Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[SigmatheZeta]

Why should I worry about "passing" at all? I don't want to. I have no qualms over people knowing that I am a transgender woman. I am not obligated to wear make-up, and I am not obligated to wear clothing that does not serve a function. I am a person that likes to work and play. I don't feel right if I'm not dirty and smelly.

I ask because people like Jarhyn are obsessed with genitals, and believe that the only way people know some people are trans is by 'looking at what is inside their pants'. People like Jarhyn seem to believe nobody would ever know somebody else is trans unless their privacy has been invaded.

Huh! you're the one that keeps insisting that genitalia is the only deciding factor and the rest is just "thoughts in heads".

Even thoughts in heads are not just thoughts in heads. Do you want to discuss them in terms of action potentials, recepter protein distributions, alleles, cerebral symmetry, relative amygdalar volumes, or the more popular approach of exchanging bullshit, outdated semiotic theories, lies, damned lies, and outright handwavium? If you subtract all approaches that start with "bullshit," then I propose that all of the other stuff actually has at least some bearing on my proper identity.

 

[KeepTalking]

3: distinctively feminine nature

How is that a good definition of "woman" though? This would mean masculine women bodybuilers would have to be referred to as men and people like Ben Shapiro would have to be referred to as women.

Both of those people would disagree with your definition. As I said, it is basically impossible to construct a definition that includes trans women and trans men but I am still hoping that someone can.

As previously noted, a definition does not have to fit all possible uses of that word. Definitions can be specific, general, and everything in between. That is why words have multiple definitions, something you apparently have a problem grasping.

 

[Politesse]

Why should I worry about "passing" at all? I don't want to. I have no qualms over people knowing that I am a transgender woman. I am not obligated to wear make-up, and I am not obligated to wear clothing that does not serve a function. I am a person that likes to work and play. I don't feel right if I'm not dirty and smelly.

I ask because people like Jarhyn are obsessed with genitals, and believe that the only way people know some people are trans is by 'looking at what is inside their pants'. People like Jarhyn seem to believe nobody would ever know somebody else is trans unless their privacy has been invaded.

Setting aside the obvious idiocy implied by believing you are a completely accurate trans detector, unless you're planning to offer your magical detection services to various world governments, any formal persecution of trans people requires a method of determining their biological sex should it be contested. In a court of law, some guy saying "she looks like a secret man to me" is not going to be sufficient cause to violate someone's civil rights, if she doesn't agree that this is the case; an objective test is required. Given the nature of the question, either non-consensual disrobing or non-consensual medical testing are the only real possibilities. In which case we're trading one set of rights violations for another, for no other reason than that a person has been accused of a crime. I don't know how things are in Australia, but in my country, excepting immediate emergencies, we're not supposed to be subject to unlawful search, nor ever punished for a crime in advance of being charged and found guilty of it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why should I worry about "passing" at all? I don't want to. I have no qualms over people knowing that I am a transgender woman. I am not obligated to wear make-up, and I am not obligated to wear clothing that does not serve a function. I am a person that likes to work and play. I don't feel right if I'm not dirty and smelly.

I ask because people like Jarhyn are obsessed with genitals, and believe that the only way people know some people are trans is by 'looking at what is inside their pants'. People like Jarhyn seem to believe nobody would ever know somebody else is trans unless their privacy has been invaded.

Setting aside the obvious idiocy implied by believing you are a completely accurate trans detector, unless you're planning to offer your magical detection services to various world governments, any formal persecutions of trans people requires a method of determining their biological sex should it be contested. In a court of law, some guy saying "she looks like a secret man to me" is not going to be sufficient cause to violate someone's civil rights, if she doesn't agree that this is the case; an objective test is required. Given the nature of the question, either non-consensual disrobing or non-consensual medical testing are the only real possibilities. In which case we're trading one set of rights violations for another, for no other reason than that a person has been accused of a crime. I don't know how things are in Australia, but in my country, excepting immediate emergencies, we're not supposed to be subject to unlawful search, nor ever punished for a crime in advance of being charged and found guilty of it.

Not to mention that the crime in question here is, at it's core, "being trans".

 

[Politesse]

Why should I worry about "passing" at all? I don't want to. I have no qualms over people knowing that I am a transgender woman. I am not obligated to wear make-up, and I am not obligated to wear clothing that does not serve a function. I am a person that likes to work and play. I don't feel right if I'm not dirty and smelly.

I ask because people like Jarhyn are obsessed with genitals, and believe that the only way people know some people are trans is by 'looking at what is inside their pants'. People like Jarhyn seem to believe nobody would ever know somebody else is trans unless their privacy has been invaded.

Setting aside the obvious idiocy implied by believing you are a completely accurate trans detector, unless you're planning to offer your magical detection services to various world governments, any formal persecutions of trans people requires a method of determining their biological sex should it be contested. In a court of law, some guy saying "she looks like a secret man to me" is not going to be sufficient cause to violate someone's civil rights, if she doesn't agree that this is the case; an objective test is required. Given the nature of the question, either non-consensual disrobing or non-consensual medical testing are the only real possibilities. In which case we're trading one set of rights violations for another, for no other reason than that a person has been accused of a crime. I don't know how things are in Australia, but in my country, excepting immediate emergencies, we're not supposed to be subject to unlawful search, nor ever punished for a crime in advance of being charged and found guilty of it.

Not to mention that the crime in question here is, at it's core, "being trans".

Well, presumably, the "crimes" are things like using public bathrooms, going to the spa, playing a team sport, dating someone else, and so forth. But if the intention is to force someone to either use the wrong room/venue for their perceived gender or be denied these very normal activities, at threat of being detained by the police, it's a legal matter however you justify it. And in this country at least, an obvious violation of at least two of our core Constitutional protections.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Why should I worry about "passing" at all? I don't want to. I have no qualms over people knowing that I am a transgender woman. I am not obligated to wear make-up, and I am not obligated to wear clothing that does not serve a function. I am a person that likes to work and play. I don't feel right if I'm not dirty and smelly.

I ask because people like Jarhyn are obsessed with genitals, and believe that the only way people know some people are trans is by 'looking at what is inside their pants'. People like Jarhyn seem to believe nobody would ever know somebody else is trans unless their privacy has been invaded.

Setting aside the obvious idiocy implied by believing you are a completely accurate trans detector, unless you're planning to offer your magical detection services to various world governments, any formal persecutions of trans people requires a method of determining their biological sex should it be contested. In a court of law, some guy saying "she looks like a secret man to me" is not going to be sufficient cause to violate someone's civil rights, if she doesn't agree that this is the case; an objective test is required. Given the nature of the question, either non-consensual disrobing or non-consensual medical testing are the only real possibilities. In which case we're trading one set of rights violations for another, for no other reason than that a person has been accused of a crime. I don't know how things are in Australia, but in my country, excepting immediate emergencies, we're not supposed to be subject to unlawful search, nor ever punished for a crime in advance of being charged and found guilty of it.

Not to mention that the crime in question here is, at it's core, "being trans".

Well, presumably, the "crimes" are things like using public bathrooms, going to the spa, playing a team sport, dating someone else, and so forth. But if the intention is to force someone to either use the wrong room/venue for their perceived gender or be denied these very normal activities, at threat of being detained by the police, it's a legal matter however you justify it. And in this country at least, an obvious violation of at least two of our core Constitutional protections.

It's at least partly also a social issue. If somebody actually likes you, you can get away with just about anything non-lethal, and if a large number of us continue doing so for a long time, then it eventually becomes clear that this is nothing to really be feared.

If you are a virtually invisible and almost universally misunderstood minority group, then the place to start is getting others like you on-board with that strategy.

I call it the "civil aporoach." Or maybe...um..."civil-iz-ation"? Civilization, that thing where you and others like you get really organized about learning to get along peacefully with others.

 

[Toni]

I use they often in certain context to refer to somebody of unknown gender. I don't have a particular problem with it, or indeed any polite fictions. But what about 'demonself'? Please note I am not making any of these neopronouns up.

I also use "they" in cases where a person identifies as transgender, but don't reasonably pass (often including very sex-linked behaviors), and I cannot force myself to believe they're the opposite sex. So... at present Elliot Page is a "they", as is Rachel McKinnon.

Slight derail, but Elliot Page is a particularly sad case. The mainstream media fawned over her first 'topless' (post-mastectomy) image, and then again when she was in a suit cut in a men's style (for the Met Gala I believe), as if she looked like the very epitome of masculine physique. She looks like what she is: a tiny, breastless female, desperately play-acting at maleness.

I know the left says 'be kind', but I often feel like the left means 'engage in our delusion in order to be kind'.

I don’t think that Elliot Page is play acting.

Frankly it is as offensive for you to declare that a trans individual is only play acting as it would be for me to opine that you are not really a gay man but merely over attached to your mother and sexually insecure. That would obviously be at least as arrogant and false for me to assert such things as it is for you to make such assertions about an actor you do not know.

As to whether or not Elliot Page’s body is the epitome of masculinity —so what? How few among us look like some epitomized ideal representative of …whatever sex, gender, race, or ethnicity we embrace? Who cares? Why should how anyone dress, assuming that it falls within the realm of culturally appropriate for weather and occasion be the subject of anyone else’s critique aside from compliments and inquiries as to the tailor? How on earth is it appropriate to comment on a stranger’s body?

 

[Toni]

Man, these folks turning "you can't tell hard cases, and you shouldn't even be assuming which ones are easy cases; the correct action is to ask and then accept the pronouns you get" to a straw-man of "you can't tell, nobody can tell, for anyone".

It's not "you can't" it's that "you cannot, reliably, particularly for the population in question and playing that game is shitty to you and everyone around you."

Some folks will writhe in agony if they cannot label and categorized all others.

Let ‘‘em burn then.

 

[TomC]

Man, these folks turning "you can't tell hard cases, and you shouldn't even be assuming which ones are easy cases; the correct action is to ask and then accept the pronouns you get" to a straw-man of "you can't tell, nobody can tell, for anyone".

It's not "you can't" it's that "you cannot, reliably, particularly for the population in question and playing that game is shitty to you and everyone around you."

Some folks will writhe in agony if they cannot label and categorized all others.

Including politically correct Wokesters.

If you're not as ideologically pure as they are, you're a white supremacist, gender bigoted, anti-gay spawn of Billy Graham.

Been there. Done that.

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I use they often in certain context to refer to somebody of unknown gender. I don't have a particular problem with it, or indeed any polite fictions. But what about 'demonself'? Please note I am not making any of these neopronouns up.

I also use "they" in cases where a person identifies as transgender, but don't reasonably pass (often including very sex-linked behaviors), and I cannot force myself to believe they're the opposite sex. So... at present Elliot Page is a "they", as is Rachel McKinnon.

Slight derail, but Elliot Page is a particularly sad case. The mainstream media fawned over her first 'topless' (post-mastectomy) image, and then again when she was in a suit cut in a men's style (for the Met Gala I believe), as if she looked like the very epitome of masculine physique. She looks like what she is: a tiny, breastless female, desperately play-acting at maleness.

I know the left says 'be kind', but I often feel like the left means 'engage in our delusion in order to be kind'.

I don’t think that Elliot Page is play acting.

Frankly it is as offensive for you to declare that a trans individual is only play acting as it would be for me to opine that you are not really a gay man but merely over attached to your mother and sexually insecure. That would obviously be at least as arrogant and false for me to assert such things as it is for you to make such assertions about an actor you do not know.

As to whether or not Elliot Page’s body is the epitome of masculinity it feminist—so what? Why should how anyone dress, assuming that it falls within the realm of culturally appropriate for weather and occasion be the subject of anyone else’s critique aside from compliments and inquiries as to the tailor?

I hazard to imagine what it is metaphor thinks people are deluded about, or what the nature of delusion is.

Man, these folks turning "you can't tell hard cases, and you shouldn't even be assuming which ones are easy cases; the correct action is to ask and then accept the pronouns you get" to a straw-man of "you can't tell, nobody can tell, for anyone".

It's not "you can't" it's that "you cannot, reliably, particularly for the population in question and playing that game is shitty to you and everyone around you."

Some folks will writhe in agony if they cannot label and categorized all others.

Including politically correct Wokesters.

If you're not as ideologically pure as they are, you're a white supremacist, gender bigoted, anti-gay spawn of Billy Graham.

Been there. Done that.

Tom

You are using "I can't be perfect!!!" As an excuse when all that is being asked is "be better, in this way."

To properly excuse yourself you must acknowledge specifically "I cannot be better in that specific way!" And then we must start the discussion of what to do about that.

Excuse requires mitigation.

 

[Toni]

You know, I have some sympathy for those who struggle with how to respond appropriately when one encounters some whose superficial appearance —style of clothing and hair cut and possibly makeup or jewelry is at odds with perceived differing characteristics. On one hand, one may be a bit surprised or amused to see a very large, muscular man gently stroking a kitten or blowing soap bubbles —or wearing a pink tutu. A small, slight woman might be confusing to some if they see her wield an axe or throw a large drunk out of a bar or shoot hoops with big, tall guys. In fact, that might elicit some hostile reactions, even unconsciously. Or very vocally.

I’ve encountered people whose sex and/or gender was not immediately apparent—or even certain after a few short conversations. But so what? Their sex, their gender or how they chose to express it was absolutely not pertinent nor was it any of my business. If I am honest, I will admit that privately, on a couple of occasions, I speculated —because the lack of uncertainty made ME uncomfortable. For most of us, we are simply more comfortable with certainty than not. Fortunately, growing up doesn’t stop at sge 18 or 21 or 25 or 45–not if you are doing it right. It took me longer than I’d like to admit to recognize that my lack of absolute certainty about some one else’s body/business was my problem and not theirs and it was my job to accept them as they were, even if they did not fit into some small set of well defined boxes I had in my head. Their job wasn’t to make me feel comfortable but to be themselves. And, after all, I’ve never much liked it when someone tried to put me in a box either.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I'm pretty non-social, definitely an introvert. My "night on the town" is having dinner with a neighbor or two and talking for a bit.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Sigma wasn't being equated to anyone. I was pointing out that even though she may not be directly affected, the spill-over of the ideology (which Sigma does not subscribe to) does have affects on other people. It's not as easy as "mind your own business".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You still did not provide a definition. if I can break it down simpler, if I see a woman and I am talking to one, I know she is a woman because she is an adult human female. If I am talking to a trans woman, what definition would I appeal to if I also viewed her as a woman? I can not use adult human female. The word "woman" has to to have some definition beyond "adult human female" in order for the trans woman to be viewed as a woman. The same goes for the word "man" for trans men.

Answering this question is one of the most important things pertaining to this discussion.

I think you are demonstrating the frustration of having an obsolete understanding of a concept.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Mostly, I'm angry at the ideology being peddled. I'm angry at the effect it has on gay and lesbian people, as well as on females. And I'm very angry at the thoughtless echoing of "it's all about gender" and the rewriting of history and experience to try to frame it as gender instead of as sex.

Most of the transgender people I've met, I've very much liked and get along well with, including my own niece with whom I'm very close. I don't have a problem with anyone with gender dysphoria, nor do I have any objection to transvestites. I'm a fan of people wearing whatever they want and behaving in ways they're comfortable with provided they're not harming other people.

There've only been a couple of people who claim to be transgender who I've disliked. And in this case, I say 'claimed' because I cannot understand what they think transgender means. For example, there is one person whose spouse transitioned, and who now calls themselves transgender as a result of their spouse's actions... and their gender identity has nothing to do with sex or with gender but is out of a sci-fi universe. There's another that I dislike because they insisted that they feel like a woman inside, but have no dysphoria about their body at all, are very happy with their masculine physique and male genitals and beard, dressed in stereotypical male clothing... but demanded that they should have access to places where women were naked because they are "one of us" in some unspecified fashion, and they were brutish and aggressive and physically intimidating about it.

But the ideology... that makes me steam.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Try linking to the M-W definition for woman, and see how that works with your premise.

 

[Emily Lake]

If she just does not like Judith Butler's followers, then I have nothing to do with it.

I think Butler's followers are complete idiots who are essentially rebranding intelligent design and rolling it up in a thin veneer of solipsism. That has nothing to do with you

 

[KeepTalking]

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

Mostly, I'm angry at the ideology being peddled.

I have heard from others here as well that it is the trans ideology that is the problem, but I am nut sure what is meant by "trans ideology". Can you elaborate upon what you mean by it, and whether you think anyone here is engaging in, or pushing that ideology?

 

[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.

Try linking to the M-W definition for woman, and see how that works with your premise.

I will let you catch up on the thread to the place where I did exactly that.

 

[Emily Lake]

Likewise, there is not one singular difference between "men" and "women". There are many differences, and the differences will depend upon the men and women (or man and woman) in question.

Let's try something more explicit.

What do transmen have in common with males that they do NOT have in common with females, and is NOT based on stereotypes?