Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[Emily Lake]

Because the social issues are most influenced by gender, which is social in character. Sex is biological in nature, and though it is relevant to social questions, it's ultimately irrelevant to most social questions of appropriate policy, if it conflicts with a person's expressed gender.

This is something that male people, raised as males, tend to say. Sex is not as important to you as gender is... but sex is fairly important to the group of people who tend to get raped by those who don't care about sex, and who can be pregnant against their will. It matters a fair bit to the group of people who end up not being promoted at the same rate as their male counterparts, because they *might* get pregnant and take time off to raise a baby. Sex matters a lot when a female experiences period poverty and can't go out in public for fear of bleeding through. Or when a female can't afford oral contraceptives. Or when a female isn't allowed autonomy over their own bodies in Texas. Sex matters to the females in Afghanistan being denied an education and relegated to property. It matters to young girls in Somalia subjected to genital mutilation to ensure that they are unable to get aroused. It matters to the millions of women who don't get adequate care because doctors - even female doctors - don't take the complaints of pain seriously and thus don't diagnose endometriosis, fibroids, and PCOS until after they've done significant and dramatic damage.

There are a whole lot of social and policy situations where sex matters quite a lot to women, and very little to men... And it keeps being men insisting that sex doesn't matter.

If sex were intrinsic and consistent,

SEX is intrinsic and consistent. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, nor need to; instinct would ensure that sex and its social expression are always expressed in the same way. But since gender has cultural, social, and psychological dimensions that go far beyond even the most expansive biological definitions of sex, it can and will result in social conflicts if you try to ignore it, predictably and consistently. Trying to turn the full weight of government to bear against ~3% of the population and trying to tell them they're "doing their sex wrong" and need to be punished is a project doomed to ultimate failure, because it doesn't take reality into account.

Bloviating rhetoric. Nobody wants to punish transgender people, nor do we think they're doing their sex "wrong". We do, however think that their gender identity doesn't override their sex. Nor do we think that 50% of the population should be forced to relinquish their rights, their dignity, and their safety in order to affirm the feelings of <2% of the population.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

I know gender wasn't defined, because I looked in the article for the authors to define it. That was my entire problem in the first place: that the authors use 'gender' without defining it, as if we are all supposed to know.

That may all be correct, but you also said "They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'" in response to the question "What's circular about that?".

It is factually incorrect to say that using the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity' is a circular reference.

I do not believe it is mischaracterising it to call it circular, because if 'gender identity' needs to be defined, it's because 'gender' needs to be defined.

Anyway, the article does not define gender, so I don't know what it means by it.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

I know gender wasn't defined, because I looked in the article for the authors to define it. That was my entire problem in the first place: that the authors use 'gender' without defining it, as if we are all supposed to know.

That may all be correct, but you also said "They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'" in response to the question "What's circular about that?".

It is factually incorrect to say that using the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity' is a circular reference.

I do not believe it is mischaracterising it to call it circular, because if 'gender identity' needs to be defined, it's because 'gender' needs to be defined.

That is also incorrect. It could also be the case that 'identity' needs to be defined.

 

[Emily Lake]

@Metaphor

I can only explain why it means so much to me from a theoretical point-of-view. The best I can do is refer you to some DTI studies. The qualia itself is substantially harder to describe. You can't really understand what it's like to be me unless you have been me. It's like trying to explain the color blue to a person that was born blind. Anytime I try to explain it to you in terms besides the DTI studies, I feel like I am just making it more confusing.

Just trust me: it's a lot weirder for me to be me than it is for you to coexist with me. I still don't know for sure how to handle it, and I've had years to work on it. I've gotten better at it, but I also think I've got a long way to go.


Warm regards,
Sigma

To say 'my gender is defined by having such and such a brain-state' is not much use to me, especially when trans activists make demands - such as competing with women on women's sports - based on this brain-state. We separate males from females because of the effect sexed bodies have on athletic performance.

Why should we replace this separation with 'gender' instead?

Met, I know we both tend to be a bit defensive on this topic... but I don't think Sigma is pushing gender ideology. Sigma is acknowledging that gender dysphoria is a real thing, which both you and I already accept. Sigma appears to not be an activist on this issue, so kindly stop haranguing her (?) for what other people preach.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Whose civil liberties do you deem more important?

 

[Metaphor]

Lil Nas got jumped on and dragged because he was very clear that he likes dick. He's one of a very few out gay black men... and he faced an immense amount of backlash because he's gay and doesn't include transmen in his interests. Because he likes dick. What's bizarre to me is that he gets lambasted as transphobic... but he's at least (if not more) heterophobic, seeing as he excludes all females, including those who are not transgender.

Yes - I wonder what Lil Nas X is supposed to call himself without raising the hackles of gender ideologists? Indeed, the ones who hounded him for saying he liked dick got it wrong, anyway. Gay men use the term 'dick' as a synecdoche for the, um, entire package of manhood. "I'm getting some dick tonight"="I am having sex with a man tonight and he will have a dick attached".

So, I wonder what he is supposed to call himself? Maybe he is Gay (subclass-Transphobic) because he is only attracted to non-trans men.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

I know gender wasn't defined, because I looked in the article for the authors to define it. That was my entire problem in the first place: that the authors use 'gender' without defining it, as if we are all supposed to know.

That may all be correct, but you also said "They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'" in response to the question "What's circular about that?".

It is factually incorrect to say that using the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity' is a circular reference.

I do not believe it is mischaracterising it to call it circular, because if 'gender identity' needs to be defined, it's because 'gender' needs to be defined.

That is also incorrect. It could also be the case that 'identity' needs to be defined.

An age ago I defined a 'woman' as an 'adult human female'. Nobody had a problem with the word 'adult' or 'human'. People had a problem with the word 'female'.

Nevertheless, even if I'm wrong about what a circular definition is, that article did not define gender. Consequently, it didn't really shed any light on 'gender identity', either.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

People with CAIS are considered female, not male. They never experience any of the virilizing effects of androgens. Most people with CAIS have female reproductive anatomy, but are sterile because they did not develop ova during gestation. This is a fairly unusual situation, given the small size of her uterus, but I think most people with CAIS would be able to carry a child from IVF.

CAIS is one of the reasons that sex, from the perspective of evolutionary biology, is based on the type of gamete that one's body is organized to produce (even if it doesn't succeed in producing that gamete). CAIS people have bodies organized to produce ova.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

That would imply that a butch dyke is a man, and a feminine twink is a woman.

 

[Emily Lake]

Flag on the play, Begging the Question fallacy: the subject is discussing whether and when the utterance "Man" is appropriate to apply to some thing.

Transgender people are people, not things. Sheesh.

 

[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.

Whose civil liberties do you deem more important?

Civil liberties are universal, or they are destined to be lost.

 

[Emily Lake]

Lil Nas got jumped on and dragged because he was very clear that he likes dick. He's one of a very few out gay black men... and he faced an immense amount of backlash because he's gay and doesn't include transmen in his interests. Because he likes dick. What's bizarre to me is that he gets lambasted as transphobic... but he's at least (if not more) heterophobic, seeing as he excludes all females, including those who are not transgender.

Yes - I wonder what Lil Nas X is supposed to call himself without raising the hackles of gender ideologists? Indeed, the ones who hounded him for saying he liked dick got it wrong, anyway. Gay men use the term 'dick' as a synecdoche for the, um, entire package of manhood. "I'm getting some dick tonight"="I am having sex with a man tonight and he will have a dick attached".

So, I wonder what he is supposed to call himself? Maybe he is Gay (subclass-Transphobic) because he is only attracted to non-trans men.

Super gay.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Whose civil liberties do you deem more important?

Civil liberties are universal, or they are destined to be lost.

So... everybody has the right to use the disabled parking spot?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Why would you find that interesting, apparently attractive, enough to save up?

From what I've heard, pregnancy is risky, uncomfortable, and quite a burden. If what you want is a child to raise just adopt one of the zillions of kids who are conceived by irresponsible breeders. We need homes too.
Tom

I can't answer for them, but I can answer for myself, and I'm not seeking to be a "woman" at all:

Because something deep within me feels the need to have that relationship with some other living thing.

I would do this as a surrogate for someone else.

I would do it for a brainless clone body meant for someone else.

I will not claim it is rational, but it is something buried in myself like a tick that will not let go, and I do not think I wish it to. It is an experience held by so many to take that risk and accept that pain on behalf of someone else.

It is something I would volunteer gladly for.

We're still a very long way from the female reproductive tract transplant that you would need first.

 

[Politesse]

Because the social issues are most influenced by gender, which is social in character. Sex is biological in nature, and though it is relevant to social questions, it's ultimately irrelevant to most social questions of appropriate policy, if it conflicts with a person's expressed gender.

This is something that male people, raised as males, tend to say. Sex is not as important to you as gender is... but sex is fairly important to the group of people who tend to get raped by those who don't care about sex, and who can be pregnant against their will. It matters a fair bit to the group of people who end up not being promoted at the same rate as their male counterparts, because they *might* get pregnant and take time off to raise a baby. Sex matters a lot when a female experiences period poverty and can't go out in public for fear of bleeding through. Or when a female can't afford oral contraceptives. Or when a female isn't allowed autonomy over their own bodies in Texas. Sex matters to the females in Afghanistan being denied an education and relegated to property. It matters to young girls in Somalia subjected to genital mutilation to ensure that they are unable to get aroused. It matters to the millions of women who don't get adequate care because doctors - even female doctors - don't take the complaints of pain seriously and thus don't diagnose endometriosis, fibroids, and PCOS until after they've done significant and dramatic damage.

There are a whole lot of social and policy situations where sex matters quite a lot to women, and very little to men... And it keeps being men insisting that sex doesn't matter.

If sex were intrinsic and consistent,

SEX is intrinsic and consistent. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, nor need to; instinct would ensure that sex and its social expression are always expressed in the same way. But since gender has cultural, social, and psychological dimensions that go far beyond even the most expansive biological definitions of sex, it can and will result in social conflicts if you try to ignore it, predictably and consistently. Trying to turn the full weight of government to bear against ~3% of the population and trying to tell them they're "doing their sex wrong" and need to be punished is a project doomed to ultimate failure, because it doesn't take reality into account.

Bloviating rhetoric. Nobody wants to punish transgender people, nor do we think they're doing their sex "wrong". We do, however think that their gender identity doesn't override their sex. Nor do we think that 50% of the population should be forced to relinquish their rights, their dignity, and their safety in order to affirm the feelings of <2% of the population.

Gender is what's at issue in all of the cases you cite, being as they are social and cultural issues, not biological, and can only be addressed by changing perceptions of gender role, gender status, and acceptable relationships between the various parties of a gender-diverse society. You're also quite wrong about the history of gender theory, which was developed by a fairly mixed but majority female scholarship over the course of the 20th century. And the preposterous notion that no one wants to punish trans people or tell them they are wrong is is simply a lie; you may not, but the history of trans rights clearly demonstrates that you are not in the majority.

 

[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.

Whose civil liberties do you deem more important?

Civil liberties are universal, or they are destined to be lost.

So... everybody has the right to use the disabled parking spot?

If they are disabled, yes.

 

[Emily Lake]

I will not claim it is rational, but it is something buried in myself like a tick that will not let go, and I do not think I wish it to.

OK. We agree that it's irrational.

Can we also agree that it's immoral? That bringing another person into a world with 8 billion people already, because you've got something "buried in you like a tick", is both irrational and damaging to the Human Family as a whole.

Especially a person with the consumption patterns of typical U.S. people?

Tom

No, we cannot agree that it is immoral, because my morality (and my ethics) do not preclude a variety of those goals that I described.

And hey, if it kills me, there are still more or less 8 billion other folks.

Would you say these things to a random pregnant person on the street questioning their pregnancy?

No... but I might say it to someone who rents a womb instead of adopting, or who invests ridiculous amounts of money into an as-yet-impossible complete reproductive tract transplant.

 

[Emily Lake]

Because the social issues are most influenced by gender, which is social in character. Sex is biological in nature, and though it is relevant to social questions, it's ultimately irrelevant to most social questions of appropriate policy, if it conflicts with a person's expressed gender.

This is something that male people, raised as males, tend to say. Sex is not as important to you as gender is... but sex is fairly important to the group of people who tend to get raped by those who don't care about sex, and who can be pregnant against their will. It matters a fair bit to the group of people who end up not being promoted at the same rate as their male counterparts, because they *might* get pregnant and take time off to raise a baby. Sex matters a lot when a female experiences period poverty and can't go out in public for fear of bleeding through. Or when a female can't afford oral contraceptives. Or when a female isn't allowed autonomy over their own bodies in Texas. Sex matters to the females in Afghanistan being denied an education and relegated to property. It matters to young girls in Somalia subjected to genital mutilation to ensure that they are unable to get aroused. It matters to the millions of women who don't get adequate care because doctors - even female doctors - don't take the complaints of pain seriously and thus don't diagnose endometriosis, fibroids, and PCOS until after they've done significant and dramatic damage.

There are a whole lot of social and policy situations where sex matters quite a lot to women, and very little to men... And it keeps being men insisting that sex doesn't matter.

If sex were intrinsic and consistent,

SEX is intrinsic and consistent. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, nor need to; instinct would ensure that sex and its social expression are always expressed in the same way. But since gender has cultural, social, and psychological dimensions that go far beyond even the most expansive biological definitions of sex, it can and will result in social conflicts if you try to ignore it, predictably and consistently. Trying to turn the full weight of government to bear against ~3% of the population and trying to tell them they're "doing their sex wrong" and need to be punished is a project doomed to ultimate failure, because it doesn't take reality into account.

Bloviating rhetoric. Nobody wants to punish transgender people, nor do we think they're doing their sex "wrong". We do, however think that their gender identity doesn't override their sex. Nor do we think that 50% of the population should be forced to relinquish their rights, their dignity, and their safety in order to affirm the feelings of <2% of the population.

Gender is what's at issue in all of the cases you cite, being as they are social and cultural issues, not biological, and can only be addressed by changing perceptions of gender role, gender status, and acceptable relationships between the various parties of a gender-diverse society. You're also quite wrong about the history of gender theory, which was developed by a fairly mixed but majority female scholarship over the course of the 20th century.

Are you seriously, with a straight face, trying to say that forcible impregnation, corrective rape, female genital mutilation, and periods are a "gender" issue? Do you think that female people can just "identify" out of those experiences? Do you think that if the person has a penis but identifies as a woman, they'll get their lady dick sewed shut or will magically start bleeding through their peehole or something?

Those are cases that are inherently tied to sex. Real, actual, biological sex. Menstruation won't change if we change perceptions of gender roles, nor will endometriosis, fibroids, or PCOS. Having a gender-diverse society won't spread the burden of reproduction evenly across both sexes, and it won't result in males getting knocked up. It won't magically create a situation where females get treated as property in order to ensure the paternity of offspring, because that's based on actual fucking sex and reproductive capacity.

Gender theory started a slow roll with Money, then Butler kicked it into high gear with her completely ridiculous word salad that people pretend to understand because they think if they admit that it's all meaningless jargon-laden soup the empress will be angry with them for pointing out her lack of clothes.

Then it got rolled into bed with post modern theory and critical theory (which I blame firmly on one of those feminist waves) and turned into the shitpile that it is today.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Whose civil liberties do you deem more important?

Civil liberties are universal, or they are destined to be lost.

So... everybody has the right to use the disabled parking spot?

If they are disabled, yes.

So I would say that men can play on female sports teams as long as they are female. Men can be housed in female prisons as long as they are female. Easy peasy!

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I guess that what confuses me is why anybody lets an intellectual concern dictate their sex lives for them. The way I think about it, you are either attracted to somebody or not. It has never been difficult for me to find happiness, and I think that part of the reason why is that, in my sexuality and my romantic inclinations, I just let stuff happen. I let go.

I like my way.

I don't think anybody is letting intellectual concerns dictate their sex lives. On the other hand, some of us have been observing how this 'intellectual' concern is driving and altering policy and social interactions.

I have a cousin who used to be an out and proud lesbian. But she got harassed so much by very aggressive transwomen that she is re-closeted. They insisted that if she refused to consider them as a potential dating or sex partner, she was a horrible bigoted transphobe. They denigrated and hassled her because she, as a lesbian, didn't want to have penetrative sex with their 'lady penises'. All of her lesbian hangouts and nightclubs ended up flooded with males in women's clothing who considered themselves to be lesbians and didn't want to take no for an answer.

Lil Nas got jumped on and dragged because he was very clear that he likes dick. He's one of a very few out gay black men... and he faced an immense amount of backlash because he's gay and doesn't include transmen in his interests. Because he likes dick. What's bizarre to me is that he gets lambasted as transphobic... but he's at least (if not more) heterophobic, seeing as he excludes all females, including those who are not transgender.

I have been very fortunate. My nights out have always been pleasant and uneventful.

Then again, my idea of a hot night on the town is literally a book club meeting.