It's less about "lying," and more about accepting that gender and sex aren't so narrow and clear-cut as your preconceptions would have you think.
But what if they are? The majority of your "evidence", if not all of it, boils down to "but we still don't have a definitive answer yet". So it's entirely possible that it COULD be as cut and dry as someone might think, yes? Alternatively, gender and sex might not be as wide-open and muddied as you think, right?
Just out of curiosity: Do you honestly believe that with all of your life experiences and obvious bias that you could ever look at this subject objectively, and accept another's viewpoint on it, not matter how much it disagrees with yours?
and I'd like it noted I don't do the same to you. This vitriol is completely one-sided, and I think speaks for itself.
Noted where, Teia, in some mod transcript for the press? C'mon with the pity party already. Two posts ago you basically said the majority of us were just too stupid for you to tell the truth to, because it's so very complicated. Does that attitude speak for itself as well?
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
But what if they are? The majority of your "evidence", if not all of it, boils down to "but we still don't have a definitive answer yet". So it's entirely possible that it COULD be as cut and dry as someone might think, yes? Alternatively, gender and sex might not be as wide-open and muddied as you think, right?
"It's somewhere over here, we're just not 100% sure of exactly where" is a very different thing from "we have no idea where it is."
Not that gender is particularly cut-and-dried, considering it's a social construct entirely distinct from the sex-based arguments that have been happening in this thread.
Just out of curiosity: Do you honestly believe that with all of your life experiences and obvious bias that you could ever look at this subject objectively, and accept another's viewpoint on it, not matter how much it disagrees with yours?
I don't see any reason I couldn't. Imagine if I said that cis people, with their lack of personal experience and obvious bias, could never look at this subject objectively or accept another's viewpoint of it. You'd reject that with a quickness. What you're essentially doing here is appealing to cis privilege: "Oh, trans people can't look at the subject of transsexuality objectively, so it's up to objective cis people to set the record straight."
Two posts ago you basically said the majority of us were just too stupid for you to tell the truth to, because it's so very complicated. Does that attitude speak for itself as well?
Ignorance is not stupidity. Not having exposure to an issue or education about a subject doesn't make you stupid. It just means that such a person would have difficulty grasping more advanced concepts before learning the fundamentals.
It's less about "lying," and more about accepting that gender and sex aren't so narrow and clear-cut as your preconceptions would have you think.
But what if they are? The majority of your "evidence", if not all of it, boils down to "but we still don't have a definitive answer yet". So it's entirely possible that it COULD be as cut and dry as someone might think, yes? Alternatively, gender and sex might not be as wide-open and muddied as you think, right?
given that "gender" and "sex" are both taxonomies created to describe living creatures, they are only narrow if we choose to make them narrow.
Your approach seems to be sticking with old, orthodox concepts, much akin to the people who said that biologically, there is only heterosexuality, and all other forms of sexuality are "genetic mutations" or "disorders". Fortunately people stepped back, took a truly objective look at things and said "Why would we treat these people as some kind of "freaks" or "oddities" when they are just people who breathe, eat, ****, laugh at the same humor, and have a body issue that involves parts that I will probably never look at. I don't know what Sam, my next door neighbor's ****** or ***** looks like, why do I need to know What Teia's looks like or used to look like? Why do I need to know what Sam or Teia like to stick or be stuck by?"
Don't you see that one of the big problems with strictly enforced narrow classifications for gender is that you have to invade people's privacy in order to establish their category? And that this kind of "peeking under the hood to establish your legitimacy as a person." is not necessary? "Teia: Male? Female? Drop your drawers. Put her--er... it down as 'Trans-N/A' under gender. Next! Kraken. Male? Female? Drop your pants. Put Kraken down as male--err... Hang on. The chromosomes came back. Put an asterisk under gender, and 'genetic mutation'."
Your kind of gender orthodoxy requires verification. Verification which is relatively invasive. What is the huge societal benefit that anybody have to register an official "gender" with the govt?
Just out of curiosity: Do you honestly believe that with all of your life experiences and obvious bias that you could ever look at this subject objectively, and accept another's viewpoint on it, not matter how much it disagrees with yours?
I don't know how you get the idea that Teia has a biased viewpoint compared to your own "objective" viewpoint. Hers is no less objective than your own.
Your approach almost seems to be like you're saying "Teia you can't be objective about this rule, because you were once a victim."
When it's more like "jedimindtricks. I am currently being actively held down. And because you are up there and I am down here, you don't seem to care about the pain that gender orthodoxy causes me."
I personally am a Christian, and I have certainly never been intersexed, transgendered, gay, or bisexual, as far as I know, yet I'm mostly in agreement with Teia on this issue, as well as on gay rights. But intellectually and morally, I find that gender orthodoxy is scientifically simplistic, and that as a practical societal framework, it SUCKS. It's just one constant threat to invade people's a privacy to establish which two boxes (male or female, verified by all typical sexual organs meeting established norms of size and fucntion, as well as SrY positivity or negativity) a person goes into... plus a garbage bag (genetic mutations and oddities) for the ones who don't fit into the two boxes.
Hypothetical:
If Tara just joined our MtG club and we were splitting up by boys and girls for some game or activity today... What would your actual approach be if Tara stated "boy" and you personally felt that Tara didn't have the facial & body proportions that you expect for a boy? Would you take a sarcastic tone and insist Tara join the girls? Would you demand to see a driver's license? Would you google search Tara's whole name? Would you say "OK this time, but next time i want a doctor's note."? Why would that be your right?
Do the benefits of running a game where all the players got into the correct boxes for gender orthodoxy, outweigh the negatives of you and the groups subjecting Tara to this kind of inquisition? One remedy is to treat people the same and let them live their lives without staring at their bulge. A narrower possible remedy is the erasure of strict gender segregation for organized activities. Outside of dating, strict gender orthodoxy and identification don't seem relevant to me.
And I've already covered and would be happy to go over again, the fallacies associated with super strict biological gender orthodoxy (and the ignorant classification as "mutation" or "oddity" for those outside the box).
Dcartist, if you re-read several of my posts, you'll note how I personally feel, and how I understand and comprehend others to feel are two different things. I actually personally agree with a lot of teia's sentiments on gender and sex. However, I can also see and understand her opposition. I don't actually believe either side can conclusively be "right".
As for "Tara", she could be whatever she wants to be. I couldn't care less. Stop telling me what I am and what I believe. As much as you think you know in your grand battles for the oppressed and under-represented, one thing you don't know, is me personally.
I wasn't appealing to anything, Teia. Sometimes a question is just a question. You have to make it into something more, but it was just an honest question. I'm not appealing to "cis" privilege. I could ask the same of anyone else in this thread, I just don't care what their answer is because outside of this thread I doubt the subject matter means as much to them. It was just a question. Relax, yeah?
Maybe the ignorance was on your part, making the assumption that you had a clear grasp on the ignorance or wisdom of those you were speaking to. If we are so ignorant, perhaps this will help guide your future actions: "Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who".
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
If we split people into groups then there is a point to it or there isn't.
If there is one, arbitrarily switching the groups around isn't a good idea.
If there isn't one, then there is also no point in switching the groups around.
thats a false dichotomy. If you actually believe in your dichotomy, why did you have to slip the word "arbitrarily" in there?
If you were actually making a valid point with that dichotomy, you would not have had to do anything dishonest like that.
There are in fact certain advantages and disadvantages to the current biologic taxonomy, as well as to the societal & legal designations.
Arguments for change in definitions and rules (or for not changing them) are not "arbitrary" and your attempt to tack that word on to the opposition viewpoint is transparent, but not very slick. I saw that coming before I finished reading your first sentence.
-
Historically, the biological, societal and legal definitions for male & female HAVE changed. They have not stayed the same.
And today, for example, the IOC has not designated female to mean "srY(-)" or "XX". They have recognized post SRS people with XY chromosomes to be female and in fact do no subject athletes to dehumanizing peeping into their DNA. Same goes for marriage in most states in the US. A person with XY post SRS is a woman. Renee Richards played in the USTA as a woman, born XY, and having undergone SRS and was ranked as high as 20th best woman tennis played in the world.
And guess what, it didn't make the world end. It doesnt mean our values are going into the toilet, and that the Biblical apocalypss is upon us. And more importantly, your day wasn't ruined. Maybe you're against that based on some personal abstract principle, but it certainly didn't affect your own life. But those changes made the world happier and more liveable for a lot of people. Some of those people are on this forum. And they would be socially marginalized if we still lived by these puritanical, outdated rules of gender orthodoxy that are clung to by some of the people here.
Now you're just blatantly misrepresenting my position. The phantom limb pain parallel stems from the fact that the brain, quite bluntly, expects your body to have two arms, and to be missing one arm causes the brain noticeable distress. This is the known cause of phantom limb pain. Phantom limb pain also exists in people who were born without the limb in question, triggered by the exact same mechanism as with amputees. It's through this "map" the brain has of your body that a trans woman's brain expects traits classified as female (and trans men's brains expect traits classified as male) and is thus relieved when physical changes occur to bring one's body more in line with what the brain expects. None of this is a "mental disorder." It's just a reaction to your body not having the parts it should.
Teia, as I've told you before, the topic is on transsexuals, not intersexuals.
Transsexuals are not born with genetic disorders that give them genetic traits of both males and females and they are not born with two sexual organs.
So when you argue that definitions aren't good enough to define 'male' and 'female' because intersexuals can't be defined that way or because intersexuals can be defined as the sex they identify as not as both sexes, that doesn't mean that transsexuals can too.
Arguing about intersexuals in this kind of context doesn't invalidate the arguments on transsexuals. No one made any kind of arguments about intersexuals not being 'male' or 'female' and no one made any arguments about intersexuals being genetically 'male' or 'female' or any arguments about sexual identity.
We're talking about Transsexuals, not intersexuals. The two concepts are no the same thing, they are different. Refuting arguments that apply to one (intersexuals) and not the other (transsexuals) doesn't refute both arguments, it only refutes the argument on intersexuals and that argument was never made in the first place.
That type of argument is fallacious and it is called a strawman argument.
Pointing out that we're not talking about people with genetic disorders, is pointing out that it is a strawman to do so because it doesn't refute the argument that people who don't suffer from genetic disorders can't be considered both genetic sexes.
Like I said Teia, each one of those posts explains why.
Now I don't have time to respond as much as I want to right now, so I'll get to the rest later.
It's less about "lying," and more about accepting that gender and sex aren't so narrow and clear-cut as your preconceptions would have you think.
But thats the rub right there, innit
To most people on this earth, and most creatures on this earth, it is pretty clean cut and dry. The M/F system has worked for billions of years, for millions of creatures. And for most of our existance, there was no magical surgery for those who simply opt to swap. Yet we don't like to admit that anyone born with "double parts" or "mismatched brains" is a birth defect, because it obviously doesn't follow standard genetic design.
The only time this becomes "not so clear cut as preconceptions would have you think" is when I spend too much time reading this thread on MTGS. A thread filled with ridiculous arguments trying to convince people this is all quite common and normal, and everyone should accept it with a grain of salt.
But then I return to the real world where this is far from normal and certainly not the status quot. One thing that struck me the most was in the first 50 pages, examples about how parents are raising kids genderless. I actually did a lot of digging on that topic, initially thinking that society must have drastically changed and I missed the boat or something.
Interesting enough, I found this article on that very topic, and this other blog that reflects my feelings for this practice. How very appalling. Poor kid. I'm relieved to see I'm not the only person who thinks crap like this is crazy.
I think every kid should be given the chance to start life "normal". Parents doing this are really just pushing their kid to be trans especially if they force the child to wear womens clothing. (I'm sorry you didn't have a girl? too bad so sad)
What am I saying? Where am I going on this tangent of mine?
You would have us believe that sex & gender are not clear cut and narrow, and provide radical arguments to support that belief, but I'm not seeing much outside of thread in MTGS that indicates I'm living in some alternate universe where people all around me have mismatching sex & gender identification issues and this is all very normal.
You could fall back on the argument that there really is trans all around me, like some sexual conspiracy theory, but my ignorance is blinding me and 1 out of every 3 girls standing in line at chipotle is really a man with a suprise in the zipper of her jeans. But hey, at least we find unity in chipotle. All hail!
To most people on this earth, and most creatures on this earth, it is pretty clean cut and dry. The M/F system has worked for billions of years, for millions of creatures. And for most of our existance, there was no magical surgery for those who simply opt to swap. Yet we don't like to admit that anyone born with "double parts" or "mismatched brains" is a birth defect, because it obviously doesn't follow standard genetic design.
The M/F genetic system isn't being brought into question (as if we could do anything to change it...). The issue here isn't genetics, it's who someone is mentally.
The only time this becomes "not so clear cut as preconceptions would have you think" is when I spend too much time reading this thread on MTGS. A thread filled with ridiculous arguments trying to convince people this is all quite common and normal, and everyone should accept it with a grain of salt.
Who has called it common and normal? It's neither, but that doesn't really matter. Do you think we should not be accepting of people who are different from the norm?
I think every kid should be given the chance to start life "normal". Parents doing this are really just pushing their kid to be trans especially if they force the child to wear womens clothing. (I'm sorry you didn't have a girl? too bad so sad)
You can't "push" your kid to become trans, anymore than you can push them to become gay or push them to become blue-eyed. Transexual people are born that way.
You would have us believe that sex & gender are not clear cut and narrow, and provide radical arguments to support that belief, but I'm not seeing much outside of thread in MTGS that indicates I'm living in some alternate universe where people all around me have mismatching sex & gender identification issues and this is all very normal.
So it has to be all around you to exist? The funny thing is, you could interact with someone like this on a daily basis and might never know it.
You could fall back on the argument that there really is trans all around me, like some sexual conspiracy theory, but my ignorance is blinding me and 1 out of every 3 girls standing in line at chipotle is really a man with a suprise in the zipper of her jeans. But hey, at least we find unity in chipotle. All hail!
You seem to think that abundance of something is relevant to how real it is, which is odd. The "bro"-ish attitude could get lost, though.
The M/F genetic system isn't being brought into question (as if we could do anything to change it...). The issue here isn't genetics, it's who someone is mentally.
Let me rephrase. Insert whatever medical term as necessary if you wanna be technical.
Yet we don't like to admit that anyone born with "double parts" or "mismatched brains" is a birth defect, because it obviously doesn't follow the standard <insert whatever or none here> design.
Do you think we should not be accepting of people who are different from the norm?
Accepting someone for who they are, is different from trying to convince us that this is some common trait and society needs overhauled to accommodate it, because we don't like admitting its a disorder. Its different from making implications where we live in some gender free society where people flip flop from M/F all the time and anyone not accepting that has the "issue", not the trans born with the "issue".
I am not sold.
I'd also like to say AGAIN, there's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Just because you tolerate something doesn't mean you have to accept it. It just means you tolerate it. It means your capable of sitting down with individuals and playing a hand of MTG without being rude or ill willed toward the person. But you don't have to like or approve of what the person is about or their lifestyle.
You can't "push" your kid to become trans, anymore than you can push them to become gay or push them to become blue-eyed. Transexual people are born that way.
Maybe not. But you can mess them up in the head at an early age by cross dressing them and sending them to public school, because some crazy people like those parents would like to believe we live in a genderless society where none of that matters and people flip flop all the time. They'd like to believe their not setting the kid up for hardships and ridicule throughout his childhood because other kids at school don't make fun of eachother or bully people.
So it has to be all around you to exist? The funny thing is, you could interact with someone like this on a daily basis and might never know it.
Back to the conspiracy theory.
You seem to think that abundance of something is relevant to how real it is, which is odd.
Oh I didn't argue that its "not real" and I certainly empathize for people stuck in this situation.
I very much believe the abundance of something does dictate whether or not everyone else around them should have to change to accommodate the phenomenon. Especially if were making changes simply so that somebody doesn't have their feelings hurt by being classified as a disorder or abnormal.
Let me rephrase. Insert whatever medical term as necessary if you wanna be technical.
Yet we don't like to admit that anyone born with "double parts" or "mismatched brains" is a birth defect, because it obviously doesn't follow the standard <insert whatever or none here> design.
I wouldn't call it a "defect", but yes, it is abnormal. Why does it matter that it is abnormal?
Accepting someone for who they are, is different from trying to convince us that this is some common trait and society needs overhauled to accommodate it, because we don't like admitting its a disorder. Its different from making implications where we live in some gender free society where people flip flop from M/F all the time and anyone not accepting that has the "issue", not the trans born with the "issue".
Where are you getting this "flip flop from M/F all the time" from? You make it sound like it's a whimsical decision, rather than the way someone is born. It doesn't matter that this is uncommon (more on this later).
I'd also like to say AGAIN, there's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Just because you tolerate something doesn't mean you have to accept it. It just means you tolerate it. It means your capable of sitting down with individuals and playing a hand of MTG without being rude or ill willed toward the person. But you don't have to like or approve of what the person is about or their lifestyle.
So, you don't think we should accept people who are different from the norm, but merely just tolerate them? You can tolerate the way someone is born, but you can't be accepting of it? Interesting.
Maybe not. But you can mess them up in the head at an early age by cross dressing them and sending them to public school, because some crazy people like those parents would like to believe we live in a genderless society where none of that matters and people flip flop all the time. They'd like to believe their not setting the kid up for hardships and ridicule throughout his childhood because other kids at school don't make fun of eachother or bully people.
I'm not defending what these whack-a-doo parents are doing, I'm just correcting your errors.
I very much believe the abundance of something does dictate whether or not everyone else around them should have to change to accommodate the phenomenon.
If only there were more transgender people, you'd be willing to change?
Explain to me how abundance can dictate whether it's right or wrong to accept something, rather than just merely tolerate it.
Especially if were making changes simply so that somebody doesn't have their feelings hurt by being classified as a disorder or abnormal.
Right, it makes way more sense to avoid change so that you avoid any inconvenience in the matter. What do we gain by calling it a disorder or abnormal? Sure, it makes it a lot easier to treat it like a thing, rather than a group of human beings. However, it's not really a disorder, at least not by definition.We're not talking about an abnormality that prevents an individual from being every bit as high-functioning as you are.
This is why it's so very easy to take things out of context and reach wrong conclusions. There are people who only think they're trans, that much isn't being disputed. For some reason or another, they decide to pursue transition, and it doesn't really work for them. These are the kinds of people who feel miserable on HRT (since their brain isn't wired to prefer the exogeneous hormone over the endogeneous one), who feel dysphoric presenting as their target gender, the ones who, well, aren't actually trans. I've seen people realize that they weren't trans after going through partial transition, and it's not a huge deal. If anything, it takes quite a bit of courage to say "I was wrong" about something so life-changing.
Of course it's not a huge deal socially or morally. But logically, for the purpose of your argument, it is, because it demonstrates by example that someone can identify as female and not be female. Which contradicts any number of statements you've made on this issue, most recently, from just yesterday, "the only truly all-encompassing trait all female people share is a female identity".
You sure seem to love harping on this point as if it was ever somehow central to my position that trans women have strictly female brains, or whatever.
When you translate "female brain gives me female identity" to "atypical brain gives me female identity", a lot of what you said to brush off parallels to other disorders evaporates. So it may not be central to your core position, but it has played an important role in your defense.
To say that trans women are seen on some level as male is like trying to shove someone into both boxes at once—it's to say that you don't recognize trans women as being "really" female, but at the same time we aren't really male.
I think that's an accurate description of a common view of trans women, at least those well into transition. It seems misleading to call this a "third gender", though, since it's, as you say, putting someone in both boxes, not putting them into a third box. And also because we're talking about sex, not gender.
I wouldn't read too much into the usage of particular terms like "trans woman", though. After all, English also has terms like "tomboy" and "drag queen", and outside the sphere of gender, "lone wolf", "loose cannon", and "bleeding heart". Sometimes words are used metaphorically. Just a fact of language. Even if you mean the "woman" in "trans woman" literally, someone else may not. That they believe trans women are not entirely male, not entirely female should be inferred from their statements, not their vocabulary.
It's through this "map" the brain has of your body that a trans woman's brain expects traits classified as female (and trans men's brains expect traits classified as male) and is thus relieved when physical changes occur to bring one's body more in line with what the brain expects.
Has it been demonstrated that this is the same mechanism as that causing phantom limb pain, or is this just a hypothesis? An outwardly plausible hypothesis, to be sure, but there's so much about the brain we just don't understand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Where are you getting this "flip flop from M/F all the time" from? You make it sound like it's a whimsical decision, rather than the way someone is born. It doesn't matter that this is uncommon (more on this later).
The M/F flip flop comes from someone stating that since they tell you their a woman, they are therefore a woman. That because someone decided they are female, they are now female. That because someone "identifies as" female, they are therefore female. Followed by implications that this is all very common and trans are all around me, I just don't know it. (Conspiracy Theory).
None of which I'm buying. Not a woman.
It was also said, that unlike Jenna, an individual doesn't have to have a sex change and or undergo the understood process of achieving this, and can simply "be" what they choose.
Not buying that either. Not a woman.
Obviously, those statements didn't hold up earlier in the thread, so it changed to arguments about genetics, neurology, and the 'female brain <proper term> mans body'
Still not buying. Not a woman.
After that, it was stated that if a passable trans was close enough to looking like a woman, I wouldn't know better and I would refer to them as "woman" regardless. While this might be true, because I didn't know better,
They're still not a woman.
NUTSHELL: people trying extremely hard with any argument or angle possible to convince others that they are a woman, even though they are a man. And when one argument falls through, its onto the next. Along the journey alot of terminology has been introduced, some of it bent to support these arguments, many of which I do not follow or take notes on. It doesn't really matter what terminology you use. I myself still not sold.
Not a woman.
So, you don't think we should accept people who are different from the norm, but merely just tolerate them? You can tolerate the way someone is born, but you can't be accepting of it? Interesting.
Accept they are different? Sure.
Accept they are a woman? No. Thats a man.
Put on a facade or pretend for the sake of respect? Likely not.
Overhaul society to accommodate phenomenon? No.
Accept this is some natural trait in a gender-free society? No
Accept that men wearing dresses is a beautiful thing? God no !
If only there were more transgender people, you'd be willing to change?
Explain to me how abundance can dictate whether it's right or wrong to accept something, rather than just merely tolerate it.
Currently on a medical forum, job application or drivers license papers you might see something like the following
[_] Caucasian
[_] African American
[_] Hispanic
[_] Asian
[_] Other _______
That is because of abundance. Abundance has dictated. I feel / see no need for any of them to be revamped to look like this:
Sex: [_] Male [_] Female
Gender: [_] Male [_] Female
That is absurd. For the vast majority of the population, these two will align regardless. This is not abundance. Its not like we have some emmidiate need to overhaul everything to accomodate a phenominom. Write a damn note in the file if its that critical. One example of hundreds.
We don't need to overhaul laws and legal documents to say "And trans<proper term> people." You may as well add in "And down syndrome people" and "LD people" and "two headed infants" or whatever else not that is not born the status quot.
What do we gain by calling it a disorder or abnormal?
Because it is a disorder. Its not in order. Its not aligned. Its not by design. Saying otherwise is just because an individual doesn't want to be classified in a negative manor. Nothing more. Referring to it as a "trait" just softens the discription out of respect. Its not a trait such as blue eyes, brown skin, red hair, short or tall.
Referring to it as a "trait" implies that it is natural, and in an indirect way, common. Neither of which it is. If people are going to fall back on the "female brain <proper term> males body" argument then certainly, that is an oops. A disorder. That is not by design or simply a "trait".
@ dcartist
It's funny, the last time I responded to you I pointed out how you had gotten everything I said wrong and that you didn't answer anything I actually said. I could write another post, but last time didn't seem to have any effect, so just imagine I would quote your post line for line and say write "Actually, that's not what I meant and/or irrelevant" under each one. I've honestly had enough of your bull**** accusations.
You referring to THIS massive waste of time you posted?
Yes. Your thoughts are not organized, and it is reflected in your postings. There is a reason I still don't know what you mean by your question.
Quote from HTime »
Quote from dcartist »
Actually when a person gets SRS they are modifying their body to fit the definition.
It's interesting that here you act as if there was such a thing as "the definition" (which is something I that would agree with), but then later you act as if this isn't the case:
I am referring to the only remedy available to the person, altering their body to meet "the definition" in their ownmind (and I've already stated there are multiple possible definitions from societal to biologic ones).
Quote from HTime »
Quote from dcartist »
What do you mean by "male" in the first instance in the sentence? The way you use it implies that you believe that you have a UNIQUE, special definition in your own mind and that it is DeFINiTIVE.
Setting that aside, I would dispute the notion that a SRS actually changes a person's sex.
Are you serious? You go on and on about you want your one question answered (when in fact you asked 3 vague questions). I ask you to clarify what you mean by a word in one of your questions and you are "setting that aside" and won't answer? Really?
And you wonder why I can't answer your questions?
I am not sure what you mean by "srY(+)". I will assume that you mean "having the SRY gene".
Good lord, did that really need explaining? You're "not sure"?
I chose srY(+)/srY(-) because it very accurately carries the binary nature of having the srY gene or not, and the thintelligent thinking that is easily sucked into the fallacy of believing that a gene defines gender or sex.
It is also loaded with the negative stigma associated with applying things like HIV(+)/HIV(-) binary taxonomy on people. Which is why I referenced Cartman from the South Park AIDS episode, "I'm not just sure, I'm HIV positive!"
Quote from HTime »
On any account, I did not do/say any such thing. I said that it appears to me that being male is equivalent (remember that I explained that a definition and an equivalence differ from each other?) to "having the SRY gene do its work", which admittedly is not that very well phrased, but I think that it's clear that I mean more than just having the gene.
It's not very well phrased because you haven't thought it through (and I'm telling you I am WAY WAY ahead of you here) and recognized that you are falling right into one of the categories I described. I understand your whole argument, top to bottom, and you are way, way behind:
You are wanting "Male" to be NARROWLY defined, "female" to be NARROWLY defined, and that anybody who falls outside of those two NARROW definitions, is an "oddity", "genetic mutation", whatever you want to call it, but they are clearly not "male" or "female"
When you are saying "male is equivalent to "having the SRY gene do its work", you are EITHER (1) refusing to offer a definition and being vague in order to AVOID BEING PINNED DOWN ON A POSITION OR (2) demanding srY(+) status as ONE Of the MANDATORY criteria of the definition "male", AND in addition, requiring OTHER mandatory criteria, whatever the things are that you wish to include in the "SRY gene do its work"... whether that be having a ***** over 1.5 inches flaccid, having testicles that produce >70% motile sperm, having at least 50% active receptors, etc. etc.
You wanted me to answer your question. I don't understand your question, since you refuse to clarify what YOU mean by "male".
Quote from HTime »
Quote from dcartist »
male and female have been redefined in terms of Olympic sports, and even in most states (that includes a lot of southern states, whodathunkit?
Whether or not the olympic sports (and some states) have redefined these words in some way or another has little bearing on whether or not this action was rational/consistent/morally obligatory/etc.
Fine it has "no bearing". But it is reality now, and we have had to deal with the fallout for years now.
In what way was it not "rational"?
In what way was it not 'consistent"?
In what way was it not "morally obligatory"?
In what way is the world now a worse place because the IOC chose this definition of "female" over YOUR ancient, "gender orthodox" version of "female"?
Quote from HTime »
I asked why the assumption "During most of our interactions, gender should be more important than sex." would lead one to believe "The words male and female ought to be redefined." instead of "A lot of the rules (of society/the state/competitive events) should be about gender, not sex". And I still don't think you really answered that.
That question is actually quite easy: During most of our interactions, gender should be more important that "sex", because (1) whether I am fertile or not is none of your business (2) whether I have a ***** is none of your business (3) whether I have sex with girls or guys is none of your business (4) you have no right to "look under my hood" or at my genes AND (5) you and I will not be having SEX, EVER.
"Gender" on the other hand, is used to segregate people for purposes of sports, pageants, etc.
Quote from HTime »
Quote from dcartist »
Your perception that srY(+) defines "legal maleness" (as opposed to being one of the genetic determinants, among others, that are required, but certainly no sufficient, to end up being born with a male phenotype) has been largely rejected by society, international olympics and the US state governments. Post-SRS gender of male or females is legally recognized in most civilized countries and nobody gets to sneak a peak at your srY gene status .
Regarding the bolded part: I also have never said this and I don't believe it. I am not even sure if I even used the word "legal" in this thread before.
Regarding the rest: First, I am fairly certain that most people in society, international olympics or US state governments don't even know that the SRY gene exists.
The people involved in the decision making for the IOC and the State governments certainly know that the Y chromosome exists, and that biologically, the idea that most people with penises have XY genes, and most people without penises have XX genes has been well known to the experts consulted.
The argument is the same whether I say srY(+) or just Y(+) or XY. SrY(+) just has all the obviously bigoted flavor of labels like HIV(+) and that's why I chose to state my arguments in terms of SrY(+) instead of Y(+).
Fine:
Post-SRS gender of male or females is legally recognized in most civilized countries and nobody gets to sneak a peak at your GENE status.
Happy? Nobody peaks at your genes. Nobody has the right.
Quote from HTime »
Anyway, I have said before that I don't see (m)any (big) problems with society, the state, or certain competitions basing the treatment of a person on gender. I do however think that this is a terrible reason for redefining the words "male" and "female". See the bottom of this post, where I go back to the question that's still on my mind.
"Male" and "female" have more than one websters definition already.
IN WHAT CONTEXT DO YOU FEAR THE REDEFINITION OF "MALE" OR "FEMALE"?
Quote from HTime »
Quote from dcartist »
necessary but not sufficient. It is a factor. But emphasizing that srY(+) is critical for influencing the cells to form testicles, testosterone, *****, etc leading to a human being born a phenotypic male, does not make srY(+) = male.
If I'm wrong, could you please show me how it is not sufficient by providing an example? It's entirely possible that I'm wrong and that a person's sex is actually determined by the combination of a larger number of genes. But in this case, I would simply replace "the SRY gene" with the group of genes that's actually responsible. I don't think this would make a big difference. Whether or not we can find a simple criterion (as in: just one if/else statement) for belonging to a certain sex does not really have any impact on my arguments.
You are completely misunderstanding again. You are misunderstanding because You don't understand YOUR OWN definition of "male"... You've just vaguely hinted at it... then not followed through on the thought process and what results from your working definition of "male":
HTIME: "being male is equivalent (remember that I explained that a definition and an equivalence differ from each other?) to "having the SRY gene do its work", which admittedly is not that very well phrased, but I think that it's clear that I mean more than just having the gene."
You are the one stating that srY(+) status is "NOT SUFFICIENT" to define a "male". Why are you asking ME to define all the ways in which its 'not sufficient'? You are the one that is stating that a person not only has to have the srY(+), but that srY gene ALSO has to "do its work". For example, if the srY gene doesn't have another chromosome allowing for androgen sensitivity, then it can't "do its work". For example, if you only have 44 chromosomes total, then srY can't "do its work".
YOU stated that the srY gene had to "do its work" in order to define a person as male. So YOU are stating that a person has to be srY(+) AND have whatever OTHER CHARACTERISTICS (vaguely described by the phrase "do its work" )THAT YOU HAVE REFUSED TO SPECIFY, in order to be "male".
Regarding the first part:
Again, to me this seems like it's just dodging my question:
If you think:
(1) The way whether or not someone is male/female determines how/whether or not people are given the ability to participate fully in society is unjust.
Then I can see how you would conclude:
(2) Whether or not someone is male/female should play less of a role when it comes to how/whether or not people are given the ability to participate fully in society.
And from this, you could then conclude:
(3) We should come up with a new classification of people such that using this classification to determine how/whether or not people are given the ability to participate fully in society is totally just and/or avoids some/most/all of the problems of using the old classification.
No. I've speculated that defining more broad legal categories of classification for "male" and "female" is one of the many possible remedies, which has both upside and downside (though I feel the downsides are far fewer than the upsides).
I have NOT argued that somebody put a gun to the head of Webster's to make them write a different definition in their dictionary, or twist YOUR arm until you memorize the "new definition".
However, I simply can't find any good reason for how one would take this to conclude that the old classification has to go completely, which is what redefining the words "male" and "female" (or "man" and "woman") would imply (and if I might add, I have previously given arguments that this would be nonsensical).
"Male" has at least 7 definitions there. An 8th definition is not going to cause the others to combust.
I have no idea why you have chosen the BIZARRE interpretation of my arguments to conclude that I want to magically remove other definitions of "male" from the dictionary. As you say yourself, it would be "nonsensical".
Maybe you should assume that somebody is not trying to ram nonsense down your throat.
I've stated repeatedly that words such as "male" have different meanings in different contexts, and I've previously argued that the only ones we have the ability to IMPOSE on people are legal ones.
Quote from HTime »
Quote from dcartist »
as I started at the very first post in this thread, legal and societal definitions of male and female segregate and determine the ability to participate fully in society. Some of the specific areas in society where such things are issues were discussed.
[...]
For purposes of this thread, whether a person who is srY(+) and had SRS should be considered a woman, is ...
Regarding the second part:
I take issue with your choice of words (the part I bolded). "To consider" suggests that the issue in question is subjective ("When it comes to U2, I consider Achtung Baby to be a better album than The Joshua Tree").
I chose the word "considered" in order to make it clear that legal "recognition" does not have to ERASE your other definitions you use in other contexts. You're forgetting that when "male" has more than one definition according to context (which I have argued), then "considered" is perfectly appropriate in that sentence to make it clear that I recognize that other possible contexts for "female" exist.
Quote from HTime »
Beyond that, if we ask the question "Is a transwomen a woman?", the answer is "No" if we go by the definition of "woman" that has persisted for the last couple of centuries.
Fine, you are the protector of the "definition of "woman" that has persisted for the last couple of centuries."
Except that you're NOT.
You do realize that 2 centuries ago, nobody had ever heard of an X and Y chromosome, which were not discovered until 1905. Prior to that, the standard was "******" & "*****", NOT "XX" and "XY".
You have happily chosen "XX" (or srY(-) ) to override "******" as the "definition of "woman" that has persisted for the last couple of centuries"
Quote from HTime »
Tautologically, the answer would be "Yes" if we were to change the definition of "woman" in such a way that any transwoman would be included.
Its already been changed more than once, since the definition of 2 centuries ago, that you are so fond of.
It currently legally stands, for the purposes of marriage, to include people with XY who have SRS surgery to remove their penises and construct a ******.
It may change further, and I think we're better off for it. I'd be happy to hear how our society or science have been harmed by having a new legal definition.
Quote from HTime »
What I take issue with are claims like "We should define the word W-O-M-A-N to mean something that includes any transwoman".
I have argued several times by this point that this involves a categorical error (the sequence of letters W-O-M-A-N has no properties that make it so that it's in some sense "right" to slap in one some content, but "wrong" to slap in one a different one). I explain another issue (which is what my question revolves around) below.
You are very concrete in your understanding of some of these things.
(1) Its not right to "slap" anybody.
(2) "Woman" has many connotations. The issue of what you should call somebody has more to do with how one refers to people in polite society.
If you refuse to call a post-SRS woman a "woman" (after she's asked to stop calling her a man) for whatever reason, that is on YOU. You have the right to hurt people's feelings and its your opinion. Just as I, in that same room, would call you an ******* for doing that, because I have the right to hurt people's feelings, and its MY opinion.
I have simply restated (and slightly changed the formulation of) this question: Regarding the issue of how people are being treated based on their classification as "male" or "female", just think about this: Which part is it exactly that makes those groups matter at all?
I will explain it again: It's clear that, in our society, the way a person is treated is to some degree dependent on whether or not that person belongs to a group of people called "male" (or "female").
There can be two reasons for this.
One is that the sequence of letters "M-A-L-E" (or "F-E-M-A-L-E") that we use to describe it plays a role. I then pointed out that this can't be the case (and if I may add: not because I felt that this wasn't obvious, merely for completeness).
This leaves us with the second option, that it's the content of the word that is solely responsible (since you asked: when I say the content of a word/definition, I mean the thing that has been assigned a label). But if the label you slap on that content doesn't matter at all, what's the point in putting the same label on a different content?
And you are making a massive mountain out of this idea that some inherent definition of the word "W-O-M-A-N" is being "changed", OUTSIDE of a legal or rules based context.
When nobody else gives a **** or believes there is a universal definition of "W-O-M-A-N".
That is why nobody really understands your question. Your question is utterly ambiguous.
And you've yet to give what you believe to be the definition of "male". You've given us "having the SRY gene do its work", which is utterly vague.
The two centuries old definition of "male" (which you have attacked me for trying to change) was having a ***** and balls. YOUR definition is "having the SRY gene do its work". What do you mean by that? Under your definition, is a person male if there are no testicles? How about 1 testicle? How about a non-working testicle? How about no real *****, just hypospadias, but has testicles capable of producing sperm? Have to make sperm? Is a boy a "pre-male"? Is a post-menopausal woman a "female" or a "former-female" or "neuter" since she has no working ovaries? You claim I'm changing 2 centuries old definitions, yet you are arguing for some weird, very vague variation on a definition that appeared after 1905.
DEFINE what you mean by "having the SRY gene do its work".
The M/F flip flop comes from someone stating that since they tell you their a woman, they are therefore a woman. That because someone decided they are female, they are now female. That because someone "identifies as" female, they are therefore female. Followed by implications that this is all very common and trans are all around me, I just don't know it. (Conspiracy Theory).
None of which I'm buying. Not a woman.
I don't see the conspiracy or theory here...
We're not talking about people who decide that they are female.
It was also said, that unlike Jenna, an individual doesn't have to have a sex change and or undergo the understood process of achieving this, and can simply "be" what they choose.
Not buying that either. Not a woman.
There's that word again. This is not a choice. You have said you understand this, but the fact that you keep reverting back to it makes me think otherwise.
Obviously, those statements didn't hold up earlier in the thread, so it changed to arguments about genetics, neurology, and the 'female brain <proper term> mans body'
Still not buying. Not a woman.
Ok, so on what basis do you define a person as being a man or woman?
After that, it was stated that if a passable trans was close enough to looking like a woman, I wouldn't know better and I would refer to them as "woman" regardless. While this might be true, because I didn't know better,
They're still not a woman.
Again, your criteria for determining who is and is not a woman would be interesting.
NUTSHELL: people trying extremely hard with any argument or angle possible to convince others that they are a woman, even though they are a man. And when one argument falls through, its onto the next. Along the journey alot of terminology has been introduced, some of it bent to support these arguments, many of which I do not follow or take notes on. It doesn't really matter what terminology you use. I myself still not sold.
Not a woman.
There are still many who are not sold on blacks and whites being equal, so whether or not you are personally sold on the idea is immaterial to it's validity, but I'm still willing to help you rid yourself of the inaccuracies and see if I can at least get you to look at the issue through a less ignorant lens.
Currently on a medical forum, job application or drivers license papers you might see something like the following
[_] Caucasian
[_] African American
[_] Hispanic
[_] Asian
[_] Other _______
That is because of abundance. Abundance has dictated.
This is not an answers to my question at all. I didn't ask how abundance can dictate something, I asked how abundance can dictate whether something is right or wrong to accept. Are you saying that anything in "other" is unworthy of being accepted as part of normal society? I doubt that's the case.
I feel / see no need for any of them to be revamped to look like this:
Sex: [_] Male [_] Female
Gender: [_] Male [_] Female
That is absurd. For the vast majority of the population, these two will align regardless. This is not abundance. Its not like we have some emmidiate need to overhaul everything to accomodate a phenominom. Write a damn note in the file if its that critical. One example of hundreds.
What's amusing about this example is that it's totally legal for trans women or trans men to check "female" or "male", respectively, on these kinds of forms, as it should be. No "overhaul" is needed.
We don't need to overhaul laws and legal documents to say "And trans<proper term> people." You may as well add in "And down syndrome people" and "LD people" and "two headed infants" or whatever else not that is not born the status quot.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with this. Rephrase, perhaps?
Because it is a disorder. Its not in order. Its not aligned. Its not by design.
If it's genetic, then it is by design. If it's due to the environment within the womb, during development, then perhaps not, but what should it matter?
Saying otherwise is just because an individual doesn't want to be classified in a negative manor. Nothing more. Referring to it as a "trait" just softens the discription out of respect. Its not a trait such as blue eyes, brown skin, red hair, short or tall.
Classifying things into disorders is useful for diagnosing disease. This is not the case in this situation. A trans gender person can be more high-functioning that someone with ADHD, which is a disorder that does negatively impact day to day function, and is useful in classifying so that it can be diagnosed and treated.
Referring to it as a "trait" implies that it is natural, and in an indirect way, common. Neither of which it is. If people are going to fall back on the "female brain <proper term> males body" argument then certainly, that is an oops. A disorder. That is not by design or simply a "trait".
Trait does not imply that something is common, and it very well may be that trans gender-ism is "natural". Even if it were due to environmental conditions within the womb, it's not something that was under that individual's control, and is not something they have chosen.
"male" has multiple definitions. There are 7 in the regular dictionary I linked to.
After multiple pages of posts, you don't seem to get that even "male sex" is not a label for a unique object or concept. It is not attached to a single unique concept like "proton" or "kilogram". It's frustrating but mildly amusing to see you bump up against this stupid fallacy over & over again, actually.
The fact that your whole thesis in this thread relies on the mistaken assumption that "W-O-M-A-N" has a special unique meaning in all circumstances is the reason none of my answers are getting through to you.
How can you possibly keep insisting that "male" has a unique definition, and then you repeatedly refuse to specify what it means to you exactly?
Among your so called "definitions":
"having the SRY gene and something in addition would be equivalent to being male."
"Having the SRY gene do its work"
Those are not definitions. Those are a refusal to be pinned down to what you claim to be a unique definition. But you are makin sry(+) to be a minimum criterion to be "male", but you haven't defined the OTHER criteria. Even those sketchy non-definitions above make sry(+) MANDATORY for "maleness" in your universe.
You are working under the fallacy that this concept of "male" exists as a valid, unique concept... And this somehow gives you the privilege of NOT having to define the word... You just kind of point vaguely in its "direction" and say "that over there...".
DEFINE IT! You are the one claiming a unique definition. What is the "something in addition" that you vaguely reference? What constitutes "doing the SRY gene's work"? We're supposed to read your mind? Clearly you don't like any definition that excludes SRY(+), you're sure of that.
You accused me of trying to change a definition of "male" that's 2 centuries old, yet you insist that part of the definition of "male" is the Y gene or the SRY concept, neither of which even existed before 1900. YOU are the one insisting that the 200 year old definition be changed to accommodate SRY.
As for your demanding that the IOC has to justify how it currently defines "female", I ask WHY? This is the current system and has been for a while. YOU'RE the one who wants to change it, you're the one who has to come up with moral/ethical/blahblah reasons to change it.
The onus is on you. If you dont like how The IOC is doing the USTA has been doing things since before you were born, then you are the one who is fighting the establishment and wanting to change things, as much as people like Teia or myself are pushing for sex and gender definitons to go in a different direction.
I have repeatedly asked you for a definition of "male" that is bein used in the sentence that is supposedly the question you want me to answer.
When you and I don't agree what "male" is, and you refuse to say what YOUR definition of "male" is in that sentence, how am I supposed to figure out what your damn question means?
You're arguing for three sex categories here or something. Last I checked, "Sex: I" isn't a classification.
Now this is actually something that can be responded to—if only it were actually addressed to me to begin with. Except that it doesn't work because trans people don't have brains that are somehow beyond sexually dimorphic distinctions (enough so to create a distinct third sex category independent of male and female traits), which is a flaw in your argument. The totality of masculinized and feminized traits would create some manner of third category... in the exact same way you argue for a third sexual category for intersex people.
No I'm not arguing for a third sex category. In fact in the same quote you quoted, I said specifically there wasn't a third sex category, so I have no idea how you concluded that, when I specifically said there wasn't.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
This doesn't explain anything. And also ignores any genetic basis for transsexuality.
First of all, taking a single sentence of my post out of context to try and make a point is a real douche thing to do (you know besides being fallacious in the first place). I went on to explain the difference in the very first post:
Quote from FoxBlade »
I'll grant you those examples aren't quite so clear cut - however we're not talking about genetic mutations here.
We're talking about a man or woman who chooses to change their physical appearance based on how they feel.
That's a pretty big difference from what you're talking about and I don't think it's comparable.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
I'm just quoting this part of that actually rather amusing (in how it manages to misrepresent nearly every single argument I've made) exchange to point out that it's one of those times where people know what the intended meaning of something was, and yet they choose to act ignorant—ridicule for the sake of ridicule, in other words. It's not cute or funny or whatever, and it contributes even less to the debate than stamping your feet and reasserting "we're not talking about genetic mutations" one more time. You show brazen disrespect towards me, grossly misrepresent my arguments, call my arguments "turds," and have taken several opportunities to engage in open ridicule... and I'd like it noted I don't do the same to you. This vitriol is completely one-sided, and I think speaks for itself.
I'm not misrepresenting your arguments, secondly, it was you who decided to repeatedly misrepresent my arguments (and try to sum up our arguments in a ridiculous exchange that is really inaccurate). I can show you the examples if you'd like, cause you do it several times and not just to me, but to other posters in this thread as well.
I'm not ridiculing you, the example I gave using clinical lycanthropy was meant to show how absurd your logic was. If you find that offensive, then perhaps you should have thought about the logic you were using to justify your reasoning. The thing about your logic is that you can plug in any neurological disorder and it would still be absurd, clinical lycanthropy was just one of the examples I used and I specifically choose it to show how absurd it was.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
This has nothing to do with the question at hand: What's the point of having all kinds of varying standards [for sex determination] rather than the single overarching ones I've been pushing?
Do I really have to restate what I already said? Your reasoning for them is fallacious and the sources you cited do not agree with your assertions.
If you can actually argue a valid point that stands up to scrutiny, then I will acknowledge and consider it. You haven't yet.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
Also I'll point out that the sources I cited don't contradict me nearly as much as you think they do. Reread the past page or so with me and Blinking Spirit to see what I'm talking about.
Please do and I did.
Quote from Teia Rabishu »
While I wouldn't call anyone's argument a "turd" (I try to have more respect for people's arguments than that, no matter how vehemently I disagree), I could say similar of your arguments. Look at the sheer number of times you handwave something away with "we're not talking about genetic mutations" with little to no further comment, regardless of the arguments directed at you.
Teia, you've taken things out of context, created strawmen, equivocated words, cited sources that don't agree with you, used arguments from authority, and insinuate that everyone is just too stupid to understand how complex the issue really is so you have to simplify it for us stupid people - and you want to complain now that I used a metaphor to describe your arguments?
How about coming up with a valid point?
The reason why I have a sheer number of posts that talks about your strawman is because you keep bringing it up. I have engaged it over and over again, I even tried as best as I could in my previous post to explain to you why your intersexual argument is a strawman. I hope you finally understand why it's a strawman, but I'm not holding my breath.
I asked for a reason for thinking "During most of our interactions, gender should be more important than sex." Therefore "The words male and female ought to be redefined." You responded by giving reasons for thinking "During most of our interactions, gender should be more important than sex." Not only is it obvious that this does not answer the question, I even explicitly said that I agree that gender tends to be more important than sex when it comes to most social interactions.
The words male and female ought to be redefined to at the very least also include male and female gender roles ... because this is how they are principally used [as you agree with in this very snippet of your post!].
If a word is most often used in a way that doesn't agree with its own definition, the definition ought to change to represent what the word actually means. If a definition doesn't represent how a word is used, it isn't a good or representative definition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
my mouth is full of winsome lies -
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
I personally find it baffling how people continue to read my posts and then think I said or agreed to something that I actually disagree with, this being another example.
If you find yourself "baffled" that more people MISunderstand you than understand you, maybe you should consider the possibility that the communication problem is at the writer's end, not the reader? Just food for thought?
Regardless of whose fault the miscommunication is, I want to understand where you think we're misunderstanding you:
Here is my current perception of your position.
(1) I think you've made a distinction between male/female for "gender" (which you believe is role & behavior related) and male/female for "sex" (which you believe is biological and rigid, and which you've used as your rallying point to fight change)
(2) I think you have conceded that you feel male/female "gender" is flexible... As long as we constantly remind people that their male/female "sex" is unchanged.
(3) I think that you feel much more strongly that we should not alter the definition of biological male/female "sex", which in your mind is a unique physical/biological concept. I don't think you've communicated it effectively at all, but my current interpretation of your position is that you believe a rigid concept of biological "sex" exists, male and female, and that because it's a physical/biologic concept, we are only in a position to DESCRIBE it, not take liberties with REDEFINING it.
(4) I believe that by your continued insistence on not defining biological "male" sex, but merely saying stuff like "having the SRY gene and something in addition would be equivalent to being male." OR "Having the SRY gene do its work". I'm starting to think that you dont want to offer a definition. You seem very sure what a male ISN'T, so you must be workin off some criteria. Why not share those criteria so we can be clearer? Explain what that "something in addition" is. *****? Balls? Sperm? Testosterone? Low voice? Androgen receptors working better than a certain percentage? Must a person have ALL of the above? 5 of 6?
You say srY(+) is necessary but insufficient (thats what you're saying when you say "having the SRY gene and something in addition would be equivalent to being male." ) What "something in addition" makes a person "male" sex?
(5) i dont understand what you meant about definitions strictly associated with letters such such as "M-A-N" and no matter how many times i read it, i have no idea what distinction you're trying to make about that word. My perception is that you have not made yourself the least bit clear on this. I dont know why you're "S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G" words: I get that you're trying to say that it's a set of symbols with a meaning, but so is every word on this page. And every "W-O-R-D" on this page is subject to interpretation. Actually if this is not critical to your arguments, I'd skip it. I strongly suspect that repeating this particular line of argument won't be any clearer the second time.
So that is what I feel I understand about your position. Tell me which parts I misunderstand, and maybe you can stop being baffled.
------------------
Even biological sex of "male" and "female" are not just a single concept, but a set of taxonomic concepts describing a continuum creature called homo sapiens.
Depending on the biological study, you might want to define male/female based purely on having a Y chromosome or not.
In some sort of long term cohort study, you throw out every person who is not "typical" (i.e. those who dont Meet study inclusion criteria, which basically means any human who is atypical, anybody not instantly identifiable as male or female) so your taxonomy is really "atypicals", "typical males" and "typical females", with the latter two being in your study: SrY(+) with classically male phenotypes, and srY(-) with classically female phenotypes. But to be biologically precise, would you really test srY(+) status with a genetic test? Test fertility and function?
But in a study finding out what mortality rates are for males and females, "atypical" humans having trisomy 21, hypospadias, Klinefelter, androgen insensitivity, pretty much everybody, is included, and your taxonomy is "male" and "female", and includes ALL humans. Usually you don't create an "other" category, but I suppose you could make it "male", "female". How does one define "male" and "female" for the purposes of this study? It would likely be different for this study.
How do we define "human"?
Is a human defined by 46XY or 46XX and "something in addition" ?
Is a person who has 47XXY biologically "human"? Or an "oddity"? I say that person is "human".
Is a person who has 47XXY biologically "male" by sex? Or an "oddity"? I say "male" by sex.
-
Redefining "male" and "female" for gender roles is not going to muddy the water for The word "male" and female" sex taxonomies for biology. So I don't know why you're fixated on the idea that we're distorting the word somehow for biology:
For the purpose of biology, science will be precise about what they mean in terms of inclusion/exclusion & male/female for purposes of study and for knowing what we mean. That's what the methods section of a paper is for.
It does bring up interesting questions going forward for how we define inclusion criteria for studies, how we screen, etc. If post SRS females are living lives completely as females, how do epidemiologic and other studies take them into account, for purposes of disease. Lump or split?
I wasn't appealing to anything, Teia. Sometimes a question is just a question. You have to make it into something more, but it was just an honest question. I'm not appealing to "cis" privilege. I could ask the same of anyone else in this thread, I just don't care what their answer is because outside of this thread I doubt the subject matter means as much to them. It was just a question. Relax, yeah?
When the implication is that a trans person is too close to the issue to see it objectively solely because they're trans, it really does boil down into a privilege appeal on the grounds that it's basically saying "a trans person shouldn't be discussing trans issues."
Transsexuals are not born with genetic disorders that give them genetic traits of both males and females and they are not born with two sexual organs.
Except for the whole "brain that's feminized in some respects and masculinized in others," which even BS has noted is a very important point. I get that when you say "genetic disorders" you seem to mean "chromosomal disorders" or something, but you really ought to start saying what you mean because at face value your arguments are getting almost farcial. "We're not talking about genetic disorders." "There's a genetic basis for this though..." "We're not talking about genetic disorders."
And again there are intersex conditions that don't involve genetic traits of both males and females or both genitals. Partial AIS, for instance.
So when you argue that definitions aren't good enough to define 'male' and 'female' because intersexuals can't be defined that way or because intersexuals can be defined as the sex they identify as not as both sexes, that doesn't mean that transsexuals can too.
It doesn't inherently mean that, but there's no reason trans people couldn't be in the proper category of male/female following redefinition due to intersex conditions. You're focusing so much on the trees that you can't see the forest.
No one made any kind of arguments about intersexuals not being 'male' or 'female' and no one made any arguments about intersexuals being genetically 'male' or 'female' or any arguments about sexual identity.
No one except me, because I was the one pointing out that intersex people are medically determined to be male or female based upon different criteria than you're providing to me.
We're talking about Transsexuals, not intersexuals. The two concepts are no the same thing, they are different.
Ideologically, sure. But there are sound medical reasons one could classify transsexuality as an intersex condition—reasons which you ignore because you think this entire line of argument is a "strawman" and refuse to brook any comparisons between the two groups.
Pointing out that we're not talking about people with genetic disorders, is pointing out that it is a strawman to do so because it doesn't refute the argument that people who don't suffer from genetic disorders can't be considered both genetic sexes.
I could just as well say "this here is just a strawman" without giving any reason to back it up, and it'd be about as well-supported as your argument. Again, look at how this thread's going: You declare something to be a strawman, I point out reasons in which it's not, and you merely repeat your assertion. You even provided me a string of 14 posts of yours in which your argument barely even tried to adapt to your opponent's arguments.
To most people on this earth, and most creatures on this earth, it is pretty clean cut and dry. The M/F system has worked for billions of years, for millions of creatures. And for most of our existance, there was no magical surgery for those who simply opt to swap.
I count appeal to majority and appeal to tradition here. Systems update as new information becomes available. That's just a part of how things work. Also: the "M/F system" you're referring to hasn't always been so cut-and-dry throughout history, since there are numerous examples of historical third-gender and even third-sex categories in cultures all across the world (including cases of people in ancient times who would be explicitly trans under modern definitions, and were given their own distinct social category in their time). If anything, a system that's as rigid as modern Western culture is the exception, not the rule.
The only time this becomes "not so clear cut as preconceptions would have you think" is when I spend too much time reading this thread on MTGS. A thread filled with ridiculous arguments trying to convince people this is all quite common and normal, and everyone should accept it with a grain of salt.
But then I return to the real world where this is far from normal and certainly not the status quot.
This is some kind of appeal to ignorance along with a massive dose of privilege. "I'm ignorant of these issues and choose not to acknowledge them in real life, so clearly the problem is with this forum where a trans woman is trying to educate me, rather than with my own preconceptions." Of course gender variance and even transsexuality are natural—as far back as there's recorded history, there are cases of transgender/transsexual people.
Still, the actual underlying message within your statements is kind of disturbing:: "I'm privileged not to have to deal with this issue in my daily life, therefore not only can I pretend it's not a real issue, I can belittle people for whom it is a major aspect of their life and erase the legitimacy of their struggles."
How very appalling. Poor kid. I'm relieved to see I'm not the only person who thinks crap like this is crazy.
Interestingly enough, I think that avoiding assigning a gender (not avoiding assigning sex, I cannot stress this enough even though people always seem to miss this distinction) to the kid before they're old enough to state their identity is an amazing thing and that it should be the norm. Nothing's lost by not shoving gender roles on people, and in the case of trans people it'd save a lot of pain in early life.
I think every kid should be given the chance to start life "normal".
I started life "normal" enough. The problem was that no amount of "normal" socialization could ever have done anything. All forcing a male gender role on me did was cause pain and dysphoria. I'd have been far better off had I not been forced to endure that. Meanwhile, cis kids lose nothing by holding off on gendered expression/activity until they're old enough to ask for it themselves.
1 out of every 3 girls standing in line at chipotle is really a man with a suprise in the zipper of her jeans.
As a trans person, I've never really understood the whole genital fixation thing. A woman with a ***** (or for that matter a man with a ******) is hardly an earth-shattering event. Especially when their genitalia is one of the many you're never going to see. Even if fully a third of the women you meet are trans, so what? That changes precisely nothing about your social interactions with people, unless you're going to convince me that you're regularly picking up women at chipotle or something.
Of course it's not a huge deal socially or morally. But logically, for the purpose of your argument, it is, because it demonstrates by example that someone can identify as female and not be female. Which contradicts any number of statements you've made on this issue, most recently, from just yesterday, "the only truly all-encompassing trait all female people share is a female identity".
You could have made this argument so unbelievably much easier by simply pointing out to me that I used to (try to) identify as male. Exact same principle, just without a bunch of steps needed to get there. Ultimately it comes down to the same reason why identifying as a truffle, nonhuman animal, deity, etc is separate from sexual identity that stems from encephalic sex. And as far as gender identity goes, I remind you it's quite possible to be both cissexual and transgender—I admit I sometimes use "gender identity" to encompass both concepts since I'm more used to dialogue internal to the trans* community (which, naturally, takes various shortcuts not available on this forum).
I think that's an accurate description of a common view of trans women, at least those well into transition. It seems misleading to call this a "third gender", though, since it's, as you say, putting someone in both boxes, not putting them into a third box. And also because we're talking about sex, not gender.
I say "third gender" in kind of a Julia Serano way here, in that there's an implicit third gender category being created because trans women are getting shoved into both sex boxes at once.
Honestly, mention of Serano makes me think that a lot of the arguments in this thread feel similar to what you'd get in a religion thread where the participants have never even read a single passage from the Bible and yet still see fit to debate Christianity. Osmosis can only go so far in acquainting someone with a subject.
I wouldn't read too much into the usage of particular terms like "trans woman", though. After all, English also has terms like "tomboy" and "drag queen", and outside the sphere of gender, "lone wolf", "loose cannon", and "bleeding heart". Sometimes words are used metaphorically. Just a fact of language.
Most of those terms aren't really comparable, but the "tomboy" example is a good illustration of one of my points (unrelated aside: I was always genuinely confused as a kid that there was no such thing as a "tomgirl" or equivalent term). It's not really saying that the person is a boy, in the same way that "transwoman" implicitly creates a category outside of the overarching "woman" category—basically "tomboy" versus "tom boy." The latter would imply that the person's a boy, because instead of being a compound noun, it's an adjective modifying the noun "boy."
I know I focus pretty hard on little linguistic details like that, but I honestly think they're important just because they do affect perception, even if only barely.
Has it been demonstrated that this is the same mechanism as that causing phantom limb pain, or is this just a hypothesis? An outwardly plausible hypothesis, to be sure, but there's so much about the brain we just don't understand.
Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to go about looking for sources. If this thread's still going once exam week is over, I'd be glad to trawl the Internet looking for something to back this up.
Followed by implications that this is all very common and trans are all around me, I just don't know it.
I've never said or implied that transsexuality is particularly common. Just that trans people exist and you've almost certainly met one at some point without realizing it.
It was also said, that unlike Jenna, an individual doesn't have to have a sex change and or undergo the understood process of achieving this, and can simply "be" what they choose.
I honestly don't know what's so difficult about accepting something like this. I get that it involves admitting one's preconceptions are wrong and that people don't like to take the hit to their pride, but I just simply can't see why one's pride should be placed over respecting others' identity.
It doesn't really matter what terminology you use. I myself still not sold.
Honestly, you personally don't have to be sold. There are people who will never be sold on the earth being over 10000 years old, even.
Overhaul society to accommodate phenomenon? No.
People used to say this about racial equality.
Accept that men wearing dresses is a beautiful thing? God no !
I'm not being facetious in the slightest when I say that someone expressing themselves the way they want in defiance of social norms is a beautiful thing. Whether it's a trans woman presenting as her identified gender, a man who's wearing a dress, or whatever else like that.
Referring to it as a "trait" implies that it is natural, and in an indirect way, common.
1) I was born trans. This is scientific fact. Therefore, being trans is natural.
2) Nothing at all implies it being common. That's just something you came up with on your own because you're uncomfortable with trans people.
"male" has multiple definitions. There are 7 in the regular dictionary I linked to.
Earlier in the thread, I pointed to one dictionary definition of "woman" and at best got soundly ignored, at worst told that the definition was actually for another word. I came dangerously close to screencapping dictionary.com with the word and relevant definition circled.
I went on to explain the difference in the very first post:
You're still blithely ignoring any kind of genetic basis for transsexuality. It's to the point where you quote me mentioning this, then reply with the "explanation" that "we're not talking about genetic mutations."
Now, I get it, you said, "We're talking about a man or woman who chooses to change their physical appearance based on how they feel." As much as I disagree with it, it's a workable starting point for you. But it's not a workable ending point. Traditionally, when someone in a debate makes an argument against something you say, you address the argument, not restate your position ad nauseam in the apparent hopes that your opponent will give up.
it was you who decided to repeatedly misrepresent my arguments (and try to sum up our arguments in a ridiculous exchange that is really inaccurate). I can show you the examples if you'd like, cause you do it several times and not just to me, but to other posters in this thread as well.
What, me writing ridiculously over-the-top and wildly inaccurate exchanges in dialogue form? I've summarized things in dialogue form in this thread but none of them were anywhere near as bad as yours.
I'm not ridiculing you, the example I gave using clinical lycanthropy was meant to show how absurd your logic was. If you find that offensive, then perhaps you should have thought about the logic you were using to justify your reasoning.
Alternatively, I could have pointed out (and in fact did point out) the ways in which clinical lycanthropy and transsexuality aren't at all comparable. Your arguments at that point tended to be more about ignoring anything that doesn't agree with you and restating your position rather than addressing anything I actually said.
Do I really have to restate what I already said? Your reasoning for them is fallacious and the sources you cited do not agree with your assertions.
If you can actually argue a valid point that stands up to scrutiny, then I will acknowledge and consider it. You haven't yet.
What's the point of having all kinds of varying standards [for sex determination] rather than the single overarching ones I've been pushing?
I'm going to keep asking that until you answer just why one set of standards works for cis people yet doesn't apply to intersex people, and why we can't have a singular standard to apply to all people. The question stands regardless of the nature of the trans/intersex comparison. You seem downright hellbent on not answering it.
Teia, you've taken things out of context, created strawmen, equivocated words, cited sources that don't agree with you, used arguments from authority, and insinuate that everyone is just too stupid to understand how complex the issue really is so you have to simplify it for us stupid people - and you want to complain now that I used a metaphor to describe your arguments?
First off, my sources are just fine. People just read some of the language used therein out of context and thus draw inappropriate conclusions, along with the fact that some of my arguments have simplified the issue with the goal of making things more digestable to those without much exposure to or education about this subject.
Second off, I never said anything about people being too "stupid" to understand this issue. At worst I said people were too ignorant to, and ignorance is a far cry from stupidity. There's no shame in ignorance unless it's willful ignorance.
Third off, weren't you the one making the strawman about wanting me to prove that cis women are the same as trans women, or something to that effect? And that's to say nothing of the fiction you construct regarding intersex-based arguments I've used.
Finally, calling someone's argument a "turd" isn't defensible with "it's just a metaphor." Don't insult my intelligence by acting as if I should believe you that it somehow is.
The reason why I have a sheer number of posts that talks about your strawman is because you keep bringing it up. I have engaged it over and over again, I even tried as best as I could in my previous post to explain to you why your intersexual argument is a strawman. I hope you finally understand why it's a strawman, but I'm not holding my breath.
"We're not talking about genetic mutations" is pretty much your mantra, and nearly all of your "explanations" are just variations on that singular theme. I do get that when you say "genetic mutations" you really mean "genetic mutations of the type I want to talk about," but you might want to amend your mantra so your arguments come across better.
When the implication is that a trans person is too close to the issue to see it objectively solely because they're trans, it really does boil down into a privilege appeal on the grounds that it's basically saying "a trans person shouldn't be discussing trans issues."
It is a perverse feature of the human psyche that we are least suited to deal rationally with the topics that are most important to us. There's an argument there against intelligent design, probably.
I count appeal to majority and appeal to tradition here.
Which are actually the principles on which languages work. Arbitrary mouth-sounds acquire meaning in our minds through popular consensus received from our parents and elders. Why is "dog" the correct English word for man's best friend? Majority and tradition, and that's it. So I'm glad you've started paying attention to fallacies. And don't get me wrong, Yamaha here is being hella fallacious. But unfortunately you picked the wrong two to break out for this particular topic.
If anything, a system that's as rigid as modern Western culture is the exception, not the rule.
No. Yes, there are "third genders" in some non-Western cultures. No, there aren't "third genders" in most non-Western cultures. And in every non-modern and/or -Western culture I know of, with or without a third gender, the gender roles have been much more rigid than they are in the modern West (and the non-Western cultures it has influenced). Do not exaggerate your facts.
You could have made this argument so unbelievably much easier by simply pointing out to me that I used to (try to) identify as male.
Sure, if you wanted me to make assumptions about your personal life rather than working with the actual position statements you've made in this thread.
Ultimately it comes down to the same reason why identifying as a truffle, nonhuman animal, deity, etc is separate from sexual identity that stems from encephalic sex. And as far as gender identity goes, I remind you it's quite possible to be both cissexual and transgender—I admit I sometimes use "gender identity" to encompass both concepts since I'm more used to dialogue internal to the trans* community (which, naturally, takes various shortcuts not available on this forum).
None of this resolves the contradiction I pointed out. Is anyone who identifies as female female, or not?
Honestly, mention of Serano makes me think that a lot of the arguments in this thread feel similar to what you'd get in a religion thread where the participants have never even read a single passage from the Bible and yet still see fit to debate Christianity. Osmosis can only go so far in acquainting someone with a subject.
Okay, that's about enough with the disparaging comments about other posters' intelligence, all right?
I know I focus pretty hard on little linguistic details like that, but I honestly think they're important just because they do affect perception, even if only barely.
They really don't. If they did, then "drag queen" and "lone wolf" would affect perception the same way. You can't just dismiss these examples offhand as "not really comparable". Your whole Whorfian project here is flawed. (Protip: Whorf was not a trained linguist, and it showed.)
Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to go about looking for sources. If this thread's still going once exam week is over, I'd be glad to trawl the Internet looking for something to back this up.
Fair enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You know Teia, I had this big long post responding to you, but then I got about half way through it and thought, why bother?
You haven't presented anything new and all your arguments are fallacious. If you want to think that I didn't respond to your arguments, you go ahead and think that. I'm pretty sure no one else does though.
There's that word again. This is not a choice. You have said you understand this, but the fact that you keep reverting back to it makes me think otherwise.
It is a choice. Tei has argued that no real effort needs to be made to 'become' the opposite gender. That genitals etc do not matter. Thus I say "flip flop" and "choose to be" because they feel you can say "You know what? I've decided I'm female. Not actually gonna go through the process of becoming female, I just am one."
Again, your criteria for determining who is and is not a woman would be interesting.
This has been covered, though the comments are scattered.
Born a male = male
Born a male but underwent all the criteria most would consider necessary to become a female (hormone therapy, sex change operation, electrolosis and whatelse have you) = Male, but courtesy of being now acknowledged as female. Male wouldn't make sense anymore would it. As I said, calling Jenna a "guy" doesn't really compute anymore, does it.
Born a male but posing as female in a dress
A) Have me fooled, don't know better, female by default
B) Obvious is a male or known as fact to be male, male
C) Cant decide, point it out and ask your friend
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Comments like this just make me think that you are unaccepting and unreceptive to reason because its "icky".
And that would be perfectly okay. Refer to my comparison on tolerance vs acceptance. I also dislike a very long list of things, included but not limited to grungy people, gaged ears, pot, tattoos on your face, abortion and alot of other controversial topics.
There are still many who are not sold on blacks and whites being equal, so whether or not you are personally sold on the idea is immaterial to it's validity, but I'm still willing to help you rid yourself of the inaccuracies and see if I can at least get you to look at the issue through a less ignorant lens.
That is not a proper comparison. Equality of an individual based their gender agenda isn't under question. My statement is not that a transgender person is more or less than someone who isn't, or less capable than someone who isn't. I have stated this before.
This is not an answers to my question at all. I didn't ask how abundance can dictate something, I asked how abundance can dictate whether something is right or wrong to accept. Are you saying that anything in "other" is unworthy of being accepted as part of normal society? I doubt that's the case.
This elaborates my original statement that you quoted. If you understood my original statement better, you wouldn't be able to take it from a different angle and ask me a question about "right and wrong" as you did. Therefore I didn't answer your "right or wrong" but helped you understand what you quoted. We talked about abundance and changes to such things as medical forms and paperwork, not abundance when gaging the equality of people.
By that logic, not adding "Aborigine" to the medical form would also be wrong and question their equality. As rediculous as that is.
What's amusing about this example is that it's totally legal for trans women or trans men to check "female" or "male", respectively, on these kinds of forms, as it should be. No "overhaul" is needed.
1) I was born trans. This is scientific fact. Therefore, being trans is natural.
I'm using the terms "natural" and "normal" as synonyms. If you two both are using "natural" to mean something like "happened by nature without interference of outside influence" than yes, you could call technicality on that. Therefore, two headed kids occur "naturally" as well as other birthing defects like down syndrom or malformed features. None of which are by standard design.
The difference is, we have no problem calling down syndrome a birth defect or disorder. You don't read information on these that begins with "This is a perfectly natural trait...."
Interestingly enough, I think that avoiding assigning a gender (not avoiding assigning sex, I cannot stress this enough even though people always seem to miss this distinction) to the kid before they're old enough to state their identity is an amazing thing and that it should be the norm. Nothing's lost by not shoving gender roles on people, and in the case of trans people it'd save a lot of pain in early life.
I don't think letting a boy understand hes a boy, or letting a boy wear boyish clothes is pushing gender. I do think sending your kid to school crossdressed is pushing something, and whatever it is, it isn't positive on the kid. Given your hardships growing up, I would expect you to understand what damage actions like that might do to that child.
I would expect you to think the idea is amazing; if the whole world discarded the gender of their children and was perfectly accepting that their kid could grow up as either, then therefore the whole world would be accepting of transgenderism and the 935 posts in this thread wouldn't be here.
Still, the actual underlying message within your statements is kind of disturbing:: "I'm privileged not to have to deal with this issue in my daily life, therefore not only can I pretend it's not a real issue, I can belittle people for whom it is a major aspect of their life and erase the legitimacy of their struggles."
Teia I fully empathize with your situation and I can only imagine the hardships you had growing up. I have no intent to come here and belittle anybody or intentionally hurt your feelings, or scrub your problem under the carpet.
But I feel your feeding me rediculous arguments. I have outlined this previously. Then you create complications, introduce more terminology, and find any angle you can to support them.
That you don't have to actually take any steps to become the opposite gender. A say so is enough. Genitals don't matter. No sex change needed.
That people should knowingly lie and pretend in courtesy even if the above line is true and no real steps were taken in the first place.
That people should blindly accept the above even if they make no real sense.
Dismissal of the condition as something unintended by design. Perfectly natural. Not a disorder etc.
Exaggerations about the oppression of trans people. IE can't buy a house because your trans. Can't leave the country. Or whatever.
You want everyone/thing else to change, to accomodate yourself. Like, your topic about medical forms & doctors. Or, letting born males into female beauty pageants designed for women. Or, born males with "female identies" being allowed to play powderpuff ball. The olympics. Some of these gender lines are drawn for very good reasons.
You want everyone/thing else to change, to accomodate yourself. Like, your topic about medical forms & doctors. Or, letting born males into female beauty pageants designed for women. Or, born males with "female identies" being allowed to play powderpuff ball. The olympics. Some of these gender lines are drawn for very good reasons.
just ftr, the beauty pageant allowing "born males" to participate is a historical fact. It's a done deal. Same goes for the Olympics and women's sports. As well as for marriage in most of the US and probably most of western Europe. And those gender lines were drawn for good reasons.
If you are unhappy with that, you are the one who is wanting everyone/thing to change.
Teia wants everyone/thing to further change (Teia would call it "progress" as would I).
Sounds to me like you are in parallel positions here, both of you wanting everyone/thing to change.
Teia didn't cause those changes either. I'm not sure that Teia had even hit puberty at the time of most of those changes occurred. Many posters on this forum weren't even born when Renee Richards, born with a male body, was ranked 20th in the world in women's tennis (late 1970s).
Earlier in the thread, I pointed to one dictionary definition of "woman" and at best got soundly ignored, at worst told that the definition was actually for another word. I came dangerously close to screencapping dictionary.com with the word and relevant definition circled.
"Woman" does not always = "Female"
No one was arguing that you, or Jenna Talackova in this case, were not feminine, or womanly. In fact many of us that disagreed with your asserions are happy to recognize that you and Jenna are women.
This is not the same thing, and should not be confused with "I was born a Female" You and Jenna were NOT.
Let's just say that your brain was 52% female wiring (and I'm being generous here since we really don't know for sure). That still leaves 48% of your brain, and probably 99.9% of the rest of your born body was Male.
We define the sexes through chromosomes, genes, and genitals. NOT brain patterns. Maybe we should? That's a good question I don't really know the answer to.
The definition you posted is under the ADJECTIVES section. I have told you this before. You seem to ignore it because either you don't like it, or you don't want anyone else to know your argument isn't solid.
NOUN > What something IS ~ A Female you are not.
ADJECTIVE > How that something CAN BE DESCRIBED ~ Feminine/Womanly you certainly are.
No one is arguing that you (believeing you at your word here), or Jenna Talackova do not have heaps and heaps of female characteristics.
Unfortunately the issue eventually reaches a wall. There are a few genetic/biological characteristics people like Jenna lack that keep her from being a "real Female".
You know this, you've admitted it.
About some of the other talk -
I will not apologize for having my son wear blues, greens, and blacks in various shades, throw a football around, play with robots and dinosaurs instead of dolls etc.
Not going to apologize at all.
What else? He loves purses, he is 3, but he loves to carry moms purse, or play with the purses she isn't using at the moment.
If my son ends up gay, or trans, or whatever, fine. I love him, and will love him so long as he is a good person. Being a good person should matter most after all.
Now, if he grows up to be a murderer, or a liar and a cheat - not so much.
I disagree with the whole idea of raising a child in a gender neutral environment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It is a choice. Tei has argued that no real effort needs to be made to 'become' the opposite gender. That genitals etc do not matter. Thus I say "flip flop" and "choose to be" because they feel you can say "You know what? I've decided I'm female. Not actually gonna go through the process of becoming female, I just am one."
How can something determined by the physical anatomy of your brain be a choice?
This has been covered, though the comments are scattered.
Born a male = male
Born a male but underwent all the criteria most would consider necessary to become a female (hormone therapy, sex change operation, electrolosis and whatelse have you) = Male, but courtesy of being now acknowledged as female. Male wouldn't make sense anymore would it. As I said, calling Jenna a "guy" doesn't really compute anymore, does it.
I still don't know what your definition of man and woman are. Is it based on genotype? Phenotype? Something else? A combination?
And that would be perfectly okay. Refer to my comparison on tolerance vs acceptance. I also dislike a very long list of things, included but not limited to grungy people, gaged ears, pot, tattoos on your face, abortion and alot of other controversial topics.
Obviously you're free to feel and think how you please. My point was that it is clouding the issue for you, because you can't get past the part where it makes you feel "icky".
This elaborates my original statement that you quoted. If you understood my original statement better, you wouldn't be able to take it from a different angle and ask me a question about "right and wrong" as you did. Therefore I didn't answer your "right or wrong" but helped you understand what you quoted. We talked about abundance and changes to such things as medical forms and paperwork, not abundance when gaging the equality of people.
By that logic, not adding "Aborigine" to the medical form would also be wrong and question their equality. As rediculous as that is.
Not listing an ethnic group on a form like that is not a comment on our culture's acceptance.
I'm using the terms "natural" and "normal" as synonyms. If you two both are using "natural" to mean something like "happened by nature without interference of outside influence" than yes, you could call technicality on that. Therefore, two headed kids occur "naturally" as well as other birthing defects like down syndrom or malformed features. None of which are by standard design.
The difference is, we have no problem calling down syndrome a birth defect or disorder. You don't read information on these that begins with "This is a perfectly natural trait...."
Because Downs syndrome has legitimate health issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But what if they are? The majority of your "evidence", if not all of it, boils down to "but we still don't have a definitive answer yet". So it's entirely possible that it COULD be as cut and dry as someone might think, yes? Alternatively, gender and sex might not be as wide-open and muddied as you think, right?
Just out of curiosity: Do you honestly believe that with all of your life experiences and obvious bias that you could ever look at this subject objectively, and accept another's viewpoint on it, not matter how much it disagrees with yours?
Noted where, Teia, in some mod transcript for the press? C'mon with the pity party already. Two posts ago you basically said the majority of us were just too stupid for you to tell the truth to, because it's so very complicated. Does that attitude speak for itself as well?
"It's somewhere over here, we're just not 100% sure of exactly where" is a very different thing from "we have no idea where it is."
Not that gender is particularly cut-and-dried, considering it's a social construct entirely distinct from the sex-based arguments that have been happening in this thread.
I don't see any reason I couldn't. Imagine if I said that cis people, with their lack of personal experience and obvious bias, could never look at this subject objectively or accept another's viewpoint of it. You'd reject that with a quickness. What you're essentially doing here is appealing to cis privilege: "Oh, trans people can't look at the subject of transsexuality objectively, so it's up to objective cis people to set the record straight."
Ignorance is not stupidity. Not having exposure to an issue or education about a subject doesn't make you stupid. It just means that such a person would have difficulty grasping more advanced concepts before learning the fundamentals.
Your approach seems to be sticking with old, orthodox concepts, much akin to the people who said that biologically, there is only heterosexuality, and all other forms of sexuality are "genetic mutations" or "disorders". Fortunately people stepped back, took a truly objective look at things and said "Why would we treat these people as some kind of "freaks" or "oddities" when they are just people who breathe, eat, ****, laugh at the same humor, and have a body issue that involves parts that I will probably never look at. I don't know what Sam, my next door neighbor's ****** or ***** looks like, why do I need to know What Teia's looks like or used to look like? Why do I need to know what Sam or Teia like to stick or be stuck by?"
Don't you see that one of the big problems with strictly enforced narrow classifications for gender is that you have to invade people's privacy in order to establish their category? And that this kind of "peeking under the hood to establish your legitimacy as a person." is not necessary? "Teia: Male? Female? Drop your drawers. Put her--er... it down as 'Trans-N/A' under gender. Next! Kraken. Male? Female? Drop your pants. Put Kraken down as male--err... Hang on. The chromosomes came back. Put an asterisk under gender, and 'genetic mutation'."
Your kind of gender orthodoxy requires verification. Verification which is relatively invasive. What is the huge societal benefit that anybody have to register an official "gender" with the govt?
I don't know how you get the idea that Teia has a biased viewpoint compared to your own "objective" viewpoint. Hers is no less objective than your own.
Your approach almost seems to be like you're saying "Teia you can't be objective about this rule, because you were once a victim."
When it's more like "jedimindtricks. I am currently being actively held down. And because you are up there and I am down here, you don't seem to care about the pain that gender orthodoxy causes me."
I personally am a Christian, and I have certainly never been intersexed, transgendered, gay, or bisexual, as far as I know, yet I'm mostly in agreement with Teia on this issue, as well as on gay rights. But intellectually and morally, I find that gender orthodoxy is scientifically simplistic, and that as a practical societal framework, it SUCKS. It's just one constant threat to invade people's a privacy to establish which two boxes (male or female, verified by all typical sexual organs meeting established norms of size and fucntion, as well as SrY positivity or negativity) a person goes into... plus a garbage bag (genetic mutations and oddities) for the ones who don't fit into the two boxes.
Hypothetical:
If Tara just joined our MtG club and we were splitting up by boys and girls for some game or activity today... What would your actual approach be if Tara stated "boy" and you personally felt that Tara didn't have the facial & body proportions that you expect for a boy? Would you take a sarcastic tone and insist Tara join the girls? Would you demand to see a driver's license? Would you google search Tara's whole name? Would you say "OK this time, but next time i want a doctor's note."? Why would that be your right?
Do the benefits of running a game where all the players got into the correct boxes for gender orthodoxy, outweigh the negatives of you and the groups subjecting Tara to this kind of inquisition? One remedy is to treat people the same and let them live their lives without staring at their bulge. A narrower possible remedy is the erasure of strict gender segregation for organized activities. Outside of dating, strict gender orthodoxy and identification don't seem relevant to me.
And I've already covered and would be happy to go over again, the fallacies associated with super strict biological gender orthodoxy (and the ignorant classification as "mutation" or "oddity" for those outside the box).
Am I failing to be objective? And if so, why?
As for "Tara", she could be whatever she wants to be. I couldn't care less. Stop telling me what I am and what I believe. As much as you think you know in your grand battles for the oppressed and under-represented, one thing you don't know, is me personally.
I wasn't appealing to anything, Teia. Sometimes a question is just a question. You have to make it into something more, but it was just an honest question. I'm not appealing to "cis" privilege. I could ask the same of anyone else in this thread, I just don't care what their answer is because outside of this thread I doubt the subject matter means as much to them. It was just a question. Relax, yeah?
Maybe the ignorance was on your part, making the assumption that you had a clear grasp on the ignorance or wisdom of those you were speaking to. If we are so ignorant, perhaps this will help guide your future actions: "Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who".
If you were actually making a valid point with that dichotomy, you would not have had to do anything dishonest like that.
There are in fact certain advantages and disadvantages to the current biologic taxonomy, as well as to the societal & legal designations.
Arguments for change in definitions and rules (or for not changing them) are not "arbitrary" and your attempt to tack that word on to the opposition viewpoint is transparent, but not very slick. I saw that coming before I finished reading your first sentence.
-
Historically, the biological, societal and legal definitions for male & female HAVE changed. They have not stayed the same.
And today, for example, the IOC has not designated female to mean "srY(-)" or "XX". They have recognized post SRS people with XY chromosomes to be female and in fact do no subject athletes to dehumanizing peeping into their DNA. Same goes for marriage in most states in the US. A person with XY post SRS is a woman. Renee Richards played in the USTA as a woman, born XY, and having undergone SRS and was ranked as high as 20th best woman tennis played in the world.
And guess what, it didn't make the world end. It doesnt mean our values are going into the toilet, and that the Biblical apocalypss is upon us. And more importantly, your day wasn't ruined. Maybe you're against that based on some personal abstract principle, but it certainly didn't affect your own life. But those changes made the world happier and more liveable for a lot of people. Some of those people are on this forum. And they would be socially marginalized if we still lived by these puritanical, outdated rules of gender orthodoxy that are clung to by some of the people here.
Yeah that's a mental disorder:
A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological pattern, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development of a person's culture. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives.
Teia, as I've told you before, the topic is on transsexuals, not intersexuals.
Transsexuals are not born with genetic disorders that give them genetic traits of both males and females and they are not born with two sexual organs.
So when you argue that definitions aren't good enough to define 'male' and 'female' because intersexuals can't be defined that way or because intersexuals can be defined as the sex they identify as not as both sexes, that doesn't mean that transsexuals can too.
Arguing about intersexuals in this kind of context doesn't invalidate the arguments on transsexuals. No one made any kind of arguments about intersexuals not being 'male' or 'female' and no one made any arguments about intersexuals being genetically 'male' or 'female' or any arguments about sexual identity.
We're talking about Transsexuals, not intersexuals. The two concepts are no the same thing, they are different. Refuting arguments that apply to one (intersexuals) and not the other (transsexuals) doesn't refute both arguments, it only refutes the argument on intersexuals and that argument was never made in the first place.
That type of argument is fallacious and it is called a strawman argument.
Pointing out that we're not talking about people with genetic disorders, is pointing out that it is a strawman to do so because it doesn't refute the argument that people who don't suffer from genetic disorders can't be considered both genetic sexes.
Like I said Teia, each one of those posts explains why.
Now I don't have time to respond as much as I want to right now, so I'll get to the rest later.
But thats the rub right there, innit
To most people on this earth, and most creatures on this earth, it is pretty clean cut and dry. The M/F system has worked for billions of years, for millions of creatures. And for most of our existance, there was no magical surgery for those who simply opt to swap. Yet we don't like to admit that anyone born with "double parts" or "mismatched brains" is a birth defect, because it obviously doesn't follow standard genetic design.
The only time this becomes "not so clear cut as preconceptions would have you think" is when I spend too much time reading this thread on MTGS. A thread filled with ridiculous arguments trying to convince people this is all quite common and normal, and everyone should accept it with a grain of salt.
But then I return to the real world where this is far from normal and certainly not the status quot. One thing that struck me the most was in the first 50 pages, examples about how parents are raising kids genderless. I actually did a lot of digging on that topic, initially thinking that society must have drastically changed and I missed the boat or something.
Interesting enough, I found this article on that very topic, and this other blog that reflects my feelings for this practice. How very appalling. Poor kid. I'm relieved to see I'm not the only person who thinks crap like this is crazy.
I think every kid should be given the chance to start life "normal". Parents doing this are really just pushing their kid to be trans especially if they force the child to wear womens clothing. (I'm sorry you didn't have a girl? too bad so sad)
What am I saying? Where am I going on this tangent of mine?
You would have us believe that sex & gender are not clear cut and narrow, and provide radical arguments to support that belief, but I'm not seeing much outside of thread in MTGS that indicates I'm living in some alternate universe where people all around me have mismatching sex & gender identification issues and this is all very normal.
You could fall back on the argument that there really is trans all around me, like some sexual conspiracy theory, but my ignorance is blinding me and 1 out of every 3 girls standing in line at chipotle is really a man with a suprise in the zipper of her jeans. But hey, at least we find unity in chipotle. All hail!
My Buying Thread
The M/F genetic system isn't being brought into question (as if we could do anything to change it...). The issue here isn't genetics, it's who someone is mentally.
Who has called it common and normal? It's neither, but that doesn't really matter. Do you think we should not be accepting of people who are different from the norm?
You can't "push" your kid to become trans, anymore than you can push them to become gay or push them to become blue-eyed. Transexual people are born that way.
So it has to be all around you to exist? The funny thing is, you could interact with someone like this on a daily basis and might never know it.
You seem to think that abundance of something is relevant to how real it is, which is odd. The "bro"-ish attitude could get lost, though.
Let me rephrase. Insert whatever medical term as necessary if you wanna be technical.
Yet we don't like to admit that anyone born with "double parts" or "mismatched brains" is a birth defect, because it obviously doesn't follow the standard <insert whatever or none here> design.
Accepting someone for who they are, is different from trying to convince us that this is some common trait and society needs overhauled to accommodate it, because we don't like admitting its a disorder. Its different from making implications where we live in some gender free society where people flip flop from M/F all the time and anyone not accepting that has the "issue", not the trans born with the "issue".
I am not sold.
I'd also like to say AGAIN, there's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Just because you tolerate something doesn't mean you have to accept it. It just means you tolerate it. It means your capable of sitting down with individuals and playing a hand of MTG without being rude or ill willed toward the person. But you don't have to like or approve of what the person is about or their lifestyle.
Maybe not. But you can mess them up in the head at an early age by cross dressing them and sending them to public school, because some crazy people like those parents would like to believe we live in a genderless society where none of that matters and people flip flop all the time. They'd like to believe their not setting the kid up for hardships and ridicule throughout his childhood because other kids at school don't make fun of eachother or bully people.
Back to the conspiracy theory.
Oh I didn't argue that its "not real" and I certainly empathize for people stuck in this situation.
I very much believe the abundance of something does dictate whether or not everyone else around them should have to change to accommodate the phenomenon. Especially if were making changes simply so that somebody doesn't have their feelings hurt by being classified as a disorder or abnormal.
My Buying Thread
I wouldn't call it a "defect", but yes, it is abnormal. Why does it matter that it is abnormal?
Where are you getting this "flip flop from M/F all the time" from? You make it sound like it's a whimsical decision, rather than the way someone is born. It doesn't matter that this is uncommon (more on this later).
So, you don't think we should accept people who are different from the norm, but merely just tolerate them? You can tolerate the way someone is born, but you can't be accepting of it? Interesting.
I'm not defending what these whack-a-doo parents are doing, I'm just correcting your errors.
???
If only there were more transgender people, you'd be willing to change?
Explain to me how abundance can dictate whether it's right or wrong to accept something, rather than just merely tolerate it.
Right, it makes way more sense to avoid change so that you avoid any inconvenience in the matter. What do we gain by calling it a disorder or abnormal? Sure, it makes it a lot easier to treat it like a thing, rather than a group of human beings. However, it's not really a disorder, at least not by definition.We're not talking about an abnormality that prevents an individual from being every bit as high-functioning as you are.
Of course it's not a huge deal socially or morally. But logically, for the purpose of your argument, it is, because it demonstrates by example that someone can identify as female and not be female. Which contradicts any number of statements you've made on this issue, most recently, from just yesterday, "the only truly all-encompassing trait all female people share is a female identity".
When you translate "female brain gives me female identity" to "atypical brain gives me female identity", a lot of what you said to brush off parallels to other disorders evaporates. So it may not be central to your core position, but it has played an important role in your defense.
I think that's an accurate description of a common view of trans women, at least those well into transition. It seems misleading to call this a "third gender", though, since it's, as you say, putting someone in both boxes, not putting them into a third box. And also because we're talking about sex, not gender.
I wouldn't read too much into the usage of particular terms like "trans woman", though. After all, English also has terms like "tomboy" and "drag queen", and outside the sphere of gender, "lone wolf", "loose cannon", and "bleeding heart". Sometimes words are used metaphorically. Just a fact of language. Even if you mean the "woman" in "trans woman" literally, someone else may not. That they believe trans women are not entirely male, not entirely female should be inferred from their statements, not their vocabulary.
Has it been demonstrated that this is the same mechanism as that causing phantom limb pain, or is this just a hypothesis? An outwardly plausible hypothesis, to be sure, but there's so much about the brain we just don't understand.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The M/F flip flop comes from someone stating that since they tell you their a woman, they are therefore a woman. That because someone decided they are female, they are now female. That because someone "identifies as" female, they are therefore female. Followed by implications that this is all very common and trans are all around me, I just don't know it. (Conspiracy Theory).
None of which I'm buying. Not a woman.
It was also said, that unlike Jenna, an individual doesn't have to have a sex change and or undergo the understood process of achieving this, and can simply "be" what they choose.
Not buying that either. Not a woman.
Obviously, those statements didn't hold up earlier in the thread, so it changed to arguments about genetics, neurology, and the 'female brain <proper term> mans body'
Still not buying. Not a woman.
After that, it was stated that if a passable trans was close enough to looking like a woman, I wouldn't know better and I would refer to them as "woman" regardless. While this might be true, because I didn't know better,
They're still not a woman.
NUTSHELL: people trying extremely hard with any argument or angle possible to convince others that they are a woman, even though they are a man. And when one argument falls through, its onto the next. Along the journey alot of terminology has been introduced, some of it bent to support these arguments, many of which I do not follow or take notes on. It doesn't really matter what terminology you use. I myself still not sold.
Not a woman.
Accept they are different? Sure.
Accept they are a woman? No. Thats a man.
Put on a facade or pretend for the sake of respect? Likely not.
Overhaul society to accommodate phenomenon? No.
Accept this is some natural trait in a gender-free society? No
Accept that men wearing dresses is a beautiful thing? God no !
Currently on a medical forum, job application or drivers license papers you might see something like the following
[_] Caucasian
[_] African American
[_] Hispanic
[_] Asian
[_] Other _______
That is because of abundance. Abundance has dictated. I feel / see no need for any of them to be revamped to look like this:
Sex: [_] Male [_] Female
Gender: [_] Male [_] Female
That is absurd. For the vast majority of the population, these two will align regardless. This is not abundance. Its not like we have some emmidiate need to overhaul everything to accomodate a phenominom. Write a damn note in the file if its that critical. One example of hundreds.
We don't need to overhaul laws and legal documents to say "And trans<proper term> people." You may as well add in "And down syndrome people" and "LD people" and "two headed infants" or whatever else not that is not born the status quot.
Because it is a disorder. Its not in order. Its not aligned. Its not by design. Saying otherwise is just because an individual doesn't want to be classified in a negative manor. Nothing more. Referring to it as a "trait" just softens the discription out of respect. Its not a trait such as blue eyes, brown skin, red hair, short or tall.
Referring to it as a "trait" implies that it is natural, and in an indirect way, common. Neither of which it is. If people are going to fall back on the "female brain <proper term> males body" argument then certainly, that is an oops. A disorder. That is not by design or simply a "trait".
My Buying Thread
Fine. I need to exercise my knife hand a little:
Yes. Your thoughts are not organized, and it is reflected in your postings. There is a reason I still don't know what you mean by your question.
I am referring to the only remedy available to the person, altering their body to meet "the definition" in their own mind (and I've already stated there are multiple possible definitions from societal to biologic ones).
Are you serious? You go on and on about you want your one question answered (when in fact you asked 3 vague questions). I ask you to clarify what you mean by a word in one of your questions and you are "setting that aside" and won't answer? Really?
And you wonder why I can't answer your questions?
Good lord, did that really need explaining? You're "not sure"?
I chose srY(+)/srY(-) because it very accurately carries the binary nature of having the srY gene or not, and the thintelligent thinking that is easily sucked into the fallacy of believing that a gene defines gender or sex.
It is also loaded with the negative stigma associated with applying things like HIV(+)/HIV(-) binary taxonomy on people. Which is why I referenced Cartman from the South Park AIDS episode, "I'm not just sure, I'm HIV positive!"
It's not very well phrased because you haven't thought it through (and I'm telling you I am WAY WAY ahead of you here) and recognized that you are falling right into one of the categories I described. I understand your whole argument, top to bottom, and you are way, way behind:
You are wanting "Male" to be NARROWLY defined, "female" to be NARROWLY defined, and that anybody who falls outside of those two NARROW definitions, is an "oddity", "genetic mutation", whatever you want to call it, but they are clearly not "male" or "female"
When you are saying "male is equivalent to "having the SRY gene do its work", you are EITHER (1) refusing to offer a definition and being vague in order to AVOID BEING PINNED DOWN ON A POSITION OR (2) demanding srY(+) status as ONE Of the MANDATORY criteria of the definition "male", AND in addition, requiring OTHER mandatory criteria, whatever the things are that you wish to include in the "SRY gene do its work"... whether that be having a ***** over 1.5 inches flaccid, having testicles that produce >70% motile sperm, having at least 50% active receptors, etc. etc.
You wanted me to answer your question. I don't understand your question, since you refuse to clarify what YOU mean by "male".
Fine it has "no bearing". But it is reality now, and we have had to deal with the fallout for years now.
In what way was it not "rational"?
In what way was it not 'consistent"?
In what way was it not "morally obligatory"?
In what way is the world now a worse place because the IOC chose this definition of "female" over YOUR ancient, "gender orthodox" version of "female"?
That question is actually quite easy: During most of our interactions, gender should be more important that "sex", because (1) whether I am fertile or not is none of your business (2) whether I have a ***** is none of your business (3) whether I have sex with girls or guys is none of your business (4) you have no right to "look under my hood" or at my genes AND (5) you and I will not be having SEX, EVER.
"Gender" on the other hand, is used to segregate people for purposes of sports, pageants, etc.
The people involved in the decision making for the IOC and the State governments certainly know that the Y chromosome exists, and that biologically, the idea that most people with penises have XY genes, and most people without penises have XX genes has been well known to the experts consulted.
The argument is the same whether I say srY(+) or just Y(+) or XY. SrY(+) just has all the obviously bigoted flavor of labels like HIV(+) and that's why I chose to state my arguments in terms of SrY(+) instead of Y(+).
Fine:
Post-SRS gender of male or females is legally recognized in most civilized countries and nobody gets to sneak a peak at your GENE status.
Happy? Nobody peaks at your genes. Nobody has the right.
"Male" and "female" have more than one websters definition already.
IN WHAT CONTEXT DO YOU FEAR THE REDEFINITION OF "MALE" OR "FEMALE"?
You are completely misunderstanding again. You are misunderstanding because You don't understand YOUR OWN definition of "male"... You've just vaguely hinted at it... then not followed through on the thought process and what results from your working definition of "male":
HTIME: "being male is equivalent (remember that I explained that a definition and an equivalence differ from each other?) to "having the SRY gene do its work", which admittedly is not that very well phrased, but I think that it's clear that I mean more than just having the gene."
You are the one stating that srY(+) status is "NOT SUFFICIENT" to define a "male". Why are you asking ME to define all the ways in which its 'not sufficient'? You are the one that is stating that a person not only has to have the srY(+), but that srY gene ALSO has to "do its work". For example, if the srY gene doesn't have another chromosome allowing for androgen sensitivity, then it can't "do its work". For example, if you only have 44 chromosomes total, then srY can't "do its work".
YOU stated that the srY gene had to "do its work" in order to define a person as male. So YOU are stating that a person has to be srY(+) AND have whatever OTHER CHARACTERISTICS (vaguely described by the phrase "do its work" )THAT YOU HAVE REFUSED TO SPECIFY, in order to be "male".
No. I've speculated that defining more broad legal categories of classification for "male" and "female" is one of the many possible remedies, which has both upside and downside (though I feel the downsides are far fewer than the upsides).
I have NOT argued that somebody put a gun to the head of Webster's to make them write a different definition in their dictionary, or twist YOUR arm until you memorize the "new definition".
Words have multiple "meanings".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Male
"Male" has at least 7 definitions there. An 8th definition is not going to cause the others to combust.
I have no idea why you have chosen the BIZARRE interpretation of my arguments to conclude that I want to magically remove other definitions of "male" from the dictionary. As you say yourself, it would be "nonsensical".
Maybe you should assume that somebody is not trying to ram nonsense down your throat.
I've stated repeatedly that words such as "male" have different meanings in different contexts, and I've previously argued that the only ones we have the ability to IMPOSE on people are legal ones.
I chose the word "considered" in order to make it clear that legal "recognition" does not have to ERASE your other definitions you use in other contexts. You're forgetting that when "male" has more than one definition according to context (which I have argued), then "considered" is perfectly appropriate in that sentence to make it clear that I recognize that other possible contexts for "female" exist.
Fine, you are the protector of the "definition of "woman" that has persisted for the last couple of centuries."
Except that you're NOT.
You do realize that 2 centuries ago, nobody had ever heard of an X and Y chromosome, which were not discovered until 1905. Prior to that, the standard was "******" & "*****", NOT "XX" and "XY".
You have happily chosen "XX" (or srY(-) ) to override "******" as the "definition of "woman" that has persisted for the last couple of centuries"
Its already been changed more than once, since the definition of 2 centuries ago, that you are so fond of.
It currently legally stands, for the purposes of marriage, to include people with XY who have SRS surgery to remove their penises and construct a ******.
It may change further, and I think we're better off for it. I'd be happy to hear how our society or science have been harmed by having a new legal definition.
You are very concrete in your understanding of some of these things.
(1) Its not right to "slap" anybody.
(2) "Woman" has many connotations. The issue of what you should call somebody has more to do with how one refers to people in polite society.
If you refuse to call a post-SRS woman a "woman" (after she's asked to stop calling her a man) for whatever reason, that is on YOU. You have the right to hurt people's feelings and its your opinion. Just as I, in that same room, would call you an ******* for doing that, because I have the right to hurt people's feelings, and its MY opinion.
And you are making a massive mountain out of this idea that some inherent definition of the word "W-O-M-A-N" is being "changed", OUTSIDE of a legal or rules based context.
When nobody else gives a **** or believes there is a universal definition of "W-O-M-A-N".
That is why nobody really understands your question. Your question is utterly ambiguous.
And you've yet to give what you believe to be the definition of "male". You've given us "having the SRY gene do its work", which is utterly vague.
The two centuries old definition of "male" (which you have attacked me for trying to change) was having a ***** and balls. YOUR definition is "having the SRY gene do its work". What do you mean by that? Under your definition, is a person male if there are no testicles? How about 1 testicle? How about a non-working testicle? How about no real *****, just hypospadias, but has testicles capable of producing sperm? Have to make sperm? Is a boy a "pre-male"? Is a post-menopausal woman a "female" or a "former-female" or "neuter" since she has no working ovaries? You claim I'm changing 2 centuries old definitions, yet you are arguing for some weird, very vague variation on a definition that appeared after 1905.
DEFINE what you mean by "having the SRY gene do its work".
I don't see the conspiracy or theory here...
We're not talking about people who decide that they are female.
There's that word again. This is not a choice. You have said you understand this, but the fact that you keep reverting back to it makes me think otherwise.
Ok, so on what basis do you define a person as being a man or woman?
Again, your criteria for determining who is and is not a woman would be interesting.
There are still many who are not sold on blacks and whites being equal, so whether or not you are personally sold on the idea is immaterial to it's validity, but I'm still willing to help you rid yourself of the inaccuracies and see if I can at least get you to look at the issue through a less ignorant lens.
Which is meaningless to accept. What would be more meaningful would be to accept that the differences are socially immaterial.
Again, some sort of definition would be nice. Are we talking genetics here, or something else?
So you're saying you would not use female pronouns to refer to or talk with a trans female in their presence, or absence?
Overhauling society? Hyperbole.
Gender-free society? No. But it is a natural trait, just not a common or normal one.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Comments like this just make me think that you are unaccepting and unreceptive to reason because its "icky".
This is not an answers to my question at all. I didn't ask how abundance can dictate something, I asked how abundance can dictate whether something is right or wrong to accept. Are you saying that anything in "other" is unworthy of being accepted as part of normal society? I doubt that's the case.
What's amusing about this example is that it's totally legal for trans women or trans men to check "female" or "male", respectively, on these kinds of forms, as it should be. No "overhaul" is needed.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with this. Rephrase, perhaps?
If it's genetic, then it is by design. If it's due to the environment within the womb, during development, then perhaps not, but what should it matter?
Classifying things into disorders is useful for diagnosing disease. This is not the case in this situation. A trans gender person can be more high-functioning that someone with ADHD, which is a disorder that does negatively impact day to day function, and is useful in classifying so that it can be diagnosed and treated.
Trait does not imply that something is common, and it very well may be that trans gender-ism is "natural". Even if it were due to environmental conditions within the womb, it's not something that was under that individual's control, and is not something they have chosen.
After multiple pages of posts, you don't seem to get that even "male sex" is not a label for a unique object or concept. It is not attached to a single unique concept like "proton" or "kilogram". It's frustrating but mildly amusing to see you bump up against this stupid fallacy over & over again, actually.
The fact that your whole thesis in this thread relies on the mistaken assumption that "W-O-M-A-N" has a special unique meaning in all circumstances is the reason none of my answers are getting through to you.
How can you possibly keep insisting that "male" has a unique definition, and then you repeatedly refuse to specify what it means to you exactly?
Among your so called "definitions":
"having the SRY gene and something in addition would be equivalent to being male."
"Having the SRY gene do its work"
Those are not definitions. Those are a refusal to be pinned down to what you claim to be a unique definition. But you are makin sry(+) to be a minimum criterion to be "male", but you haven't defined the OTHER criteria. Even those sketchy non-definitions above make sry(+) MANDATORY for "maleness" in your universe.
You are working under the fallacy that this concept of "male" exists as a valid, unique concept... And this somehow gives you the privilege of NOT having to define the word... You just kind of point vaguely in its "direction" and say "that over there...".
DEFINE IT! You are the one claiming a unique definition. What is the "something in addition" that you vaguely reference? What constitutes "doing the SRY gene's work"? We're supposed to read your mind? Clearly you don't like any definition that excludes SRY(+), you're sure of that.
You accused me of trying to change a definition of "male" that's 2 centuries old, yet you insist that part of the definition of "male" is the Y gene or the SRY concept, neither of which even existed before 1900. YOU are the one insisting that the 200 year old definition be changed to accommodate SRY.
As for your demanding that the IOC has to justify how it currently defines "female", I ask WHY? This is the current system and has been for a while. YOU'RE the one who wants to change it, you're the one who has to come up with moral/ethical/blahblah reasons to change it.
The onus is on you. If you dont like how The IOC is doing the USTA has been doing things since before you were born, then you are the one who is fighting the establishment and wanting to change things, as much as people like Teia or myself are pushing for sex and gender definitons to go in a different direction.
I have repeatedly asked you for a definition of "male" that is bein used in the sentence that is supposedly the question you want me to answer.
When you and I don't agree what "male" is, and you refuse to say what YOUR definition of "male" is in that sentence, how am I supposed to figure out what your damn question means?
No I'm not arguing for a third sex category. In fact in the same quote you quoted, I said specifically there wasn't a third sex category, so I have no idea how you concluded that, when I specifically said there wasn't.
First of all, taking a single sentence of my post out of context to try and make a point is a real douche thing to do (you know besides being fallacious in the first place). I went on to explain the difference in the very first post:
I'm not misrepresenting your arguments, secondly, it was you who decided to repeatedly misrepresent my arguments (and try to sum up our arguments in a ridiculous exchange that is really inaccurate). I can show you the examples if you'd like, cause you do it several times and not just to me, but to other posters in this thread as well.
I'm not ridiculing you, the example I gave using clinical lycanthropy was meant to show how absurd your logic was. If you find that offensive, then perhaps you should have thought about the logic you were using to justify your reasoning. The thing about your logic is that you can plug in any neurological disorder and it would still be absurd, clinical lycanthropy was just one of the examples I used and I specifically choose it to show how absurd it was.
Do I really have to restate what I already said? Your reasoning for them is fallacious and the sources you cited do not agree with your assertions.
If you can actually argue a valid point that stands up to scrutiny, then I will acknowledge and consider it. You haven't yet.
Please do and I did.
Teia, you've taken things out of context, created strawmen, equivocated words, cited sources that don't agree with you, used arguments from authority, and insinuate that everyone is just too stupid to understand how complex the issue really is so you have to simplify it for us stupid people - and you want to complain now that I used a metaphor to describe your arguments?
How about coming up with a valid point?
The reason why I have a sheer number of posts that talks about your strawman is because you keep bringing it up. I have engaged it over and over again, I even tried as best as I could in my previous post to explain to you why your intersexual argument is a strawman. I hope you finally understand why it's a strawman, but I'm not holding my breath.
The words male and female ought to be redefined to at the very least also include male and female gender roles ... because this is how they are principally used [as you agree with in this very snippet of your post!].
If a word is most often used in a way that doesn't agree with its own definition, the definition ought to change to represent what the word actually means. If a definition doesn't represent how a word is used, it isn't a good or representative definition.
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
Regardless of whose fault the miscommunication is, I want to understand where you think we're misunderstanding you:
Here is my current perception of your position.
(1) I think you've made a distinction between male/female for "gender" (which you believe is role & behavior related) and male/female for "sex" (which you believe is biological and rigid, and which you've used as your rallying point to fight change)
(2) I think you have conceded that you feel male/female "gender" is flexible... As long as we constantly remind people that their male/female "sex" is unchanged.
(3) I think that you feel much more strongly that we should not alter the definition of biological male/female "sex", which in your mind is a unique physical/biological concept. I don't think you've communicated it effectively at all, but my current interpretation of your position is that you believe a rigid concept of biological "sex" exists, male and female, and that because it's a physical/biologic concept, we are only in a position to DESCRIBE it, not take liberties with REDEFINING it.
(4) I believe that by your continued insistence on not defining biological "male" sex, but merely saying stuff like "having the SRY gene and something in addition would be equivalent to being male." OR "Having the SRY gene do its work". I'm starting to think that you dont want to offer a definition. You seem very sure what a male ISN'T, so you must be workin off some criteria. Why not share those criteria so we can be clearer? Explain what that "something in addition" is. *****? Balls? Sperm? Testosterone? Low voice? Androgen receptors working better than a certain percentage? Must a person have ALL of the above? 5 of 6?
You say srY(+) is necessary but insufficient (thats what you're saying when you say "having the SRY gene and something in addition would be equivalent to being male." ) What "something in addition" makes a person "male" sex?
(5) i dont understand what you meant about definitions strictly associated with letters such such as "M-A-N" and no matter how many times i read it, i have no idea what distinction you're trying to make about that word. My perception is that you have not made yourself the least bit clear on this. I dont know why you're "S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G" words: I get that you're trying to say that it's a set of symbols with a meaning, but so is every word on this page. And every "W-O-R-D" on this page is subject to interpretation. Actually if this is not critical to your arguments, I'd skip it. I strongly suspect that repeating this particular line of argument won't be any clearer the second time.
So that is what I feel I understand about your position. Tell me which parts I misunderstand, and maybe you can stop being baffled.
------------------
Even biological sex of "male" and "female" are not just a single concept, but a set of taxonomic concepts describing a continuum creature called homo sapiens.
Depending on the biological study, you might want to define male/female based purely on having a Y chromosome or not.
In some sort of long term cohort study, you throw out every person who is not "typical" (i.e. those who dont Meet study inclusion criteria, which basically means any human who is atypical, anybody not instantly identifiable as male or female) so your taxonomy is really "atypicals", "typical males" and "typical females", with the latter two being in your study: SrY(+) with classically male phenotypes, and srY(-) with classically female phenotypes. But to be biologically precise, would you really test srY(+) status with a genetic test? Test fertility and function?
But in a study finding out what mortality rates are for males and females, "atypical" humans having trisomy 21, hypospadias, Klinefelter, androgen insensitivity, pretty much everybody, is included, and your taxonomy is "male" and "female", and includes ALL humans. Usually you don't create an "other" category, but I suppose you could make it "male", "female". How does one define "male" and "female" for the purposes of this study? It would likely be different for this study.
How do we define "human"?
Is a human defined by 46XY or 46XX and "something in addition" ?
Is a person who has 47XXY biologically "human"? Or an "oddity"? I say that person is "human".
Is a person who has 47XXY biologically "male" by sex? Or an "oddity"? I say "male" by sex.
-
Redefining "male" and "female" for gender roles is not going to muddy the water for The word "male" and female" sex taxonomies for biology. So I don't know why you're fixated on the idea that we're distorting the word somehow for biology:
For the purpose of biology, science will be precise about what they mean in terms of inclusion/exclusion & male/female for purposes of study and for knowing what we mean. That's what the methods section of a paper is for.
It does bring up interesting questions going forward for how we define inclusion criteria for studies, how we screen, etc. If post SRS females are living lives completely as females, how do epidemiologic and other studies take them into account, for purposes of disease. Lump or split?
When the implication is that a trans person is too close to the issue to see it objectively solely because they're trans, it really does boil down into a privilege appeal on the grounds that it's basically saying "a trans person shouldn't be discussing trans issues."
Except for the whole "brain that's feminized in some respects and masculinized in others," which even BS has noted is a very important point. I get that when you say "genetic disorders" you seem to mean "chromosomal disorders" or something, but you really ought to start saying what you mean because at face value your arguments are getting almost farcial. "We're not talking about genetic disorders." "There's a genetic basis for this though..." "We're not talking about genetic disorders."
And again there are intersex conditions that don't involve genetic traits of both males and females or both genitals. Partial AIS, for instance.
It doesn't inherently mean that, but there's no reason trans people couldn't be in the proper category of male/female following redefinition due to intersex conditions. You're focusing so much on the trees that you can't see the forest.
No one except me, because I was the one pointing out that intersex people are medically determined to be male or female based upon different criteria than you're providing to me.
Ideologically, sure. But there are sound medical reasons one could classify transsexuality as an intersex condition—reasons which you ignore because you think this entire line of argument is a "strawman" and refuse to brook any comparisons between the two groups.
I could just as well say "this here is just a strawman" without giving any reason to back it up, and it'd be about as well-supported as your argument. Again, look at how this thread's going: You declare something to be a strawman, I point out reasons in which it's not, and you merely repeat your assertion. You even provided me a string of 14 posts of yours in which your argument barely even tried to adapt to your opponent's arguments.
I count appeal to majority and appeal to tradition here. Systems update as new information becomes available. That's just a part of how things work. Also: the "M/F system" you're referring to hasn't always been so cut-and-dry throughout history, since there are numerous examples of historical third-gender and even third-sex categories in cultures all across the world (including cases of people in ancient times who would be explicitly trans under modern definitions, and were given their own distinct social category in their time). If anything, a system that's as rigid as modern Western culture is the exception, not the rule.
This is some kind of appeal to ignorance along with a massive dose of privilege. "I'm ignorant of these issues and choose not to acknowledge them in real life, so clearly the problem is with this forum where a trans woman is trying to educate me, rather than with my own preconceptions." Of course gender variance and even transsexuality are natural—as far back as there's recorded history, there are cases of transgender/transsexual people.
Still, the actual underlying message within your statements is kind of disturbing:: "I'm privileged not to have to deal with this issue in my daily life, therefore not only can I pretend it's not a real issue, I can belittle people for whom it is a major aspect of their life and erase the legitimacy of their struggles."
Interestingly enough, I think that avoiding assigning a gender (not avoiding assigning sex, I cannot stress this enough even though people always seem to miss this distinction) to the kid before they're old enough to state their identity is an amazing thing and that it should be the norm. Nothing's lost by not shoving gender roles on people, and in the case of trans people it'd save a lot of pain in early life.
I started life "normal" enough. The problem was that no amount of "normal" socialization could ever have done anything. All forcing a male gender role on me did was cause pain and dysphoria. I'd have been far better off had I not been forced to endure that. Meanwhile, cis kids lose nothing by holding off on gendered expression/activity until they're old enough to ask for it themselves.
As a trans person, I've never really understood the whole genital fixation thing. A woman with a ***** (or for that matter a man with a ******) is hardly an earth-shattering event. Especially when their genitalia is one of the many you're never going to see. Even if fully a third of the women you meet are trans, so what? That changes precisely nothing about your social interactions with people, unless you're going to convince me that you're regularly picking up women at chipotle or something.
You could have made this argument so unbelievably much easier by simply pointing out to me that I used to (try to) identify as male. Exact same principle, just without a bunch of steps needed to get there. Ultimately it comes down to the same reason why identifying as a truffle, nonhuman animal, deity, etc is separate from sexual identity that stems from encephalic sex. And as far as gender identity goes, I remind you it's quite possible to be both cissexual and transgender—I admit I sometimes use "gender identity" to encompass both concepts since I'm more used to dialogue internal to the trans* community (which, naturally, takes various shortcuts not available on this forum).
I say "third gender" in kind of a Julia Serano way here, in that there's an implicit third gender category being created because trans women are getting shoved into both sex boxes at once.
Honestly, mention of Serano makes me think that a lot of the arguments in this thread feel similar to what you'd get in a religion thread where the participants have never even read a single passage from the Bible and yet still see fit to debate Christianity. Osmosis can only go so far in acquainting someone with a subject.
Most of those terms aren't really comparable, but the "tomboy" example is a good illustration of one of my points (unrelated aside: I was always genuinely confused as a kid that there was no such thing as a "tomgirl" or equivalent term). It's not really saying that the person is a boy, in the same way that "transwoman" implicitly creates a category outside of the overarching "woman" category—basically "tomboy" versus "tom boy." The latter would imply that the person's a boy, because instead of being a compound noun, it's an adjective modifying the noun "boy."
I know I focus pretty hard on little linguistic details like that, but I honestly think they're important just because they do affect perception, even if only barely.
Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to go about looking for sources. If this thread's still going once exam week is over, I'd be glad to trawl the Internet looking for something to back this up.
I've never said or implied that transsexuality is particularly common. Just that trans people exist and you've almost certainly met one at some point without realizing it.
I honestly don't know what's so difficult about accepting something like this. I get that it involves admitting one's preconceptions are wrong and that people don't like to take the hit to their pride, but I just simply can't see why one's pride should be placed over respecting others' identity.
Honestly, you personally don't have to be sold. There are people who will never be sold on the earth being over 10000 years old, even.
People used to say this about racial equality.
I'm not being facetious in the slightest when I say that someone expressing themselves the way they want in defiance of social norms is a beautiful thing. Whether it's a trans woman presenting as her identified gender, a man who's wearing a dress, or whatever else like that.
1) I was born trans. This is scientific fact. Therefore, being trans is natural.
2) Nothing at all implies it being common. That's just something you came up with on your own because you're uncomfortable with trans people.
Earlier in the thread, I pointed to one dictionary definition of "woman" and at best got soundly ignored, at worst told that the definition was actually for another word. I came dangerously close to screencapping dictionary.com with the word and relevant definition circled.
You're still blithely ignoring any kind of genetic basis for transsexuality. It's to the point where you quote me mentioning this, then reply with the "explanation" that "we're not talking about genetic mutations."
Now, I get it, you said, "We're talking about a man or woman who chooses to change their physical appearance based on how they feel." As much as I disagree with it, it's a workable starting point for you. But it's not a workable ending point. Traditionally, when someone in a debate makes an argument against something you say, you address the argument, not restate your position ad nauseam in the apparent hopes that your opponent will give up.
What, me writing ridiculously over-the-top and wildly inaccurate exchanges in dialogue form? I've summarized things in dialogue form in this thread but none of them were anywhere near as bad as yours.
Alternatively, I could have pointed out (and in fact did point out) the ways in which clinical lycanthropy and transsexuality aren't at all comparable. Your arguments at that point tended to be more about ignoring anything that doesn't agree with you and restating your position rather than addressing anything I actually said.
What's the point of having all kinds of varying standards [for sex determination] rather than the single overarching ones I've been pushing?
I'm going to keep asking that until you answer just why one set of standards works for cis people yet doesn't apply to intersex people, and why we can't have a singular standard to apply to all people. The question stands regardless of the nature of the trans/intersex comparison. You seem downright hellbent on not answering it.
First off, my sources are just fine. People just read some of the language used therein out of context and thus draw inappropriate conclusions, along with the fact that some of my arguments have simplified the issue with the goal of making things more digestable to those without much exposure to or education about this subject.
Second off, I never said anything about people being too "stupid" to understand this issue. At worst I said people were too ignorant to, and ignorance is a far cry from stupidity. There's no shame in ignorance unless it's willful ignorance.
Third off, weren't you the one making the strawman about wanting me to prove that cis women are the same as trans women, or something to that effect? And that's to say nothing of the fiction you construct regarding intersex-based arguments I've used.
Finally, calling someone's argument a "turd" isn't defensible with "it's just a metaphor." Don't insult my intelligence by acting as if I should believe you that it somehow is.
"We're not talking about genetic mutations" is pretty much your mantra, and nearly all of your "explanations" are just variations on that singular theme. I do get that when you say "genetic mutations" you really mean "genetic mutations of the type I want to talk about," but you might want to amend your mantra so your arguments come across better.
It is a perverse feature of the human psyche that we are least suited to deal rationally with the topics that are most important to us. There's an argument there against intelligent design, probably.
Which are actually the principles on which languages work. Arbitrary mouth-sounds acquire meaning in our minds through popular consensus received from our parents and elders. Why is "dog" the correct English word for man's best friend? Majority and tradition, and that's it. So I'm glad you've started paying attention to fallacies. And don't get me wrong, Yamaha here is being hella fallacious. But unfortunately you picked the wrong two to break out for this particular topic.
No. Yes, there are "third genders" in some non-Western cultures. No, there aren't "third genders" in most non-Western cultures. And in every non-modern and/or -Western culture I know of, with or without a third gender, the gender roles have been much more rigid than they are in the modern West (and the non-Western cultures it has influenced). Do not exaggerate your facts.
Sure, if you wanted me to make assumptions about your personal life rather than working with the actual position statements you've made in this thread.
None of this resolves the contradiction I pointed out. Is anyone who identifies as female female, or not?
Okay, that's about enough with the disparaging comments about other posters' intelligence, all right?
They really don't. If they did, then "drag queen" and "lone wolf" would affect perception the same way. You can't just dismiss these examples offhand as "not really comparable". Your whole Whorfian project here is flawed. (Protip: Whorf was not a trained linguist, and it showed.)
Fair enough.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You haven't presented anything new and all your arguments are fallacious. If you want to think that I didn't respond to your arguments, you go ahead and think that. I'm pretty sure no one else does though.
It is a choice. Tei has argued that no real effort needs to be made to 'become' the opposite gender. That genitals etc do not matter. Thus I say "flip flop" and "choose to be" because they feel you can say "You know what? I've decided I'm female. Not actually gonna go through the process of becoming female, I just am one."
This has been covered, though the comments are scattered.
Born a male = male
Born a male but underwent all the criteria most would consider necessary to become a female (hormone therapy, sex change operation, electrolosis and whatelse have you) = Male, but courtesy of being now acknowledged as female. Male wouldn't make sense anymore would it. As I said, calling Jenna a "guy" doesn't really compute anymore, does it.
Born a male but posing as female in a dress
By default, no. That doesn't make sense. But refer to the above answer.
And that would be perfectly okay. Refer to my comparison on tolerance vs acceptance. I also dislike a very long list of things, included but not limited to grungy people, gaged ears, pot, tattoos on your face, abortion and alot of other controversial topics.
That is not a proper comparison. Equality of an individual based their gender agenda isn't under question. My statement is not that a transgender person is more or less than someone who isn't, or less capable than someone who isn't. I have stated this before.
This elaborates my original statement that you quoted. If you understood my original statement better, you wouldn't be able to take it from a different angle and ask me a question about "right and wrong" as you did. Therefore I didn't answer your "right or wrong" but helped you understand what you quoted. We talked about abundance and changes to such things as medical forms and paperwork, not abundance when gaging the equality of people.
By that logic, not adding "Aborigine" to the medical form would also be wrong and question their equality. As rediculous as that is.
Splendid. Then you are in agreeance.
I'm using the terms "natural" and "normal" as synonyms. If you two both are using "natural" to mean something like "happened by nature without interference of outside influence" than yes, you could call technicality on that. Therefore, two headed kids occur "naturally" as well as other birthing defects like down syndrom or malformed features. None of which are by standard design.
The difference is, we have no problem calling down syndrome a birth defect or disorder. You don't read information on these that begins with "This is a perfectly natural trait...."
I don't think letting a boy understand hes a boy, or letting a boy wear boyish clothes is pushing gender. I do think sending your kid to school crossdressed is pushing something, and whatever it is, it isn't positive on the kid. Given your hardships growing up, I would expect you to understand what damage actions like that might do to that child.
I would expect you to think the idea is amazing; if the whole world discarded the gender of their children and was perfectly accepting that their kid could grow up as either, then therefore the whole world would be accepting of transgenderism and the 935 posts in this thread wouldn't be here.
Teia I fully empathize with your situation and I can only imagine the hardships you had growing up. I have no intent to come here and belittle anybody or intentionally hurt your feelings, or scrub your problem under the carpet.
But I feel your feeding me rediculous arguments. I have outlined this previously. Then you create complications, introduce more terminology, and find any angle you can to support them.
My Buying Thread
If you are unhappy with that, you are the one who is wanting everyone/thing to change.
Teia wants everyone/thing to further change (Teia would call it "progress" as would I).
Sounds to me like you are in parallel positions here, both of you wanting everyone/thing to change.
Teia didn't cause those changes either. I'm not sure that Teia had even hit puberty at the time of most of those changes occurred. Many posters on this forum weren't even born when Renee Richards, born with a male body, was ranked 20th in the world in women's tennis (late 1970s).
"Woman" does not always = "Female"
No one was arguing that you, or Jenna Talackova in this case, were not feminine, or womanly. In fact many of us that disagreed with your asserions are happy to recognize that you and Jenna are women.
This is not the same thing, and should not be confused with "I was born a Female" You and Jenna were NOT.
Let's just say that your brain was 52% female wiring (and I'm being generous here since we really don't know for sure). That still leaves 48% of your brain, and probably 99.9% of the rest of your born body was Male.
We define the sexes through chromosomes, genes, and genitals. NOT brain patterns. Maybe we should? That's a good question I don't really know the answer to.
Still, please please stop being intellectually dishonest about your definitions argument.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/female
Go ahead an click it, I don't need to screenshot something that is easily LINKED into the thread.
Even this one works
http://define.com/female
or this one
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/feminine
^^ See, Feminine, as a descriptor/adjective - I will concede happily that you and Jenna meet the adjective standard for feminine.
The definition you posted is under the ADJECTIVES section. I have told you this before. You seem to ignore it because either you don't like it, or you don't want anyone else to know your argument isn't solid.
NOUN > What something IS ~ A Female you are not.
ADJECTIVE > How that something CAN BE DESCRIBED ~ Feminine/Womanly you certainly are.
No one is arguing that you (believeing you at your word here), or Jenna Talackova do not have heaps and heaps of female characteristics.
Unfortunately the issue eventually reaches a wall. There are a few genetic/biological characteristics people like Jenna lack that keep her from being a "real Female".
You know this, you've admitted it.
About some of the other talk -
I will not apologize for having my son wear blues, greens, and blacks in various shades, throw a football around, play with robots and dinosaurs instead of dolls etc.
Not going to apologize at all.
What else? He loves purses, he is 3, but he loves to carry moms purse, or play with the purses she isn't using at the moment.
If my son ends up gay, or trans, or whatever, fine. I love him, and will love him so long as he is a good person. Being a good person should matter most after all.
Now, if he grows up to be a murderer, or a liar and a cheat - not so much.
I disagree with the whole idea of raising a child in a gender neutral environment.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
How can something determined by the physical anatomy of your brain be a choice?
I still don't know what your definition of man and woman are. Is it based on genotype? Phenotype? Something else? A combination?
Obviously you're free to feel and think how you please. My point was that it is clouding the issue for you, because you can't get past the part where it makes you feel "icky".
Not listing an ethnic group on a form like that is not a comment on our culture's acceptance.
To what design do you refer?
Because Downs syndrome has legitimate health issues.