Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[Metaphor]

Look, I don't hate sports in principle, but I hate that some people assume that everybody else is obligated to be interested in the subject. I am not obligated to know the difference between a football stick and a hockey bat. It is information that I do not need to have. I can carry on in life just fine without ever learning about those things. No, I do not have a favorite team. I don't care who wins the Superbowl because I don't even like baseball. I don't really hate athletes, but it is just not something that I am interested in.

I'm not asking you to be interested in sports. I am asking you why sports should be separated by 'gender' and not sex.

 

[Politesse]

Look, I don't hate sports in principle, but I hate that some people assume that everybody else is obligated to be interested in the subject. I am not obligated to know the difference between a football stick and a hockey bat. It is information that I do not need to have. I can carry on in life just fine without ever learning about those things. No, I do not have a favorite team. I don't care who wins the Superbowl because I don't even like baseball. I don't really hate athletes, but it is just not something that I am interested in.

I'm not asking you to be interested in sports. I am asking you why sports should be separated by 'gender' and not sex.

I don't see that discussion as relevant to anything other than discussions of sport; it's a needless derail to a serious conversation about sex and gender, which exist whether people play sports or not.

 

[Politesse]

I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.

Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?

Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests that other players aren't subject to just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game. But again, I see this entire discussion as irrelevant to the thread and its purpose, so I'm not interested in going on and on about it.

 

[Metaphor]

I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.

Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?

Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game.

That's a disingenuous red herring. One thing does not flow from the other. Nobody has to be subject to 'invasive medical tests' to separate sports by sex.

Nor, if we cannot separate sports by sex, does it mean we ought separate by gender identity instead.

 

[Metaphor]

Look, I don't hate sports in principle, but I hate that some people assume that everybody else is obligated to be interested in the subject. I am not obligated to know the difference between a football stick and a hockey bat. It is information that I do not need to have. I can carry on in life just fine without ever learning about those things. No, I do not have a favorite team. I don't care who wins the Superbowl because I don't even like baseball. I don't really hate athletes, but it is just not something that I am interested in.

I'm not asking you to be interested in sports. I am asking you why sports should be separated by 'gender' and not sex.

I don't see that discussion as relevant to anything other than discussions of sport; it's a needless derail to a serious conversation about sex and gender, which exist whether people play sports or not.

It beggars belief you can find it irrelevant, since sports are one of the clearest cases where trans activists demands are unethical and frankly, beyond the pale.

 

[Politesse]

I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.

Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?

Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game.

That's a disingenuous red herring. One thing does not flow from the other. Nobody has to be subject to 'invasive medical tests' to separate sports by sex.

Nor, if we cannot separate sports by sex, does it mean we ought separate by gender identity instead.

I'm all in favor of the wholesale emancipation of sport from gender essentialism. If we ended race-exclusionary leagues, we can end gender-exclusionary leagues too. But this doesn't seem to be a common perspective at the moment.

 

[Politesse]

Look, I don't hate sports in principle, but I hate that some people assume that everybody else is obligated to be interested in the subject. I am not obligated to know the difference between a football stick and a hockey bat. It is information that I do not need to have. I can carry on in life just fine without ever learning about those things. No, I do not have a favorite team. I don't care who wins the Superbowl because I don't even like baseball. I don't really hate athletes, but it is just not something that I am interested in.

I'm not asking you to be interested in sports. I am asking you why sports should be separated by 'gender' and not sex.

I don't see that discussion as relevant to anything other than discussions of sport; it's a needless derail to a serious conversation about sex and gender, which exist whether people play sports or not.

It beggars belief you can find it irrelevant, since sports are one of the clearest cases where trans activists demands are unethical and frankly, beyond the pale.

If you think a very hypothetical advantage in a sporting match is the worst ethical fault that can be caused by incorporating the social sciences into the realm of public policy, I am more than happy to accept that hypothetical moral cost. It is not, in fact, more serious than other, more critical human rights that are also tied to questions of sex and gender, such as access to healthcare and family planning, the direction of pedagogy, wage equity, and legal equity.

 

[Metaphor]

I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.

Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?

Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game.

That's a disingenuous red herring. One thing does not flow from the other. Nobody has to be subject to 'invasive medical tests' to separate sports by sex.

Nor, if we cannot separate sports by sex, does it mean we ought separate by gender identity instead.

I'm all in favor of the wholesale emancipation of sport from gender essentialism. If we ended race-exclusionary leagues, we can end gender-exclusionary leagues too. But this doesn't seem to be a common perspective at the moment.

There are no gender-exclusionary leagues. Sports are (or were) separated by sex, not gender.

 

[Politesse]

I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.

Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?

Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game.

That's a disingenuous red herring. One thing does not flow from the other. Nobody has to be subject to 'invasive medical tests' to separate sports by sex.

Nor, if we cannot separate sports by sex, does it mean we ought separate by gender identity instead.

I'm all in favor of the wholesale emancipation of sport from gender essentialism. If we ended race-exclusionary leagues, we can end gender-exclusionary leagues too. But this doesn't seem to be a common perspective at the moment.

There are no gender-exclusionary leagues. Sports are (or were) separated by sex, not gender.

The same applies.

 

[Metaphor]

Look, I don't hate sports in principle, but I hate that some people assume that everybody else is obligated to be interested in the subject. I am not obligated to know the difference between a football stick and a hockey bat. It is information that I do not need to have. I can carry on in life just fine without ever learning about those things. No, I do not have a favorite team. I don't care who wins the Superbowl because I don't even like baseball. I don't really hate athletes, but it is just not something that I am interested in.

I'm not asking you to be interested in sports. I am asking you why sports should be separated by 'gender' and not sex.

I don't see that discussion as relevant to anything other than discussions of sport; it's a needless derail to a serious conversation about sex and gender, which exist whether people play sports or not.

It beggars belief you can find it irrelevant, since sports are one of the clearest cases where trans activists demands are unethical and frankly, beyond the pale.

If you think a very hypothetical advantage

False. The advantage is large and always in favour of male bodies (excepting some gymnastic routines). There is nothing 'hypothetical' about it.

in a sporting match is the worst ethical fault that can be caused by incorporating the social sciences into the realm public policy, I am more than happy to accept that hypothetical cost.

Why should that real cost be accepted?

It is not, in fact, more serious than other, more critical human rights that are tied to questions of sex and gender such as access to healthcare and family planning, the direction of pedagogy, wage equity, and legal equity.

I did not say it was more serious or less serious than other issues.

 

[Metaphor]

I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.

Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?

Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game.

That's a disingenuous red herring. One thing does not flow from the other. Nobody has to be subject to 'invasive medical tests' to separate sports by sex.

Nor, if we cannot separate sports by sex, does it mean we ought separate by gender identity instead.

I'm all in favor of the wholesale emancipation of sport from gender essentialism. If we ended race-exclusionary leagues, we can end gender-exclusionary leagues too. But this doesn't seem to be a common perspective at the moment.

There are no gender-exclusionary leagues. Sports are (or were) separated by sex, not gender.

The same applies.

If you want to take away sex-segregation, it would end women's sports and women's access to scholarships and other benefits that flow from sports participation.

 

[ZiprHead]

There are no gender-exclusionary leagues. Sports are (or were) separated by sex, not gender.

Well, you sure seem to understand what gender is now.

 

[Metaphor]

There are no gender-exclusionary leagues. Sports are (or were) separated by sex, not gender.

Well, you sure seem to understand what gender is now.

No. I don't understand what it means. I know what sex means.

 

[ZiprHead]

There are no gender-exclusionary leagues. Sports are (or were) separated by sex, not gender.

Well, you sure seem to understand what gender is now.

No. I don't understand what it means. I know what sex means.

Sure, luv.

 

[Generation55]

Why is my post #58 being ignored? It is one of the most important posts about this subject. Not one of you has said "A woman can absolutely impregnate a man" or "Absolutely men can give birth."

Now if you say, "a trans man can give birth because he has a uterus and a vagina," then someone else can say, "they are a woman." Is it just about semantics, then? None of you will say, "Men can give birth." but you may say, "A trans man can give birth" but then it appears to be just semantics and the meaning of words, which haven't been defined yet.

 

[Arctish]

Why is my post #58 being ignored? It is one of the most important posts about this subject. Not one of you has said "A woman can absolutely impregnate a man" or "Absolutely men can give birth."

Now if you say, "a trans man can give birth because he has a uterus and a vagina," then someone else can say, "they are a woman." Is it just about semantics, then? None of you will say, "Men can give birth." but you may say, "A trans man can give birth" but then it appears to be just semantics and the meaning of words, which haven't been defined yet.

Does Hayley Haynes count?

She has the XY chromosome pattern of a male, is insensitive to testosterone resulting in a female type body style, was found to have a very small uterus, and after receiving hormone treatment to stimulate female sex organ growth and in vitro fertilization, gave birth to twins.

Granted, she's intersex, not transgender. But the principle is the same: the English language is going to have to adapt to the new knowledge about human sex, sexuality, and changes in the concept of gender. No worries, though. English is a living language that changes all the time.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Quite frankly, I would be very interested in being fully capable of reproducing as a woman. I might be a little bit long in the tooth by the time this has become both available and affordable, but I'll save up a nest-egg, just in case.

 

[TV and credit cards]

This study is approachable: Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation
For me, it does a good job of defining sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It might be helpful to others.

The study does not even define what it means by 'gender', except circularly.

Sexual orientation signifies the sex of the object of one’s sexual attraction, whereas gender identity denotes the sex and gender role one identifies with.

What's circular about that?

They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'.

That's not circular. Circular would be using 'gender identity' to define 'gender'.

Using a word to define itself is circular. It's like defining 'woeful' as 'full of woe' but then not finding 'woe' in the same dictionary.

What is gender?

Isn’t it how feminine or masculine an individual is? This of course being determined by the individual.
Once again as is so often the case, we get wrapped around the axle when we try to label people or allow for only a binary choice.
I think you seek to understand something of others only we can know about ourselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

This study is approachable: Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation
For me, it does a good job of defining sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It might be helpful to others.

Something I've been struggling to align well enough to get words under the complexities of the thought...

Imagine two people.

One person sees the idea of being able to have sex with a person, and their sexual organs swell.

Another person sees their companion make a conscious decision to put ideas of sexuality aside for the night and just "spend honest time", and their sexual organs swell.

One of these things I would say is "masculine" and one is "feminine".

Of course, I'm with Sigmathe and this is what I've been going on about for years. It's not "a thought in the head", it's "a stable, persistent physical state" just as much as the "stable physical state" of the genitals. It just happens one is way easier to observe.

Someone should call Emily Lake in here though... Seems like something she would be interested in reading, I think?

I definitely do not see these as masculine or feminine, but as masculine stereotype and feminine stereotype.

I would go so far as to say they are different enough triggers of the sexual function that there are definitely aspects of our sexual interest that happen in fairly consistent ways. Just this one aspect is a deeply important thing to acknowledge: the brain differentiates for many people specifically around whether an immediate and clear interest in sex is seen primarily as a red flag or a green one.

It is clearly an unconscious differentiation, as these modes of arousal have exactly opposite instigation, an example of 'physical structure differentiations'. It's not a thought that merely happened, but a structural element of how thoughts in that head happen in general.

Obviously everyone is encouraged by me at all times to live their life as they see fit on their own terms, but it is just another aspect of an element that is often overlooked in this discussion of "how does the bimodal population create normal examples and what do they look like?"

 

[KeepTalking]

This study is approachable: Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation
For me, it does a good job of defining sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It might be helpful to others.

The study does not even define what it means by 'gender', except circularly.

Sexual orientation signifies the sex of the object of one’s sexual attraction, whereas gender identity denotes the sex and gender role one identifies with.

What's circular about that?

They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'.

That's not circular. Circular would be using 'gender identity' to define 'gender'.

Using a word to define itself is circular. It's like defining 'woeful' as 'full of woe' but then not finding 'woe' in the same dictionary.

What is gender?

The word gender was not being defined, the phrase "gender identity" was being defined. It makes sense to reference "gender" when defining a phrase that includes that word, just as it makes sense to reference the word "sex" when defining "sexual orientation", which occurred in the first half of the sentence, and with which you apparently had no problem.