Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[Loren Pechtel]

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 into sports, either--but that doesn't mean that trans players in sports are not a relevant issue.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

By my reading of the post to which you are responding, you were not being equated with the victims in those anecdotes. If anything, it seems to read as quite the opposite.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Alternatively, right after North Carolina made it illegal for transgendered women to use the ladies room, and someone called the cops on a woman legally using the ladies? She had sufficient masculine traits for the cops to escort her away as suspected of 'really' being a man.Though she was not, and never had been. Just people making shallow, reactive judgments based on outward appearances and stereotypical expectations.
And throwing labels around with gay abandon.

Yeah. I've got a SIL that's been run out of the women's room for looking too masculine.

 

[TomC]

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.

My opinion might be a tiny bit biased. I'm an adopted child. Bio-mom and sperm donor were a couple of stupid college kids. My real parents wanted me.

I do have a moral problem with wealthy folks who will spend a bunch of time and resources making another baby, when so many kids live in deprivation, because they have the irrational need for a kid they're genetically related to. I understand that making babies is an ancient instinctive behavior. But so is military adventurism. The point to morality is learning which instincts to follow and which to curb or ignore, for the benefit of the whole Human Family.
Tom

 

[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.

By my reading of the post to which you are responding, you were not being equated with the victims in those anecdotes. If anything, it seems to read as quite the opposite.

I just meant that maybe the reason why I don't run into this stuff is that I just don't hang out in those kinds of places. I am always tempted to say, "Well, I'm not seeing any of that," but maybe the reason why I don't see any of that is that I am literally not physically present there, which would naturally preclude me knowing what kind of stuff goes on at those dives.

I mean I can be a bottomless pit for whiskey once you get me started in conversation, but that's usually at, like, a house where somebody actually lives. I don't see any reason why I ought to spend $220 plus tip on a bar tab when a big bottle of whiskey costs twenty-something bucks.

Therefore, I am actually shockingly ignorant about how most people live. Maybe that's why these kinds of conversations tend to confuse me.

 

[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.

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

The same reason as any other woman, I think.

Besides, it's an excuse to save money.

 

[Jarhyn]

The definitions we have are adequate: when someone says "I am a man" they say "you, person, treat me as you would any man". Same with "woman".

How should a man be treated? How should a woman be treated?

You have conceptions about that; it is not mine nor anyone else's place to decide for someone how they ought treat "men" and "women".

I don't even assume they do

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!

You have already admitted you have intents to discriminate against people with penises rather than

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.

My opinion might be a tiny bit biased. I'm an adopted child. Bio-mom and sperm donor were a couple of stupid college kids. My real parents wanted me.

I do have a moral problem with wealthy folks who will spend a bunch of time and resources making another baby, when so many kids live in deprivation, because they have the irrational need for a kid they're genetically related to. I understand that making babies is an ancient instinctive behavior. But so is military adventurism. The point to morality is learning which instincts to follow and which to curb or ignore, for the benefit of the whole Human Family.
Tom

So, there is real value in learning how to produce people (and clone bodies of people) and replace body parts. My expectation is that demand for free wombs will at some point exceed cost for installing them, and the population will not really be going up much at all; possibly down.

Either way, I don't need your permission. In reality I do not seek it.

The technology is no different in terms of requirements of understanding than of the technology needed for a number of other medical interventions that are jealously sought and would be by anyone here, and would be offered by them to many dissatisfied with their anatomies for whatever reason, including circumcision or desired adjustment from an ambiguous or unrecognizable genitalia.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

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.

I am trying to figure out whether you are angry at all transgender people or just certain individuals.

 

[Enigma]

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.

Should it be sufficient for someone to identify as being disabled in order to have the right to use the disabled parking spot?

Or should we have society somehow gatekeep the use of disabled parking spots to limit them to people whom society considers "actually" disabled? Should we do so even knowing that no matter what mechanism is used to determine whether or not someone is "actually" disabled, that mechanism will inevitably yield a non-zero number of false positives (i.e. The person with a disabled parking permit that just finished fully recovering from their disabling condition) and false negatives (i.e. The person who just fractured their knee 5 minutes ago and is limping into the drug-store for some painkillers to make getting to the nearest urgent care center bearable while they are waiting for an Uber to pick them up)?

 

[TomC]

I am trying to figure out whether you are angry at all transgender people or just certain individuals.

You're trying to figure out something that isn't true.
Emily isn't angry at transgender people. She and I find many of the assertions made by trans folks and their supporters both wrong and damaging to the entire Human Family, particularly cis-females.

It isn't trans folks. It isn't even any individual. It's the irrational concepts and the damage done by them.
Tom

 

[Enigma]

I will try, let's see how open those ears of yours are. You said "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female.""

That is simply incorrect. Merriam Websters, provides one such definition for man:
Merriam Websters - man
d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Merriam Websters is in the business of defining words, so if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for this discussion.

By this definition, it is perfectly fine to refer to any transwoman who doesn't pass for a woman as a man, regardless of which gender they self-identify as since the definition makes no reference to gender self-identification whatsoever.

Simple reference to a definition does not in any way imply that usage of that definition is 'perfectly fine' in any given context. Those usages would need to be examined on their own merits.

It's not perfectly fine to refer to a man as a man?

I don't believe I made any such statement. Neither did I claim that it is 'perfectly fine', or not, for any one to be referenced by any specific noun. I very clearly stated that such usages would need to be examined on their own merits, and this would include taking into account the context in which they were used.

It may be that sometimes it is not perfectly fine to refer to a man as a man?

Please clarify. What exactly is potentially wrong with saying that a non-passing transwoman is a man?

Is there some factual inaccuracy in the statement?

If someone who you are inclined to call a man has asked you not to call them a man, and you intentionally call them a man regardless, that is exceedingly rude, and is not "perfectly fine" from the perspective of the person to whom you are being exceedingly rude. It is often considered rude to comment on things that are factually correct.

So your contention isn't that such transwomen aren't actually men, but rather that it can be rude to point out that they are, in fact, men?

 

[KeepTalking]

So your contention isn't that such transwomen aren't actually men, but rather that it can be rude to point out that they are, in fact, men?

No. My contention is that the definition I linked to from Merriam-Websters shows that Gen55 was incorrect in insisting that the word 'man' has a singular definition. I do not presume to tell others how they should identify with that word.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Woman Gets Man Pregnant."
Why would i not keep a straight face? As a serious headline. Above the fold, heavy font, story continued inside. Maybe all caps...

Half-Life, is that you? Same anseer as last time.
Headlines are supposed to get attention, make you want to read the whole story. 'Man gets woman pregnant' isn't even news.
This, though? This is a news item. Very unlikely, but technically possible, so it'll require careful, mature handling, as opposed to 'sky is falling' rhetoric.
In fact, might contonue the story on page two, right under today's weather forecast, including the current altitude of the sky.

 

[Jarhyn]

Somewhere, I think it gets lost that people who express and press a desire to - perhaps forcibly and definitely against their wishes - have sex with people stand to be removed from the presence of those people they are sexually harassing.

Nothing about who has a penis changes that.

If that ejects many people with penises from many places, they can cry and moan indignity at "trans hate" or whatever, but the reality is that being evil to someone sexually is not acceptable no matter who you are.

Perhaps people are angry that now, a fair number of rapists will be women*.

I wouldn't mind seeing separate prisons specifically for those who sexually abuse others, and all manner of configurations of housing to prevent the intermixing of (rapist) with (victim) whoever the rapist or victim class may be.

*I expect many more will not be.

 

[Generation55]

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

But now we are getting down to definitions. Words mean things. This is why we have definitions:

The definition of man is "adult human male"
The definition of woman is "adult human female."
The definition of trans man is "a man who was assigned female at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human male who was assigned female at birth."
The definition of trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human female who was assigned male at birth."

Do these definitions make sense to you? They don't to me.

There is no way to define "man" or "woman" that includes trans woman or trans men. Many have tried and end up tying themselves in knots and going in circles. It just can't be done. If a trans woman asked, "Do you consider me a woman?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" Likewise, If a trans man asked, "Do you consider me a man?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'man'?"

It is not possible to answer these questions with a definition. Trust me, I've been reading about this for a long time online and also thinking about it in my mind and there is just no way you can do it. However, I am hoping someone can do it for me. There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."

Please try, guys. I am all ears. This is another very hard part about this. You don't understand how much this is driving me nuts.

I will try, let's see how open those ears of yours are. You said "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female.""

That is simply incorrect. Merriam Websters, provides one such definition for man:
Merriam Websters - man
d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Merriam Websters is in the business of defining words, so if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for this discussion.

That doesn't make sense as a definition because that implies women can't have courage, strength, or vigor. It also implies that if a woman does display those traits, she would have to be referred to as a man.

 

[Generation55]

I'll agree that specifically in the realm of sports, it's at least a little more complicated than "let people play wherever they want," but to me that means something like "let's sit down with the data and find a good faith system that lets trans women can play women's sports". But everything I have ever seen out of the trans-skeptic community makes me believe that literally no one raising "concerns" about this topic (or any other trans-related topic) actually cares about actual, living and breathing trans folks who actually experience the consequences of trans-related policies more than their weird bugaboos about gender, sex, and the concept of transgenderism, so I'ma go ahead and stick with reflexively supporting the trans community on this one instead of trying to engage in substansive conversation on the topic.

What you just said there is a big part of why this discussion is very important. It doesn't feel right on a gut level to allow trans women to compete with cisgender women. In the Guinness Book of World Records in 2010, there was a transgender man named Thomas Beatie who became known as "The Pregnant Man" and went into the records books......and this is a real quote.....as ""World's First Married Man to Give Birth." Does this sound like a worthy headline? I can't imagine you guys actually agreeing with this quote as the same thing as a man actually giving birth. This is why we need definitions of the words. Do you guys agree with the Guinness Book of World Records here?

For example, if a trans women were to impregnate a trans man, I can write the headline, "Woman impregnates man." Is it really possible you guys can read this with a straight face and agree with it? This is why this subject is so important. It makes it seem like the words "man" and "woman" are losing all meaning. They can mean everything and nothing at the same time.

Can any of you guys try to explain this?

So you've just descended to mockery, and tidbits from the outrage machine? And you're proud of that? You really shouldn't be.

Who is mocking? The Guinness Book of World Records itself has put Thomas Beatie into the record book as "World's First Married Man to Give Birth." Those are not my words. Those are the Guinness Book of World Records' words. Thomas Beatie was born as an XX female with a functioning womb, same as any other female. The only difference would be that he calls himself a man, so they put him in the record books as a Pregnant Man. This seems like semantics to me:

Person #1: A trans man can give birth.
Person #2: That's because he's a woman.
Person #1: Semantics.

This is why we need definitions of the words "man" and "woman." An alternate question would be, "What is the difference between men and women?" This question is unanswerable as well when you are trying to include trans men and trans women in your answer.

As I said, my issue is not with trans people. None of them bother me. What does bother me is how we use these labels and have no definitions of these words anymore and I can't bring myself to say they are a woman or a man despite the fact that I desperately want to be able to.

No matter how many times I think about it, a man can only be defined as an "adult male human" and a woman can only be defined as an "adult female human." I really want you guys to be able to come up with a good definition but I am losing hope that it will happen.

For someone who truly believes that trans men are men and trans women are women, they are basically forced to admit that they have no idea what a man or woman actually is or means anymore.

This is how we get stories like this:

Law Student Faces Discipline for Saying Women Have Vaginas During Seminar

Other students reported the student for saying women were the weaker sex.

www.newsweek.com

"A university in Scotland is formally investigating a law student for saying women have vaginas and are not as physically strong as men. The investigation could end with her expulsion.

Lisa Keogh made the comments during a virtual discussion on "gender feminism and the law" while she was expressing concerns about transgender women participating in women's sports, according to The College Fix. Now, her school—Abertay University in Dundee, Scotland—is investigating whether or not to suspend her for the allegedly "offensive" and "discriminatory" statements."

Even this statement "women have vaginas" is offensive because it excludes trans women who have penises. There are no differences between men and women anymore. Articles like these are why we need a good solid definition.

 

[KeepTalking]

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

But now we are getting down to definitions. Words mean things. This is why we have definitions:

The definition of man is "adult human male"
The definition of woman is "adult human female."
The definition of trans man is "a man who was assigned female at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human male who was assigned female at birth."
The definition of trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human female who was assigned male at birth."

Do these definitions make sense to you? They don't to me.

There is no way to define "man" or "woman" that includes trans woman or trans men. Many have tried and end up tying themselves in knots and going in circles. It just can't be done. If a trans woman asked, "Do you consider me a woman?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" Likewise, If a trans man asked, "Do you consider me a man?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'man'?"

It is not possible to answer these questions with a definition. Trust me, I've been reading about this for a long time online and also thinking about it in my mind and there is just no way you can do it. However, I am hoping someone can do it for me. There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."

Please try, guys. I am all ears. This is another very hard part about this. You don't understand how much this is driving me nuts.

I will try, let's see how open those ears of yours are. You said "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female.""

That is simply incorrect. Merriam Websters, provides one such definition for man:
Merriam Websters - man
d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Merriam Websters is in the business of defining words, so if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for this discussion.

That doesn't make sense as a definition because that implies women can't have courage, strength, or vigor. It also implies that if a woman does display those traits, she would have to be referred to as a man.

Take that up with Merriam-Webster.

Whether it makes sense to you, or not, it is an accepted definition of 'man', showing your assertion that "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."" is incorrect.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

It would not. I was responding to Metaphor’s question of what is gender. Gender is a state of mind of how masculine or feminine the individual knows themself to be. It has nothing to do with the physical attributes of whether or not they are a man or woman. It has less than nothing to do with how the rest of the world sees them as it is not for anyone else to decide. Just as with abortion rights, no one has domain over you, your body or your state of mind.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I am trying to figure out whether you are angry at all transgender people or just certain individuals.

You're trying to figure out something that isn't true.
Emily isn't angry at transgender people. She and I find many of the assertions made by trans folks and their supporters both wrong and damaging to the entire Human Family, particularly cis-females.

It isn't trans folks. It isn't even any individual. It's the irrational concepts and the damage done by them.
Tom

I am pretty sure she's angry. I would have to go on Twitter and announce that I am zoosexual to get that much unhinged, fanatical anger out of people. I was just not sure whom it was directed at. If she just does not like Judith Butler's followers, then I have nothing to do with it.

The views that I am going to express to you are based on science. First, I am going to cite what the American Academy of Pediatrics has to say about the correct care of transgender children. I am going to put into bold the part that is important.

In this regard, suicide attempt rates among 433 adolescents in Ontario who identified as “trans” were 4% among those with strongly supportive parents and as high as 60% among those whose parents were not supportive.85 Adolescents who identify as transgender and endorse at least 1 supportive person in their life report significantly less distress than those who only experience rejection. In communities with high levels of support, it was found that nonsupportive families tended to increase their support over time, leading to dramatic improvement in mental health outcomes among their children who identified as transgender.88

Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents

As a traditionally underserved population that faces numerous health disparities, youth who identify as transgender and gender diverse (TGD) and their families are increasingly presenting to pediatric providers for education, care, and referrals. The need for more formal training, standardized...

publications.aap.org

From the same report:

Supportive involvement of parents and family is associated with better mental and physical health outcomes.67 Gender affirmation among adolescents with gender dysphoria often reduces the emphasis on gender in their lives, allowing them to attend to other developmental tasks, such as academic success, relationship building, and future-oriented planning.64 Most protocols for gender-affirming interventions incorporate World Professional Association of Transgender Health35 and Endocrine Society68 recommendations and include ≥1 of the following elements

Not only that, but transgender people are clearly physiologically different from others. Here you go:

The results of this study show that the white matter microstruc-

ture in FtM and MtF transsexuals falls halfway between that of

FCs and MCs. Our data harmonize with the hypothesis that fiber

tract development is influenced by the hormonal environment

during late prenatal and early postnatal brain development that is

proposed to determine gender identity.

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/34/46/15466.full.pdf

I am telling you this because I need people to understand that I was born with something different about me. This is a well-supported theory. By laypeople's standards, I am justified in insisting that you acknowledge that this is a fact.

Furthermore, the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is one of the most respected pediatric associations in the entire world, supports my point-of-view regarding the type of care that children like me ought to be provided with by their families, teachers, and communities in order to give them the highest possible odds of surviving until adulthood. If you want to go pick a fight with one of the world's most respected pediatric organizations, then that's just a very dumb hill to die on.

I do not even slightly care about Judith Butler or "critical theory" or whatever that stuff is. I have not read Judith Butler's book. I have no intention of reading it, and I read everything. Apparently, most people that think they hate transgender people just hate Judith Butler. I don't want to accidentally quote her and have people thinking that I am one of her acolytes because I am not.

I sense that there is a need to disentangle the concept of being transgender from a constellation of ideas that I do not want to know very much about and which I probably would not necessarily agree with.

 

[Generation55]

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

But now we are getting down to definitions. Words mean things. This is why we have definitions:

The definition of man is "adult human male"
The definition of woman is "adult human female."
The definition of trans man is "a man who was assigned female at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human male who was assigned female at birth."
The definition of trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human female who was assigned male at birth."

Do these definitions make sense to you? They don't to me.

There is no way to define "man" or "woman" that includes trans woman or trans men. Many have tried and end up tying themselves in knots and going in circles. It just can't be done. If a trans woman asked, "Do you consider me a woman?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" Likewise, If a trans man asked, "Do you consider me a man?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'man'?"

It is not possible to answer these questions with a definition. Trust me, I've been reading about this for a long time online and also thinking about it in my mind and there is just no way you can do it. However, I am hoping someone can do it for me. There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."

Please try, guys. I am all ears. This is another very hard part about this. You don't understand how much this is driving me nuts.

I will try, let's see how open those ears of yours are. You said "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female.""

That is simply incorrect. Merriam Websters, provides one such definition for man:
Merriam Websters - man
d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Merriam Websters is in the business of defining words, so if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for this discussion.

That doesn't make sense as a definition because that implies women can't have courage, strength, or vigor. It also implies that if a woman does display those traits, she would have to be referred to as a man.

Take that up with Merriam-Webster.

Whether it makes sense to you, or not, it is an accepted definition of 'man', showing your assertion that "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."" is incorrect.

A good definition would be a definition that can include trans men and trans women. The definition that merely describes attributes is not a definition because those attributes can apply to both men and women. I can do the same thing: The definition of a man is someone who yells loudly. I have made a definition for a man, but this definition would exclude women who yell loudly, forcing you to refer to them as men. The definition has to be all inclusive.

We are almost going on 6 pages now and so far only one person has tried to make a definition of man and woman.

We need 2 questions answered:

What is the definition of "man" and "woman?"
What is the difference between "men" and "women?"
My position is that it is impossible to define these terms which include both trans men and trans women. I wish it wasn't this way, but I must yield to logic here along with the law of non-contradiction: something can not be both X and not X at the same time.

I really wish someone here would do it.