University of Otago student association gives "sportswoman of the year" award to a man.

[Jarhyn]

And that explains why using sportswoman to refer to gender by a university student club is such a crime? If this person had become a transwoman for no other reason than to get to the Olympics, I’d say your rant is a a persuasive argument. However, in this case, it appears to me from what little I have read, that Laurel Hubbard is sincere about her (yes her) gender. So, I think your rant is misplaced and unpersuasive.

Gender is not sex. Women are discriminated against, oppressed, treated as less-than, etc. on the basis of our sex. Just as black americans are discriminated against, oppressed, and treated as less-than on the basis of their skin color.

If a white person were to genuinely and sincerely identify as black, do you think that should entitle that 'assigned white at birth' person to honors and recognitions intended to recognize the accomplishments of black people, simply because they sincerely and genuinely feel themselves to be black? Do you think that transracial person will have actually experienced the challenges and barriers that black people face? What if they lived as a white person for the first 30 years of their life, and then transitioned to a black identity so they could live as their real selves?

So you are saying that every man who discriminates against you oppresses you, treats you different undresses you and examines your breasts and vagina first?

Or they do it on the basis of "apparent qualities", appearance, and seeming?

People discriminate against what they can see. In fact, we have you and metaphor much more clearly proclaiming that you wish to assume sex.

To me, this seems much like conservative arguments that the government doesn't work because they broke it.

Gender only does not work because you are in here breaking it.

Do you think that people "who don't look black" are having there genetics tested today? Or whether it is the seeming of it that makes the reality of the treatment; that there is a way in which you "treat people black" yourself based on seeming.

But that isn't really what this is about.

You are yourself admitting there are accolades and rights you believe to be sex-locked. You wish to discriminate and treat others as different on the basis of their sex alone rather on the basis of individual differences.

 

[laughing dog]

And that explains why using sportswoman to refer to gender by a university student club is such a crime? If this person had become a transwoman for no other reason than to get to the Olympics, I’d say your rant is a a persuasive argument. However, in this case, it appears to me from what little I have read, that Laurel Hubbard is sincere about her (yes her) gender. So, I think your rant is misplaced and unpersuasive.

Gender is not sex. Women are discriminated against, oppressed, treated as less-than, etc. on the basis of our sex. Just as black americans are discriminated against, oppressed, and treated as less-than on the basis of their skin color.

Are women discriminated/oppressed because of sex or gender? Really, if someone thinks person A is woman, they will be treated like as a woman. If someone wishes to identify, present and transform themself to be treated as a woman, that means they are willing to deal with the expected discrimination and oppression. IF Laurel Hubbard is sincere (I think that is true), then I have no issue with it.

If a white person were to genuinely and sincerely identify as black, do you think that should entitle that 'assigned white at birth' person to honors and recognitions intended to recognize the accomplishments of black people, simply because they sincerely and genuinely feel themselves to be black? Do you think that transracial person will have actually experienced the challenges and barriers that black people face? What if they lived as a white person for the first 30 years of their life, and then transitioned to a black identity so they could live as their real selves?

Wow. I didn't realize that everyone in category _____ must have the same life experiences in order to continue to be in that category. What an odd standard.

To answer your question, I would say the same thing as I did above - if they are sincere (rather than trying to get some perceived advantage), I would have no problem.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you are saying that every man who discriminates against you oppresses you, treats you different undresses you and examines your breasts and vagina first?

Or they do it on the basis of "apparent qualities", appearance, and seeming?

Your repeated insistence that sex is some magically unknowable quality in humans, and that the only way anybody could ever know another person's sex is by literally investigating their genitals is idiotic in the extreme.

Humans are highly sexually dimorphic. There are a large number of sex-based characteristics, as well as sex-correlated characteristics, and they provide extremely good pattern recognition that allows humans to identify male from female for a fully clothed person at an amazingly high level of accuracy.

Let me try to put this into technical terms, that you might pretend to understand.

1) Sex in humans is binary, based on the type of gametes that a body is evolved around producing (regardless of whether the body in question actually produces those gametes).

2) Primary sex characteristics consist of those elements that are directly developmentally associated with the production of gametes and sexual reproduction: Penis and testicles in males; ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, and vagina in females.

3) Secondary sex characteristics consist of those elements that are directly sex-prompted during puberty, and are directly tied to the expression of sex: Breasts, widening of hips, and onset of menses in females; dropping of testicles, elongation of penis, lowered voice, and development of facial and body hair in males. Included in here are hormone-driven sex differences like muscle mass, bone density, etc.

4) Tertiary sex characteristics are correlated with sex, but are not directly driven by reproductive elements or pubertal changes. These are not definitively, but are more likely to be, the result of sexual selection over time than of natural selection. This includes things like males being taller, having larger hands and feet, and broader shoulders than females, as well as differences in jaw shape, orbital shape, etc.

Taken in aggregate, secondary and tertiary characteristics represent an n-dimensional array of attributes for each person. And while it is true that any specific tertiary characteristic can have overlap between sexes, it is incredibly rare for ALL of them to exhibit overlap at the same time. So for example, it may be that some few females are very tall (for a female), with large feet (for a female) and large hands (for a female), which put those particular attributes into the lower half of the normal range for males. But it is incredibly vanishingly unlikely that this tall, big-footed, man-handed Lana Cain would *also* have male jaw shape, male orbital sockets, male hairline, male chest hair, male facial hair, adam's apple, low voice, and broad shoulders.

Thus, if we envision sex-sorting pattern recognition as a cluster algorithm, we end up with two highly clustered outcomes across n-space, with incredibly few at the margins of the clusters. This sex-classification algorithm is significantly more accurate than MOST computer programs that engage in clustering.

So please stop pretending that unless you're staring at a literal vulva, you can't tell the difference between and adult human male and an adult human female at a glance. I'll give you a tiny bit of squish for people who have undergone significant hormone treatment and cosmetic surgery in order to look like the opposite sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

Are women discriminated/oppressed because of sex or gender? Really, if someone thinks person A is woman, they will be treated like as a woman. If someone wishes to identify, present and transform themself to be treated as a woman, that means they are willing to deal with the expected discrimination and oppression. IF Laurel Hubbard is sincere (I think that is true), then I have no issue with it.

The vast majority of it is on the basis of SEX. Nobody is asking the victim what they identify as before they remove their clitoris and sew their vaginal opening shut. Nobody is querying the identity of the person being retributively raped for the crime of talking to a man not related to her. Nobody is taking the time to ask their target whether they identify as a man before raping them. Lack of promotions and career growth for women as a result of the *possibility* that they might get pregnant is sure as fuck not based on their gender identity. Stereotypes are developed on the basis of sex, and are enforced on the basis of sex. In fact, they're so strongly sex-linked that if a person doesn't conform to those stereotypes at present, they are suspected of being in the wrong body.

If a white person were to genuinely and sincerely identify as black, do you think that should entitle that 'assigned white at birth' person to honors and recognitions intended to recognize the accomplishments of black people, simply because they sincerely and genuinely feel themselves to be black? Do you think that transracial person will have actually experienced the challenges and barriers that black people face? What if they lived as a white person for the first 30 years of their life, and then transitioned to a black identity so they could live as their real selves?

Wow. I didn't realize that everyone in category _____ must have the same life experiences in order to continue to be in that category. What an odd standard.

This is a bit disingenuous, as well as a bait and switch. The "to continue to be in that category" is the switch, as we're talking about people who were never in that category to begin with. We're talking about people who have never had any of the general experiences of that category, and have actually had the experiences of a different category, and whether their complete lack of experience entitles them to admittance to the first category on the basis of how they feel inside.

And no, not every single person in a category will have exactly all of the same experiences. But there are extremely likely to be many shared experiences. And when it comes to sex categories, many of those experiences are based on the physical reality that a person goes through. Most of the others are based on the social experiences that they have based on their sex.

To answer your question, I would say the same thing as I did above - if they are sincere (rather than trying to get some perceived advantage), I would have no problem.

That's a very unusual perspective, but okay.

 

[laughing dog]

The vast majority of it is on the basis of SEX. Nobody is asking the victim what they identify as before they remove their clitoris and sew their vaginal opening shut. Nobody is querying the identity of the person being retributively raped for the crime of talking to a man not related to her. Nobody is taking the time to ask their target whether they identify as a man before raping them. Lack of promotions and career growth for women as a result of the *possibility* that they might get pregnant is sure as fuck not based on their gender identity. Stereotypes are developed on the basis of sex, and are enforced on the basis of sex. In fact, they're so strongly sex-linked that if a person doesn't conform to those stereotypes at present, they are suspected of being in the wrong body.

Hold on there. While stereotypes are developed on the basis of sex, decisions and actions associated with those stereotypes are typically done on the basis of visual confirmation of the sex. Except for your first example, that does not require anyone to view the entire body of the person.

This is a bit disingenuous, as well as a bait and switch. The "to continue to be in that category" is the switch, as we're talking about people who were never in that category to begin with. We're talking about people who have never had any of the general experiences of that category, and have actually had the experiences of a different category, and whether their complete lack of experience entitles them to admittance to the first category on the basis of how they feel inside.

And no, not every single person in a category will have exactly all of the same experiences. But there are extremely likely to be many shared experiences. And when it comes to sex categories, many of those experiences are based on the physical reality that a person goes through. Most of the others are based on the social experiences that they have based on their sex.

There was no bait and switch. Which physical and social experiences a particular person has experienced may vastly differ (especially social) between people.

 

[Emily Lake]

The vast majority of it is on the basis of SEX. Nobody is asking the victim what they identify as before they remove their clitoris and sew their vaginal opening shut. Nobody is querying the identity of the person being retributively raped for the crime of talking to a man not related to her. Nobody is taking the time to ask their target whether they identify as a man before raping them. Lack of promotions and career growth for women as a result of the *possibility* that they might get pregnant is sure as fuck not based on their gender identity. Stereotypes are developed on the basis of sex, and are enforced on the basis of sex. In fact, they're so strongly sex-linked that if a person doesn't conform to those stereotypes at present, they are suspected of being in the wrong body.

Hold on there. While stereotypes are developed on the basis of sex, decisions and actions associated with those stereotypes are typically done on the basis of visual confirmation of the sex. Except for your first example, that does not require anyone to view the entire body of the person.

Please refer to my post #263.

Just like Jarhyn, you are pretending that sex is some mysterious unknowable element that can't be inferred with an extremely high level of accuracy unless you inventory someone's genitals.

Your response is also disingenuous given the elements that I listed above. I guarantee that no boys in Somalia are having their penises removed and their testicles stitched up because someone mistook them for a girl. I guarantee that if the person under the hijab has a penis, they're not going to get gang raped to teach them a lesson just because the men around them didn't know they were a man.

This is a bit disingenuous, as well as a bait and switch. The "to continue to be in that category" is the switch, as we're talking about people who were never in that category to begin with. We're talking about people who have never had any of the general experiences of that category, and have actually had the experiences of a different category, and whether their complete lack of experience entitles them to admittance to the first category on the basis of how they feel inside.

And no, not every single person in a category will have exactly all of the same experiences. But there are extremely likely to be many shared experiences. And when it comes to sex categories, many of those experiences are based on the physical reality that a person goes through. Most of the others are based on the social experiences that they have based on their sex.

There was no bait and switch. Which physical and social experiences a particular person has experienced may vastly differ (especially social) between people.

And yet there are some experiences that cannot and do not overlap. That's why it's disingenuous. No male person will ever experience menstrual cramps, or starting their period unexpectedly and bleeding through their pants. No female person will ever experience a wet dream or an inappropriate boner. Sure, it's true that some few female people don't have periods, and so never have that experience... but that female person cannot have the male experience.

You frame this as if somehow Hubbard were *always* part of the category of women rather than men, and now the rules have changed and they're being evicted because they don't have "exactly" the same experience of womanhood. That's a false narrative. Hubbard has *never* had the experience of a woman. Hubbard is physically incapable of having the physical experiences of a woman. Hubbard had the social experience of a man for the vast majority of their life, and the small portion of their life during which they have tried to live as a woman are *not* the commonly shared experience that women have - largely because Hubbard does not look like a woman. Hubbard has *never* been part of the category of women, and is asking to be allowed to self-identify into that sex-based category despite not having either the physical or the formative social experiences of that category.

 

[Jarhyn]

Please refer to my post #263.

Just like Jarhyn, you are pretending that sex is some mysterious unknowable element that can't be inferred with an extremely high level of accuracy unless you inventory someone's genitals.

Your response is also disingenuous given the elements that I listed above. I guarantee that no boys in Somalia are having their penises removed and their testicles stitched up because someone mistook them for a girl. I guarantee that if the person under the hijab has a penis, they're not going to get gang raped to teach them a lesson just because the men around them didn't know they were a man.

This is a bit disingenuous, as well as a bait and switch. The "to continue to be in that category" is the switch, as we're talking about people who were never in that category to begin with. We're talking about people who have never had any of the general experiences of that category, and have actually had the experiences of a different category, and whether their complete lack of experience entitles them to admittance to the first category on the basis of how they feel inside.

And no, not every single person in a category will have exactly all of the same experiences. But there are extremely likely to be many shared experiences. And when it comes to sex categories, many of those experiences are based on the physical reality that a person goes through. Most of the others are based on the social experiences that they have based on their sex.

There was no bait and switch. Which physical and social experiences a particular person has experienced may vastly differ (especially social) between people.

And yet there are some experiences that cannot and do not overlap. That's why it's disingenuous. No male person will ever experience menstrual cramps, or starting their period unexpectedly and bleeding through their pants. No female person will ever experience a wet dream or an inappropriate boner. Sure, it's true that some few female people don't have periods, and so never have that experience... but that female person cannot have the male experience.

You frame this as if somehow Hubbard were *always* part of the category of women rather than men, and now the rules have changed and they're being evicted because they don't have "exactly" the same experience of womanhood. That's a false narrative. Hubbard has *never* had the experience of a woman. Hubbard is physically incapable of having the physical experiences of a woman. Hubbard had the social experience of a man for the vast majority of their life, and the small portion of their life during which they have tried to live as a woman are *not* the commonly shared experience that women have - largely because Hubbard does not look like a woman. Hubbard has *never* been part of the category of women, and is asking to be allowed to self-identify into that sex-based category despite not having either the physical or the formative social experiences of that category.

I pretend nothing. I state, factually, that sex is something that you are assuming, and which is neither necessary nor helpful to assume in the vast majority of situations, and for which the minority situations, assumption is necessarily going to create violations of privacy the sum of which are more deleterious than losing out on the dubious benefits gotten from the assumption.

People are getting their genitals mutilated specifically because people, many of which have disturbing similarities in their thought process to your own, believe that sex implies things about individuals that it does not.

 

[Emily Lake]

I pretend nothing. I state, factually, that sex is something that you are assuming, and which is neither necessary nor helpful to assume in the vast majority of situations, and for which the minority situations, assumption is necessarily going to create violations of privacy the sum of which are more deleterious than losing out on the dubious benefits gotten from the assumption.

People are getting their genitals mutilated specifically because people, many of which have disturbing similarities in their thought process to your own, believe that sex implies things about individuals that it does not.

Can you give me some examples of situations in which sex is completely unnecessary and not helpful, but in which gender somehow *is*? Can you expand on those situations to show how assumptions of gender are more beneficial and less deleterious to the majority of people than assumptions of sex?

Can you come up with any counter-examples of your own premise?

 

[laughing dog]

Please refer to my post #263.

Just like Jarhyn, you are pretending that sex is some mysterious unknowable element that can't be inferred with an extremely high level of accuracy unless you inventory someone's genitals.

Your response is also disingenuous given the elements that I listed above. I guarantee that no boys in Somalia are having their penises removed and their testicles stitched up because someone mistook them for a girl. I guarantee that if the person under the hijab has a penis, they're not going to get gang raped to teach them a lesson just because the men around them didn't know they were a man.

This is a bit disingenuous, as well as a bait and switch. The "to continue to be in that category" is the switch, as we're talking about people who were never in that category to begin with. We're talking about people who have never had any of the general experiences of that category, and have actually had the experiences of a different category, and whether their complete lack of experience entitles them to admittance to the first category on the basis of how they feel inside.

And no, not every single person in a category will have exactly all of the same experiences. But there are extremely likely to be many shared experiences. And when it comes to sex categories, many of those experiences are based on the physical reality that a person goes through. Most of the others are based on the social experiences that they have based on their sex.

There was no bait and switch. Which physical and social experiences a particular person has experienced may vastly differ (especially social) between people.

And yet there are some experiences that cannot and do not overlap. That's why it's disingenuous. No male person will ever experience menstrual cramps, or starting their period unexpectedly and bleeding through their pants. No female person will ever experience a wet dream or an inappropriate boner. Sure, it's true that some few female people don't have periods, and so never have that experience... but that female person cannot have the male experience.

That is disingenuous. In both cases, the transgender person cannot have the complete experience of the other sex, but they can have some of it. But I find it bizarre that in order to be considered a man or a woman, that person has to be able to have the complete experience of that sex. Using your reasoning, a woman who is physically incapable of conceiving is not a woman, because she cannot have the full experience of being a woman - which to my mind, is bizarre. Similarily, it is bizarre a man who is incapable of having an erection cannot be a real man.

You frame this as if somehow Hubbard were *always* part of the category of women rather than men, and now the rules have changed and they're being evicted because they don't have "exactly" the same experience of womanhood. That's a false narrative. Hubbard has *never* had the experience of a woman. Hubbard is physically incapable of having the physical experiences of a woman. Hubbard had the social experience of a man for the vast majority of their life, and the small portion of their life during which they have tried to live as a woman are *not* the commonly shared experience that women have - largely because Hubbard does not look like a woman. Hubbard has *never* been part of the category of women, and is asking to be allowed to self-identify into that sex-based category despite not having either the physical or the formative social experiences of that category.

First, I never framed this as if Hubbard was always part of the category of women. Second, Hubbard is not asking to be allowed to self-identify - Hubbard does not need yours or anyone else's permission to identify as a woman. Third, I find your standard of requiring the entire "shared experience of the sex" to be bizarre.

 

[Metaphor]

But I find it bizarre that in order to be considered a man or a woman, that person has to be able to have the complete experience of that sex.

No. You just have to be that sex.

 

[laughing dog]

But I find it bizarre that in order to be considered a man or a woman, that person has to be able to have the complete experience of that sex.

No. You just have to be that sex.

Only to the small-minded and the cruel.

 

[Metaphor]

But I find it bizarre that in order to be considered a man or a woman, that person has to be able to have the complete experience of that sex.

No. You just have to be that sex.

Only to the small-minded and the cruel.

Yes: in laughing dog land, recognising that sex is functionally binary in mammals and cannot be changed is a fact only believed by the 'small-minded' and 'cruel'.

I didn't choose to believe in reality. I just can't help but do so.

 

[Arctish]

What do you mean when you say that sex is 'functionally binary'? Are you referring specifically to the reproductive function? If so, then yes, sex aka sexual reproduction is functionally binary.

But if you're conflating sex with gender and declaring that there are only male and female with no overlap, that premise has been repeatedly disproven.

 

[Metaphor]

What do you mean when you say that sex is 'functionally binary'? Are you referring specifically to the reproductive function? If so, then yes, sex aka sexual reproduction is functionally binary.

I mean in mammals, there are two sexes that are based on the type of gamete produced by an organism. There are small, motile gametes (sperm) and large, sessile gametes (ova). Emily Lake has described this better than I can.

But if you're conflating sex with gender and declaring that there are only male and female with no overlap, that premise has been repeatedly disproven.

I don't know how many times I've called other people out for conflating sex with gender; I'm astonished that the accusation would be made against me.

Sex is binary in mammals and cannot change. Your sex is identified and recorded at birth.

Gender can be anything (I suppose), because a gender identity (if somebody has one) is a thought in their head.

There are a number of people who believe, for reasons that make no sense, that gender should supplant sex (as in: treat somebody's gender identity as if it were their sex) in almost every conceivable legal and social situation.

This idea is radical, impossible, regressive, destructive madness.

It is radical because pronouns have always been used to refer to sex in animals, not 'gender'. But the gender ideologists want 'gender identity' to replace sex as the driver for pronoun use, and they imagine that this has been the case all along. It has not been the case all along.

It is impossible because where the sexes are segregated, they are separated into two facilities, because sex is binary. One cannot segregate people by gender, because gender identity is a thought in a person's head and there are an uncountable number of them. Also, mammals cannot change sex nor can they become sexless ("non-binary").

It is regressive because it reinforces sex-role stereotypes (by imagining people who do not conform with the behavioural expectations of their sex can instead become the opposite sex), instead of eliminating sex-role strictures.

It is destructive because 'immediate gender affirmation' is the only acceptable approach for the trans activists when considering the psychological issues some children face, and this invites a consequent medical mutilation of their bodies, a loss of fertility, and a near certainty that they will never have normal sexual function.

I'll add another: it is asymmetrical. Women have more to lose when they are supposed to accept biological males into their spaces than men have to lose when we are supposed to accept biological females into our spaces.

And another: gender ideologists live on cloud cuckoo land and they imagine humans are attracted to genders and not sexed bodies. It is okay for them to live in this fantasy world, but I ought not be forced to participate.

And another, another: discrimination against women occurs because women are identifiable as women from their sexed bodies, not their 'gender identities'.

 

[Metaphor]

An open question to laughing dog and Toni: why isn't Rachel Dolezal black?

 

[laughing dog]

Only to the small-minded and the cruel.

Yes: in laughing dog land, recognising that sex is functionally binary in mammals and cannot be changed is a fact only believed by the 'small-minded' and 'cruel'.

Your seemingly inability to distinguish between sex and gender is fascinating.

I didn't choose to believe in reality. I just can't help but do so.

Keep reassuring yourself, Jan.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your seemingly inability to distinguish between sex and gender is fascinating.

I didn't choose to believe in reality. I just can't help but do so.

Keep reassuring yourself, Jan.

I think a lot of it has to do with the context and application of the recognition.

Metaphor is pretending context is not what is at discussion here and so is making very dishonest posts.

 

[Emily Lake]

That is disingenuous. In both cases, the transgender person cannot have the complete experience of the other sex, but they can have some of it. But I find it bizarre that in order to be considered a man or a woman, that person has to be able to have the complete experience of that sex. Using your reasoning, a woman who is physically incapable of conceiving is not a woman, because she cannot have the full experience of being a woman - which to my mind, is bizarre. Similarily, it is bizarre a man who is incapable of having an erection cannot be a real man.


First, I never framed this as if Hubbard was always part of the category of women. Second, Hubbard is not asking to be allowed to self-identify - Hubbard does not need yours or anyone else's permission to identify as a woman. Third, I find your standard of requiring the entire "shared experience of the sex" to be bizarre.

I swear you didn't even bother to read my post. But hey, let's brush on past the part where I very clearly said that not every member of a group will have the exact same experience, and some of them may lack specific experiences, but on the whole there's a general commonality to it. We can ignore the complete and ridiculous canard of if a woman can't conceive, she's not really a woman. Don't be dumb.

Instead, how about you explain to me what experience of womanhood do you think Hubbard has had? Can you elaborate, or even speculate?

 

[Emily Lake]

But I find it bizarre that in order to be considered a man or a woman, that person has to be able to have the complete experience of that sex.

No. You just have to be that sex.

Only to the small-minded and the cruel.

This is such science-denying crap.

 

[laughing dog]

That is disingenuous. In both cases, the transgender person cannot have the complete experience of the other sex, but they can have some of it. But I find it bizarre that in order to be considered a man or a woman, that person has to be able to have the complete experience of that sex. Using your reasoning, a woman who is physically incapable of conceiving is not a woman, because she cannot have the full experience of being a woman - which to my mind, is bizarre. Similarily, it is bizarre a man who is incapable of having an erection cannot be a real man.


First, I never framed this as if Hubbard was always part of the category of women. Second, Hubbard is not asking to be allowed to self-identify - Hubbard does not need yours or anyone else's permission to identify as a woman. Third, I find your standard of requiring the entire "shared experience of the sex" to be bizarre.

I swear you didn't even bother to read my post. But hey, let's brush on past the part where I very clearly said that not every member of a group will have the exact same experience, and some of them may lack specific experiences, but on the whole there's a general commonality to it. We can ignore the complete and ridiculous canard of if a woman can't conceive, she's not really a woman.

You are the one who espouses the undefined "general commonality", not me. You are the one mandating physical and social experiences in order to qualify as a woman, not me.

Instead, how about you explain to me what experience of womanhood do you think Hubbard has had? Can you elaborate, or even speculate?

It is unnecessary for Laurel Hubbard's gender identity to speculate on possible "experiences of womanhood".