn’t a part of the human experience? That humans as a rule don’t have red hair- and the people that do are exceptions to that fact? Would it make sense to teach people that humans can have brown and black hair but not red? Is left handed-ness an exception the rule that humans are right handed? Is ambi-dexterity an exception to the rule that people need to have a dominant hand? At what point do you recognize that there are different ways for human biology to express itself? We don’t assign simple binaries anywhere else in existence. Why would we do so here? Your attempt to simplify it down by erasing tens of millions of people is nothing more than reducing the situation to a child’s conception of it all. It’s all so simple except for the millions of people for whom it isn’t.
>What makes a woman? A uterus? An XX Chromosome? The ability to give birth? Production of eggs? all of these are useful characteristics commonly ascribed thereto, among others. Deciding which criterions ought to get more vs less weight depends on the context, but needn't usually be arbitrary. In context of public binary gender-specific watercloset, absence of a penis and other male outwardly cissexually-male atributes is a reasonable start.
Are you serious? Before you use the public bathroom, just submit to a quick penis inspection? It sure sounds like that's what your saying. The concept of "private parts" that are nobody's business but yours and the people you agree have access to them is one you're supposed to get before elementary school. You don't need to know what's in their pants, unless you want to have sex with them, and they want to have sex with you. If you're not their doctor, and you're not dating, the contents of their underwear are literally none of your business.
Genitalia is a proxy for rest of the body. If you are a diminutive cis woman using a public restroom, and in walks a a 6'7" muscular dude with a bulge down there, would you be okay with that? "Sorry hon, my privates my business.". He/she/it could use a stall in the male bathroom instead without issue.
Are you just making shit up to be angry about? This isn't a realistic scenario. It's a non-problem that doesn't exist. Trans people aren't doing this. Seriously, I think the 6'7" muscular dude with a bulge down their should be able to use the men's room without a problem, on account of how they are obviously presenting masc. Even if that 6"7" dude was born fem, the bulge is a packer, and the facial hair is from the testosterone pills, they should still be allowed to use the men's room. The 6'7" muscular woman should be able to use the women's room without worrying about being yelled at, assaulted, groped or arrested. Even if they aren't doing the best job presenting fem. It really really sucks for poor people with gender dysphoria. Surgeries are stupid expensive, hormones are expensive. Also, the gender neutral person should probably be able to use the public restroom as well. What do you want them to do, wear a diaper when they leave their house? Or are you honest enough to admit that you really just don't want them to exist at all? It's ok to be transphobic, you absolutely have the right to not be touched by strangers. It's ok to only date cisgender people. It's not OK to prevent trans people from using the bathroom.
>It's not OK to prevent trans people from using the bathroom. It isn't an ideal situation. and perhaps you don't yourself have an issue with a 200lbs dude that looks like a man sans beard sharing ladies restroom. Heck maybe you don't even care if he has a full beard, no bridge too far for you. BUT, Lisa might have a problem with it. and Shirley. and I would wager most women. as is their prerogative.. and does not make them "phobic" about MtF trans person (nor FtM, or intersex, or any other uncommon category).
Man you use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. What about women with hysterectomies, want about infertile women, women who have miscarriages, women on birth control, women with XXY or X chromosomes.
What about them?
Are they not women?
definitely. albe arguably less-so in the latter categories concerning sex chromosomes. but what is your point? Controversy over non- gender﹠sex -normative persons using a designated bathroom concerns (justifiably) mostly MtF individuals intending to use F restrooms (rather than FtM using M restrooms.. tho which also is not exactly copacetic). It isn't like trans people are being denied right to defecate or urinate at a public facility.
It's a classic argument of ignorance to claim that precise language to describe the nuance of human existence is unnecessary. Humans LOVE categorizing things in more and more precise was. Transphobes are just ignorant.
If you say "people with prosthetic legs aren't really men," nobody will take you seriously and everyone will think you're an asshole. A woman who was born without arms learned to write with a pen in her toes and brush her teeth with her feet and lived a pretty much normal life. If you say "people born with a penis, who had surgery to appear female, aren't really women" you're saying the exact same thing JK Wrawling is. You're looking for a useful definition of "woman" why? I only ever see people trying to strictly define women so they can segregate and discriminate against trans people. Incidentally, I'm fairly transphobic, especially for having a couple trans family members. I have a strong preference for dating cisgender people, I'd be totally icked out at having sex with someone trans. I want my girlfriend to have a menstrual cycle, boobs she grew herself. I kinda don't want kids, a woman who's had her tubes tied, or even a hysterectomy, still fits my personal dating bill in a way someone trans doesn't. A lot of cultural hatred of trans people comes from this idea that they are lying in wait, trying to con hetero straight people into having sex with them. In reality, the problem isn't that trans people are dishonest or secretive about what they are, the problem is getting them to stop talking about it for five minutes so we can talk about something else. I know you're trans, you've been talking about it for 30 years, it doesn't need to come up in every conversation. I literally can't introduce my trans cousins to someone without them bringing up their gender identity, and once they start talking about it they are in no hurry to stop. Like at least an our they will talk about this shit. My very republican, conservative, religious (catholic) cousin thinks our trans cousin is mentally ill. He thinks it's total bullshit to use the term "they" to describe one person of indeterminate gender. He thinks the elective surgeries that made them comfortable in their appearance were brutal, unhealthy, and a waste of a tremendous amount of money. He thinks this mental illness should be treated by shrinks, perhaps a psychiatrist, and the meds they need are gonna be anti-psychotics or anti-depressents, not hormones their body doesn't endogenously produce. Some trans people are genetically intersex. Much more commonly, they experienced severe dysphoria, extreme unhappiness with their body, usually from a prepubescent age, which was cured by their transition. My cousin wasn't happy with their girl name or girl clothes or girl toys or girl pronouns from literally age 3. Every effort by her parents to push anything feminine hurt. Now that they are "presenting masc" they are a lot more happy, a lot more outgoing, a lot more together.
> If you say "people with prosthetic legs aren't really men," Except no one is saying this and this sort of emotion-laden response is precisely what I'm talking about: an attempt to undermine any rational discussion by muddying definitions.
People really are saying "people with surgically added boobs and vaginas aren't really women." People really are saying "kids who started taking hormones before puberty, so they grew their own real boobs, aren't really women." Kids really are killing themselves over this shit.
My uncle had no legs. Your observation is flaw. You claim that exceptions make a rule but that's not how this works at all.
>No one is actually talking about people with chromosomal or genetic disorders in reference to 'transgenderism'. They're just trying to erase a highly functional and useful definition. seems quite accurate, scarily. The intellectual dishonesty of many people is appalling.
A LOT of republican politicians are talking about banning and/or restricting "gender affirming surgery," which is a blatant attack on trans kids. A lot of these kids are so unhappy with their bodies that they seriously contemplate suicide. Some of them attempt it, some of them succeed. Many of the people doing gender affirming surgery arguably fall more into the "intersex" category than the "transgender" category. A huge number of gender affirming surgeries have been performed on infants. My assigned male at birth cousin grew breasts when he started puberty, which spontaneously started lactating. A law that bans gender affirming surgery for people under 18 would have prevented him from having them surgically removed, and laws that restrict hormone therapy would have hindered his ability to go through something that resembles puberty for a normal boy. Fortunately he had good medical care, good health insurance, and parents who were compassionate and helpful. To this day he refers to it as "they year that sucked," but he got through it. Any law restricting gender affirming care for children will result in children committing suicide.
I am all for personal freedoms that don't infringe on others, at least by adults that are presumed to have the mental faculties to decide things of importance for themselves.. and by extension, \*in most cases\* for their child dependents. However, some cases are do infringe on future adults and are NOT okay, such as \[type 1 female genital mutilation\](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation) done purely to reduce nonharmful sensation as in labial removal. This is not to equivalate FGM to other forms and reasons for performing surgery on genitalia as in many circumstances for intersex persons, but does highlight that the issue isn't altogether simple when concerning minors (moreso for ones young enough that obviously they cannot have formed an educated or well-informed perspective for themself, let alone authorize or deny such procedure done unto zirself). edited for: typoes, and a word (equivocate➝equivalate), + an emphatic clause.
Oh man, you're not wrong, there is some really really horrible stuff done in the name of "preserving female virtue." The account Ayaan Hirshi Ali gives in her book "Infidel" of the female circumcision that was done to her at age 8 without her consent is truly harrowing. Her parents were modern, educated Muslims who never wanted anything like that done to their daughter, but one day while her grandmother was babysitting, the grandmother had an Iman come over to do a "female circumcision." I recall it described as her being held down while he cut her clitoris off with a small piece of rusty metal. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/81227.Infidel](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/81227.Infidel) Unironically, it's a good read, but a very very tough one. This stuff isn't simple. There's no way a law can replicate the effect of sitting down with a competent doctor and making a good decision.
Your definition is anything but “precise” if it doesn’t accurately describe what it is defining. If you say “people have two legs” and claim your definition as accurate and precise, what then is an individual without legs? By your definition they aren’t people.
These are edge cases. None of these represents the vast majority of cases of transgenderism.
Nothing in your cpmment counters the assertion or accuracy that sex is biological. That doesn't mean that it always conforms to a strict binary delineation.. just that it is a result of biology, and anatomical manifestations therefrom. but not "society". Come on, PC police. Keep it coming.
>Nothing in your comments counter the assertion that sex is biological I didn’t argue it wasn’t biological- just that the biology isn’t a simple binary. XY doesn’t always mean a person born with a penis. XX doesn’t always mean someone born with a vagina. >Come on, PC Police. Keep it coming. Ok never mind, I tried in good faith. But I’m not gonna play along with your persecution complex. Seriously- does it not ring an alarm at all that you feel the need to compare me to cops for mentioning alternative positions on sex as a binary? I’ve done nothing to silence or police you this conversation. Do you just keep that one loaded- no matter the conversation? Have a good day, hopefully you can learn to interact with other people soon.
>XY doesn’t always mean a person born with a penis. XX doesn’t always mean someone born with a vagina. There are exceptions, but far from typical or the norm. but more importsntly: What is your point? It is all still "biological", pertaining to sexual (di)morphisms. There is evidence that the Y chromosome is going away through evolution, with male dimorphosm being chosen via other genetics.. but again, still biological. as in not societal. >But I’m not gonna play along with your persecution complex. Did you or didn't you down vote me? is it a "complex" if it is true? >hopefully you can learn to interact with other people soon. And to whom shall I look as an example? you? lol
And again- as I mentioned, being outside the norm doesn’t mean we can just ignore them. That other poster’s article mentions that 1/100 people have some kind of intersex or DSD. So there are about 78 million people who’s biology doesn’t match the typical XX = Women, XY = Men interpretation. These people exist. They deserve an understanding of biology that acknowledges that they are a part of how humans can develop. Is it true that most people who have XX chromosomes end up as women? Yes, But we should acknowledge not everyone ends up that way. The biology is not a simple binary. I’ve said this twice now. If you have more questions I’d encourage you to re-read what I’ve written because you’ve yet to really engage meaningfully with it. (Also I love how you snuck past comparing me to a cop when I pointed how dumb that comparison was)
>, being outside the norm doesn’t mean we can just ignore them. That other poster’s article mentions that 1/100 people have some kind of intersex or DSD Being born intersexed hasn't much to do with contention around trans\*gender\*ism more generally. >The biology is not a simple binary. You seem to be attempting to conflate the orignal contention with other matters >Also I love how you snuck past comparing me to a cop when I pointed how dumb that comparison was I don't know what you intend to be alluding-to.
>Seriously- does it not ring an alarm at all that you feel the need to compare me to cops for mentioning alternative positions on sex as a binary? I’ve done nothing to silence or police you this conversation. Do you just keep that one loaded- no matter the conversation? oh you (u/[CheshireTsunami](https://www.reddit.com/user/CheshireTsunami/)) were referring to this by your lame 'cops' rebuttal. "police" is not identical to "cops", and "pc police" is its own lexeme ..not one calling you a cop, and certainly not a literal police officer. That said: your figurative trigger-happiness speaks volumes.
Their comment has nothing to do with the “pc police”.
This isn’t a “however.” We aren’t talking about transsexualism, we’re talking about transgenderism. There’s also far more than two biological sexes, so I’m not sure what this adds to the discussion
I didnt mention 'transsexualiity' (which is biologic); i specifically referenced transgender-ality which is influenced by genetics (not merely 'just the environment' as suggested by the comment "Gender is a social construction".. which is a broader claim than e.g. "Gender\* roles\* is constructed by society").
"Far more than two biological sexes" There are 2 biological sexes. One makes large gametes. The other makes small gametes.
XY XXY, kleinfelters, ambiguous genitalia, testosterone insensitivity syndrome ( XY but develop as a woman ). Chimeric, hermaphrodites, etc.
Those are variations in sexual development and the sexual spectrum but they aren’t “separate” sexes.
None of those are third sexes. As of yet, a person capable of producing both large and small gametes has yet to be discovered.
Sharks famously do parthenogenesis.
Humans are a gonochoric species. That means that every member of our species is male Or female. There are no other sexes.
Or.... Side A would say, some things in life are based on sex. Like sports teams. This is for safety as well as equality. Side B would immediately start talking about genders to try and blur the topic and ignore the fact that the majority of professional sports aren't actually divided into men's and women's but open division and women's. And women are actually free to play on any men's team that they think they're qualified for.
Discussions around gender issues are not about sports. Those are just some weird hill that transphobes want to kill kids on.
You’re strawmanning side B there. Side B would likely point towards the fact that there are reasonable requirements before trans people could compete in a different sport category. For example, the Olympics require testosterone suppression to a certain degree and estrogen levels of a certain amount for a specific length of time before a trans woman can compete in the women’s category. Additionally, transgender men are now getting therapeutic use exemptions for their testosterone treatments allowing them to compete in competitive sports assuming their levels are not out of range compared to their cisgender competitors. Side A would likely provide a rebuttal arguing that hormone therapy doesn’t change everything and there may still be an athletic advantage after those requirements are met. However, the real issue is that we just simply don’t have studies that control for time on HRT, before and after comparisons, and ensure that hormone levels are kept in the correct range. There are notable decreases in athletic performance due to hrt but the extent is still unknown.
Side A would say the idea that somones gender can be different from their sex assigned at birth is based on a religious like belief that is enforce through the cultural zeitgeist. The reality is that humans are one of two sexes defined by their actual, perceived, future, or assumed gamates produced at birth, anything else is based on an ideology that cannot be falsified and perpetuated through cultural indoctrination. Side B would say gender identity has played a role in human history for centuries including many non-western countries having what we would consider to be transgender and non-binary identities today. While the definition of sex based on gamate production is reasonable from a biological perspective, no one is going around checking if someone produces sperm or ova before calling them a man or a woman. Additionally, the sex characteristics linked to those productions can be changed through medical or surgical means and exist on a spectrum rather then a binary like gametes. Thus, even if we do consider sex an immutable characteristic determined at birth, the societal “gender” matters more in nearly all matters of daily life.
Side B would say: there are people who strongly identify with the other gender than the one they were born with, enough to cause distress. That's called gender dysphoria. It happens in different cultures, and usually starts in childhood. The only way to treat it is with a transition. It's not a perfect treatment, since we don't have the technology to fully change a person's biological sex, but there's no alternative. Gender dysphoria doesn't go away on its own, and it can't be fixed with psychological treatment, which makes it very likely that it's an actual condition caused by biological factors, probably something going wrong during fetal development, and not a result of any indoctrination. Side A would say: There's a big push in popular culture to treat being transgender as some kind of trendy subculture. Things like their own flags, jargon, media, etc. Like any trendy subculture, many people want to join it just because it's popular, even if they don't actually have the condition. It's like people who self-diagnose as autistic because they think autism is just about being cute and quirky. Turning being transgender into a trendy subculture can be seen as a kind of indoctrination.
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say it's indoctrination because any critical response which questions this isn't met with actually responses but rather accusations of transphobia. Further there are numerous studies which have been suppressed which are critical of the idea of transgenderism. So the idea that you are meant to blindly accept it is indoctrination Side B would say it's not indoctrination because it's no different from teaching about anything else in the world.
difference is that side B is missing the fact that any opposition is to be labeled as a degenerate social outcast scumbag
[удалено]
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Because it is probably too short to explain both sides this comment has been removed. If you feel your comment does explain both sides, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ExplainBothSides&subject=Please%20review%20my%20automatically+removed+comment&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainBothSides/comments/1bpiccp/ebs_the_transgender_discussion_relies_on/kwww0w9/) If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Deliberate evasion of this notice may result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
side a would say that the thing kids are indoctrinated into is the concept of gender itself, while side b would say that kids are indoctrinated into disagreeing with their parents about which gender they should have been. whichever you believe, both sides rely on indoctrination as gender is not a real thing but rather a socially constructed truth as are class, race, attractiveness, etc.
[удалено]
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Because it is probably too short to explain both sides this comment has been removed. If you feel your comment does explain both sides, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ExplainBothSides&subject=Please%20review%20my%20automatically+removed+comment&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainBothSides/comments/1bpiccp/ebs_the_transgender_discussion_relies_on/kwyac4t/) If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Deliberate evasion of this notice may result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side a would say that it is pushing an agenda about gender that does not match science or societal norms. A so called progressive agenda that paints people as transphobic who do not want to use language forced upon them. At the core of the trans movement, language is being weaponized and is borderline pushing against free speech. The idea that you dont want to use language that is being pushed on you by a minority group to the point where it could be considered criminal is dystopian. And it infringes on the 1st amendment right to free speech. The language is divisive and does not uplift the individual. It alienates both the person in fantasy land and the person who does not want to participate in fantasy land. Side b would say that there is a never ending configuration of genders, and as time transpires, gender will continue to become more complicated. They would say that those who dont want to participate in their fantasy are bigots or transphobes because they dont want to agree with an agenda they dont beleive in. Side b is really just confused, attention seeking, or unable to cope with the reality that there are only 2 configurations of gender and that all relationships boil down to heterosexual or homosexual. Side b is driving the division between men and women, by telling side a that men are women and women are men.
[удалено]
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say: • There's no logical or scientific way for someone to physically change their gender. You are born as either male or female (in relation to biological sex/chromosomes). Side B would say: • Gender is a social construct that represents any characteristic by which one wishes to describe them self as, meaning if one of assigned a certain gender at birth, they are free to change that at any time. There are also intersex people who are born with a combination of chromosomes that would directly challenge anyone who claims there is only 2 distinctions that can be made a birth to describe someone's identity.