• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

Status
Not open for further replies.

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,398
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
First off, welcome aboard. Kittens are available in The Lounge.

Actually new members have to submit ten posts before they get assigned a kitten.
Wait, wait, wait. Kitten? Like in small cat? I thought we were supposed to get...um...is anyone missing a baby, I have some bad news...
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
This study is approachable: Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation
For me, it does a good job of defining sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It might be helpful to others.
The study does not even define what it means by 'gender', except circularly.
Sexual orientation signifies the sex of the object of one’s sexual attraction, whereas gender identity denotes the sex and gender role one identifies with.
What's circular about that?
They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
@Metaphor I would avoid the fallacy of reification, here. By the word "gender," we are literally referring to something that is done by the delicate microstructures in your brain. We cannot even come close to examining it closely without diffusion tensor imaging or something even more advanced. For reasons that are still not well-understood, your brain usually knows what sex you are, but sometimes, it is reversed.
But 'gender' has not been defined yet. I know I am male, because I am a human of the sex with small, motile gametes. But if I had gender dysphoria, I would know I am male as well, presumably. Indeed, that would be part of the dysphoria: knowing you are male and have male body parts but wanting to be female with female body parts.

The behavior caused by this reversal is weird, but it is also manageable. Young people can be "socially transitioned" early in life. In fact, if we did not have the technology that we currently have, then social transitioning alone might work in most cases if the people around them were open-minded and decent. Regardless of why, the system works, at least if getting people to live longer is what you are trying for.

It's just another issue like the blind spot in the human eye. There is no "intelligent design." We are not a "perfect creation." We are born with bugs, of one kind or another, all of the time. The fact that gender dysphoria pops up, every once in a while, is just another example of that.

Trans ideologists would call you truscum for gatekeeping trans identity by suggesting you need to have gender dysphoria. Indeed, gender dysphoria is largely absent from trans rights dialogue from my experience, and I've never heard a "non-binary" person say they have gender dysphoria.

Social transitioning of transgender kids, though, is really the easiest bug-fix ever.

It depends on what 'social transitioning' involves and what demands are made of others. Allowing any child to dress as they please is no problem, but we ought not pretend boys can be girls merely by the boy putting on a skirt (because they can't).
Anyhow, gender is real, but nobody can really show it to you, in the literal and physically manifest version, without having you slog through several hundred pages of diffusion tensor imaging research.
I am not asking anybody to show it to me. I'm asking people to define it without using the word 'gender'.

The concept of "gender" that is being peddled by, as you call them, "trans-ideologists" is just a very sloppy metaphorical explanation for the same thing, but it should not be taken too literally. Unfortunately, transgender people are just as human as any other humans, and most humans believe in one kind of magical thinking or another. Transgender people are no exception. They often take the metaphorical explanation of "gender," and they turn it into a patently ridiculous system of magical thinking.

I have, in other threads, offered what I think people mean by 'gender', but I'm not entirely sure what they think. For example, in the way I understand people to use the word 'gender identity', I do not believe I have one. I do not 'identify' as a man--I just am one. I don't 'identify' with my height either--it simply is what it is.

Well, that problem leads you to thinking that the whole thing is sketchy, and I get that. The problem is that you are partway right, just not entirely right. They take the metaphor too far, and they take it too literally. They make it sound like the whole thing is made-up.

Either that, or they go into some sort of deconstructionist parallel universe, which I see as problematic and toxic. I think that deconstructionism is just as problematic as religion. In spite of what deconstructionists tend to think, the brain is not really just gray mud that you can shape any way that you want to. Contrary to what deconstructionists think, there are delicate microstructures in our brains that we are stuck with for life. 97-99% of us will always be "cis-gender." Those microstructures will always come out with a particular type of weird only once in a while. The deconstructionists are wrong.

Worse, the deconstructionists make it harder for people to see the underlying empirically self-evident truth. Again, the only way that you can look at the cause, in the literal sense, is indirectly through diffusion tensor imaging studies, but what is a little bit easier to observe is that socially transitioned kids live longer and have less coping issues. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends something close to what I am talking about, here.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e20182162 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2162)

Again, transgender people are still people. People cannot really understand most things without some kind of metaphor, but if you give them a metaphor that they can use, then they are probably going to try to take it literally, which leads to magical thinking. People can be like that, and I am afraid that transgender people are not always exceptions. They are not always going to be the kinds of people that are going to be receptive to the complicated truth. You could not reasonably be considered to be at fault for that, so I suggest picking your battles.

"Gender" is both a very messy metaphor and something that is based on a real thing. It's a bad metaphor, but it's the best metaphor we've got. The real explanation takes too long for most people. I get exhausted even trying to explain all of this stuff to other transgender people that are reasonably intelligent.


With warm regards,
Sigma
But whatever 'gender' is (and we'll keep it undefined for now), why should it supplant sex in nearly every conceivable social, legal, and even sexual interaction? Women are not separated from men in sporting competitions because their 'gender' gives them lower muscle mass and a different body shape, they are separated from men because their sex does that.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,685
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
@Metaphor I would avoid the fallacy of reification, here. By the word "gender," we are literally referring to something that is done by the delicate microstructures in your brain. We cannot even come close to examining it closely without diffusion tensor imaging or something even more advanced. For reasons that are still not well-understood, your brain usually knows what sex you are, but sometimes, it is reversed.
But 'gender' has not been defined yet. I know I am male, because I am a human of the sex with small, motile gametes. But if I had gender dysphoria, I would know I am male as well, presumably. Indeed, that would be part of the dysphoria: knowing you are male and have male body parts but wanting to be female with female body parts.

The behavior caused by this reversal is weird, but it is also manageable. Young people can be "socially transitioned" early in life. In fact, if we did not have the technology that we currently have, then social transitioning alone might work in most cases if the people around them were open-minded and decent. Regardless of why, the system works, at least if getting people to live longer is what you are trying for.

It's just another issue like the blind spot in the human eye. There is no "intelligent design." We are not a "perfect creation." We are born with bugs, of one kind or another, all of the time. The fact that gender dysphoria pops up, every once in a while, is just another example of that.

Trans ideologists would call you truscum for gatekeeping trans identity by suggesting you need to have gender dysphoria. Indeed, gender dysphoria is largely absent from trans rights dialogue from my experience, and I've never heard a "non-binary" person say they have gender dysphoria.

Social transitioning of transgender kids, though, is really the easiest bug-fix ever.

It depends on what 'social transitioning' involves and what demands are made of others. Allowing any child to dress as they please is no problem, but we ought not pretend boys can be girls merely by the boy putting on a skirt (because they can't).
Anyhow, gender is real, but nobody can really show it to you, in the literal and physically manifest version, without having you slog through several hundred pages of diffusion tensor imaging research.
I am not asking anybody to show it to me. I'm asking people to define it without using the word 'gender'.

The concept of "gender" that is being peddled by, as you call them, "trans-ideologists" is just a very sloppy metaphorical explanation for the same thing, but it should not be taken too literally. Unfortunately, transgender people are just as human as any other humans, and most humans believe in one kind of magical thinking or another. Transgender people are no exception. They often take the metaphorical explanation of "gender," and they turn it into a patently ridiculous system of magical thinking.

I have, in other threads, offered what I think people mean by 'gender', but I'm not entirely sure what they think. For example, in the way I understand people to use the word 'gender identity', I do not believe I have one. I do not 'identify' as a man--I just am one. I don't 'identify' with my height either--it simply is what it is.

Well, that problem leads you to thinking that the whole thing is sketchy, and I get that. The problem is that you are partway right, just not entirely right. They take the metaphor too far, and they take it too literally. They make it sound like the whole thing is made-up.

Either that, or they go into some sort of deconstructionist parallel universe, which I see as problematic and toxic. I think that deconstructionism is just as problematic as religion. In spite of what deconstructionists tend to think, the brain is not really just gray mud that you can shape any way that you want to. Contrary to what deconstructionists think, there are delicate microstructures in our brains that we are stuck with for life. 97-99% of us will always be "cis-gender." Those microstructures will always come out with a particular type of weird only once in a while. The deconstructionists are wrong.

Worse, the deconstructionists make it harder for people to see the underlying empirically self-evident truth. Again, the only way that you can look at the cause, in the literal sense, is indirectly through diffusion tensor imaging studies, but what is a little bit easier to observe is that socially transitioned kids live longer and have less coping issues. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends something close to what I am talking about, here.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e20182162 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2162)

Again, transgender people are still people. People cannot really understand most things without some kind of metaphor, but if you give them a metaphor that they can use, then they are probably going to try to take it literally, which leads to magical thinking. People can be like that, and I am afraid that transgender people are not always exceptions. They are not always going to be the kinds of people that are going to be receptive to the complicated truth. You could not reasonably be considered to be at fault for that, so I suggest picking your battles.

"Gender" is both a very messy metaphor and something that is based on a real thing. It's a bad metaphor, but it's the best metaphor we've got. The real explanation takes too long for most people. I get exhausted even trying to explain all of this stuff to other transgender people that are reasonably intelligent.


With warm regards,
Sigma
But whatever 'gender' is (and we'll keep it undefined for now), why should it supplant sex in nearly every conceivable social, legal, and even sexual interaction? Women are not separated from men in sporting competitions because their 'gender' gives them lower muscle mass and a different body shape, they are separated from men because their sex does that.
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. If sex were intrinsic and consistent, 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.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
@Metaphor I would avoid the fallacy of reification, here. By the word "gender," we are literally referring to something that is done by the delicate microstructures in your brain. We cannot even come close to examining it closely without diffusion tensor imaging or something even more advanced. For reasons that are still not well-understood, your brain usually knows what sex you are, but sometimes, it is reversed.
But 'gender' has not been defined yet. I know I am male, because I am a human of the sex with small, motile gametes. But if I had gender dysphoria, I would know I am male as well, presumably. Indeed, that would be part of the dysphoria: knowing you are male and have male body parts but wanting to be female with female body parts.

The behavior caused by this reversal is weird, but it is also manageable. Young people can be "socially transitioned" early in life. In fact, if we did not have the technology that we currently have, then social transitioning alone might work in most cases if the people around them were open-minded and decent. Regardless of why, the system works, at least if getting people to live longer is what you are trying for.

It's just another issue like the blind spot in the human eye. There is no "intelligent design." We are not a "perfect creation." We are born with bugs, of one kind or another, all of the time. The fact that gender dysphoria pops up, every once in a while, is just another example of that.

Trans ideologists would call you truscum for gatekeeping trans identity by suggesting you need to have gender dysphoria. Indeed, gender dysphoria is largely absent from trans rights dialogue from my experience, and I've never heard a "non-binary" person say they have gender dysphoria.

Social transitioning of transgender kids, though, is really the easiest bug-fix ever.

It depends on what 'social transitioning' involves and what demands are made of others. Allowing any child to dress as they please is no problem, but we ought not pretend boys can be girls merely by the boy putting on a skirt (because they can't).
Anyhow, gender is real, but nobody can really show it to you, in the literal and physically manifest version, without having you slog through several hundred pages of diffusion tensor imaging research.
I am not asking anybody to show it to me. I'm asking people to define it without using the word 'gender'.

The concept of "gender" that is being peddled by, as you call them, "trans-ideologists" is just a very sloppy metaphorical explanation for the same thing, but it should not be taken too literally. Unfortunately, transgender people are just as human as any other humans, and most humans believe in one kind of magical thinking or another. Transgender people are no exception. They often take the metaphorical explanation of "gender," and they turn it into a patently ridiculous system of magical thinking.

I have, in other threads, offered what I think people mean by 'gender', but I'm not entirely sure what they think. For example, in the way I understand people to use the word 'gender identity', I do not believe I have one. I do not 'identify' as a man--I just am one. I don't 'identify' with my height either--it simply is what it is.

Well, that problem leads you to thinking that the whole thing is sketchy, and I get that. The problem is that you are partway right, just not entirely right. They take the metaphor too far, and they take it too literally. They make it sound like the whole thing is made-up.

Either that, or they go into some sort of deconstructionist parallel universe, which I see as problematic and toxic. I think that deconstructionism is just as problematic as religion. In spite of what deconstructionists tend to think, the brain is not really just gray mud that you can shape any way that you want to. Contrary to what deconstructionists think, there are delicate microstructures in our brains that we are stuck with for life. 97-99% of us will always be "cis-gender." Those microstructures will always come out with a particular type of weird only once in a while. The deconstructionists are wrong.

Worse, the deconstructionists make it harder for people to see the underlying empirically self-evident truth. Again, the only way that you can look at the cause, in the literal sense, is indirectly through diffusion tensor imaging studies, but what is a little bit easier to observe is that socially transitioned kids live longer and have less coping issues. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends something close to what I am talking about, here.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e20182162 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2162)

Again, transgender people are still people. People cannot really understand most things without some kind of metaphor, but if you give them a metaphor that they can use, then they are probably going to try to take it literally, which leads to magical thinking. People can be like that, and I am afraid that transgender people are not always exceptions. They are not always going to be the kinds of people that are going to be receptive to the complicated truth. You could not reasonably be considered to be at fault for that, so I suggest picking your battles.

"Gender" is both a very messy metaphor and something that is based on a real thing. It's a bad metaphor, but it's the best metaphor we've got. The real explanation takes too long for most people. I get exhausted even trying to explain all of this stuff to other transgender people that are reasonably intelligent.


With warm regards,
Sigma
But whatever 'gender' is (and we'll keep it undefined for now), why should it supplant sex in nearly every conceivable social, legal, and even sexual interaction? Women are not separated from men in sporting competitions because their 'gender' gives them lower muscle mass and a different body shape, they are separated from men because their sex does that.
Because the social issues are most influenced by gender, which is social in character.
That appears to be begging the question. What is 'gender', and how is it more relevant than 'sex' for the situations where sex is taken into account?

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. If sex were intrinsic and consistent, 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.
I don't understand this, what does 'intrinsic' and 'consistent' mean in this context? What do you mean by the social expression of sex? Do you mean gender? Can you define gender for me?

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.

In what way am I trying to turn the 'full weight of government' to bear against it? Do you mean because I advocate that sex is used where sex is relevant? Or something else? It seems to me that the exact opposite is the case--gender ideology has powerful purchase in large corporations, the law, and political parties.

There's one sure-fire way to be banned on Twitter--either 'misgender' somebody, or be Donald Trump. In the United Kingdom, male prisoners have been put on the female estate and 'misgendering' those male prisoners can result in additional prison time. Also in the United Kingdom, there has been a large increase in women raping men over the past few years. In the UK, only people with a penis can be guilty of rape, so before its gender recognition act, all recorded rapes were by men. In the UK, a judge denied a victim funds from its victim compensation scheme because the victim 'misgendered' her male attacker in court.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
@Metaphor

Gate-keeping would have been a big problem for me because I only like to dress unisex. I am not giving up pockets. Magic Pockets was the best video game ever made. You know why? Pockets. Pockets are the coolest things ever.

From the sound of it, somebody bullied you pretty grievously based on their views, but I am not that person.

I'm your pal, Sigma. You know, pint-sized dragon, fits on your shoulder, black as pitch, purrs a lot, highly ticklish. Wait, that's my roleplaying persona. Either way, I really prefer to get along with people. I'm 38 years old, and while I still have a little youth left in me, I am way past the point in my life where I was angry enough to pick fights with people just for the sake of venting. I am not going to fight you on this.

I have always said the word "gender," though, ever since I was a kid, because, in my 12 year old brain, "sex" referred to that thing you did when you were making the beast with two backs, and "gender" referred to whether you were a boy or a girl.

The new thinking about "gender" being separated from sex is a tricky subject for me. For me, those kinds of conversations always lead to some deconstructionist maniac accusing me of "scientism," and if I rely on scientists for my facts, then that makes me a "tool of the patriarchy" because, they say, science is controlled by men. If I have an axe to grind with anybody, then it's deconstructionists.

The idea of "gender" is not completely useless, as a metaphor, but it becomes nothing but trouble when someone takes it to the point of hypostatization. The white matter microstructures of a transgender person's brain are really what we are talking about, and "gender" is just a shorthand for the bottom-line of hundreds of pages of diffusion tensor imaging research that is really just boring to read. In spite of the peril of somebody possibly taking the metaphor to the point of hypostatization, it is easier to just say "gender."

I feel better if people around me pretend, for the sake of discussion, that I am a member of the female sex. I cannot just stop feeling this way. There is a neurobiological explanation as to why I feel this way.

Well, make up your mind. Do you want to be nice to me or not? I cannot control which you do. I don't own you.

Besides misgendering me, there are other things someone can say to hurt my feelings. Someone doubting my honesty and straightforwardness actually bothers me more. Maybe I am born that way, too. I am lucky enough that most people in my life are considerate toward me.


With warm regards,
Sigma
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
@Metaphor

Gate-keeping would have been a big problem for me because I only like to dress unisex. I am not giving up pockets. Magic Pockets was the best video game ever made. You know why? Pockets. Pockets are the coolest things ever.

From the sound of it, somebody bullied you pretty grievously based on their views, but I am not that person.
No, I might not say 'bullied'. I would say that I have been gaslighted and insulted and my views summarily dismissed when they are not misrepresented, primarily by members of this board.

'Clothes maketh the man' is, of course, figurative. I don't care how people dress and I've never tried to stop them from dressing in a certain way. But when a drag queen puts his wig on, he does not become a woman. He becomes a character. I know men who use face makeup (gay men, obviously), but it does not occur to me that this feminine-leaning behaviour makes these men somehow not-men.

I'm your pal, Sigma. You know, pint-sized dragon, fits on your shoulder, black as pitch, purrs a lot, highly ticklish. Wait, that's my roleplaying persona. Either way, I really prefer to get along with people. I'm 38 years old, and while I still have a little youth left in me, I am way past the point in my life where I was angry enough to pick fights with people just for the sake of venting. I am not going to fight you on this.

I have always said the word "gender," though, ever since I was a kid, because, in my 12 year old brain, "sex" referred to that thing you did when you were making the beast with two backs, and "gender" referred to whether you were a boy or a girl.
Yes: 'gender' was once a polite-sounding term for 'sex'. But when it is not used as a 100% synonym for 'sex', what do people mean by it?

The new thinking about "gender" being separated from sex is a tricky subject for me. For me, those kinds of conversations always lead to some deconstructionist maniac accusing me of "scientism," and if I rely on scientists for my facts, then that makes me a "tool of the patriarchy" because, they say, science is controlled by men. If I have an axe to grind with anybody, then it's deconstructionists.

The idea of "gender" is not completely useless, as a metaphor, but it becomes nothing but trouble when someone takes it to the point of hypostatization. The white matter microstructures of a transgender person's brain are really what we are talking about, and "gender" is just a shorthand for the bottom-line of hundreds of pages of diffusion tensor imaging research that is really just boring to read. In spite of the peril of somebody possibly taking the metaphor to the point of hypostatization, it is easier to just say "gender."
If 'gender' is a certain brain-state (and since my understanding of 'gender identity' is a thought in a person's head, I am happy to go along with that), I would ask 'so what'?

I have certain brain-states that get me aesthetically and sexually aroused when I see 1960s era Jean Sorel, or indeed any fit, youthful man. All homosexuals asked was that we be allowed to pursue sex with members of our own sex without the State punishing us for it, and for the State not to discriminate against us by making marriage exclusively opposite-sex.

But homosexuals never demanded that people call us 'straight'.

I feel better if people around me pretend, for the sake of discussion, that I am a member of the female sex. I cannot just stop feeling this way. There is a neurobiological explanation as to why I feel this way.

Well, make up your mind. Do you want to be nice to me or not? I cannot control which you do. I don't own you.

Besides misgendering me, there are other things someone can say to hurt my feelings. Someone doubting my honesty and straightforwardness actually bothers me more. Maybe I am born that way, too. I am lucky enough that most people in my life are considerate toward me.
If I used male pronouns for you, why do you consider that 'misgendering'? Why isn't, instead, the use of female pronouns for you 'mis-sexing' (since you are not female)? I don't, and never have, used pronouns to refer to gender, except in non-animals. In that sense, I cannot misgender you (except by denying you have a 'female' gender identity, I suppose), and if I did do what you consider to be 'misgendering', it is not malicious. I would simply believe one of us is making a category error.

With warm regards,
Sigma
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,677
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It makes you a transphobe, according to trans ideologists. It also makes you a 'genital fetishist', according to trans ideologists.

Transphobe--no. I'm not afraid of them, I just don't want them sexually.

Genital fetishist--except the definition of "fetish" specifically excludes this I have no problem with the label. Most of us are.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,677
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
II am not so much offended by the fact that some people have hang-ups over my assigned sex at birth, but I just find them to be very confusing.

Most men that end up being attracted to me are bisexual. My husband identifies with the gay community, but he has actually been married to a woman twice in his lifetime. This is characteristic of the kinds of men that I have had in my life. They are not exclusively gay.

I think the second paragraph explains the first.

Most of us are exclusively attracted to one set of anatomy. A trans person will generally have mismatched anatomy and thus not meet our requirements. A bisexual person, however, won't mind the mismatch as they are attracted to all the bits involved.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
This study is approachable: Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation
For me, it does a good job of defining sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It might be helpful to others.
The study does not even define what it means by 'gender', except circularly.
Sexual orientation signifies the sex of the object of one’s sexual attraction, whereas gender identity denotes the sex and gender role one identifies with.
What's circular about that?
They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'.

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

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
@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
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
This study is approachable: Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation
For me, it does a good job of defining sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It might be helpful to others.
The study does not even define what it means by 'gender', except circularly.
Sexual orientation signifies the sex of the object of one’s sexual attraction, whereas gender identity denotes the sex and gender role one identifies with.
What's circular about that?
They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'.

That's not circular. Circular would be using 'gender identity' to define 'gender'.
Using a word to define itself is circular. It's like defining 'woeful' as 'full of woe' but then not finding 'woe' in the same dictionary.

What is gender?
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
@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?
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
II am not so much offended by the fact that some people have hang-ups over my assigned sex at birth, but I just find them to be very confusing.

Most men that end up being attracted to me are bisexual. My husband identifies with the gay community, but he has actually been married to a woman twice in his lifetime. This is characteristic of the kinds of men that I have had in my life. They are not exclusively gay.

I think the second paragraph explains the first.

Most of us are exclusively attracted to one set of anatomy. A trans person will generally have mismatched anatomy and thus not meet our requirements. A bisexual person, however, won't mind the mismatch as they are attracted to all the bits involved.
I make it a lot simpler.

A person is either attracted to me or not attracted to me.


Warm regards,
Sigma
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
@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?
I will never understand athletes, whether they are transgender or anything else. I am side-stepping this one.

If you want my opinions on sports, my opinion is that we ought to outlaw all sports besides chess and fencing.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
@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?
I will never understand athletes, whether they are transgender or anything else. I am side-stepping this one.

If you want my opinions on sports, my opinion is that we ought to outlaw all sports besides chess and fencing.
To be clear, I don't watch sports, but that isn't the point. The point is that trans activists demand that gender supplants sex in sports, and they make this demand with different levels of radicalness. The least radical (though still completely unacceptable) is the 'testosterone suppression for x length of time' proposal. The most radical is 'utterance of gender identity alone' (this is also completely unacceptable and eye-bleedingly absurd). All proposals are also unworkable and incoherent, since sex is binary but gender is not.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
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.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.
Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.
Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?
How that ought to be handled is something that I would leave up to the athletic organization and the LGBTQIAA organizations that represent the interests of those athletes. It is not my lookout, and as a person that knows very little about the subject, I would not be able to give a properly informed opinion on it. From what little I have heard, some organizations have found solutions that are satisfactory for them.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Look, I don't hate sports in principle, but I hate that some people assume that everybody else is obligated to be interested in the subject. I am not obligated to know the difference between a football stick and a hockey bat. It is information that I do not need to have. I can carry on in life just fine without ever learning about those things. No, I do not have a favorite team. I don't care who wins the Superbowl because I don't even like baseball. I don't really hate athletes, but it is just not something that I am interested in.

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

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,685
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Look, I don't hate sports in principle, but I hate that some people assume that everybody else is obligated to be interested in the subject. I am not obligated to know the difference between a football stick and a hockey bat. It is information that I do not need to have. I can carry on in life just fine without ever learning about those things. No, I do not have a favorite team. I don't care who wins the Superbowl because I don't even like baseball. I don't really hate athletes, but it is just not something that I am interested in.

I'm not asking you to be interested in sports. I am asking you why sports should be separated by 'gender' and not sex.
I don't see that discussion as relevant to anything other than discussions of sport; it's a needless derail to a serious conversation about sex and gender, which exist whether people play sports or not.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,685
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.
Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?
Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests that other players aren't subject to just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game. But again, I see this entire discussion as irrelevant to the thread and its purpose, so I'm not interested in going on and on about it.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.
Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?
Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game.
That's a disingenuous red herring. One thing does not flow from the other. Nobody has to be subject to 'invasive medical tests' to separate sports by sex.

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

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Look, I don't hate sports in principle, but I hate that some people assume that everybody else is obligated to be interested in the subject. I am not obligated to know the difference between a football stick and a hockey bat. It is information that I do not need to have. I can carry on in life just fine without ever learning about those things. No, I do not have a favorite team. I don't care who wins the Superbowl because I don't even like baseball. I don't really hate athletes, but it is just not something that I am interested in.

I'm not asking you to be interested in sports. I am asking you why sports should be separated by 'gender' and not sex.
I don't see that discussion as relevant to anything other than discussions of sport; it's a needless derail to a serious conversation about sex and gender, which exist whether people play sports or not.
It beggars belief you can find it irrelevant, since sports are one of the clearest cases where trans activists demands are unethical and frankly, beyond the pale.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,685
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.
Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?
Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game.
That's a disingenuous red herring. One thing does not flow from the other. Nobody has to be subject to 'invasive medical tests' to separate sports by sex.

Nor, if we cannot separate sports by sex, does it mean we ought separate by gender identity instead.
I'm all in favor of the wholesale emancipation of sport from gender essentialism. If we ended race-exclusionary leagues, we can end gender-exclusionary leagues too. But this doesn't seem to be a common perspective at the moment.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,685
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Look, I don't hate sports in principle, but I hate that some people assume that everybody else is obligated to be interested in the subject. I am not obligated to know the difference between a football stick and a hockey bat. It is information that I do not need to have. I can carry on in life just fine without ever learning about those things. No, I do not have a favorite team. I don't care who wins the Superbowl because I don't even like baseball. I don't really hate athletes, but it is just not something that I am interested in.

I'm not asking you to be interested in sports. I am asking you why sports should be separated by 'gender' and not sex.
I don't see that discussion as relevant to anything other than discussions of sport; it's a needless derail to a serious conversation about sex and gender, which exist whether people play sports or not.
It beggars belief you can find it irrelevant, since sports are one of the clearest cases where trans activists demands are unethical and frankly, beyond the pale.
If you think a very hypothetical advantage in a sporting match is the worst ethical fault that can be caused by incorporating the social sciences into the realm of public policy, I am more than happy to accept that hypothetical moral cost. It is not, in fact, more serious than other, more critical human rights that are also tied to questions of sex and gender, such as access to healthcare and family planning, the direction of pedagogy, wage equity, and legal equity.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.
Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?
Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game.
That's a disingenuous red herring. One thing does not flow from the other. Nobody has to be subject to 'invasive medical tests' to separate sports by sex.

Nor, if we cannot separate sports by sex, does it mean we ought separate by gender identity instead.
I'm all in favor of the wholesale emancipation of sport from gender essentialism. If we ended race-exclusionary leagues, we can end gender-exclusionary leagues too. But this doesn't seem to be a common perspective at the moment.
There are no gender-exclusionary leagues. Sports are (or were) separated by sex, not gender.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,685
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.
Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?
Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game.
That's a disingenuous red herring. One thing does not flow from the other. Nobody has to be subject to 'invasive medical tests' to separate sports by sex.

Nor, if we cannot separate sports by sex, does it mean we ought separate by gender identity instead.
I'm all in favor of the wholesale emancipation of sport from gender essentialism. If we ended race-exclusionary leagues, we can end gender-exclusionary leagues too. But this doesn't seem to be a common perspective at the moment.
There are no gender-exclusionary leagues. Sports are (or were) separated by sex, not gender.
The same applies.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Look, I don't hate sports in principle, but I hate that some people assume that everybody else is obligated to be interested in the subject. I am not obligated to know the difference between a football stick and a hockey bat. It is information that I do not need to have. I can carry on in life just fine without ever learning about those things. No, I do not have a favorite team. I don't care who wins the Superbowl because I don't even like baseball. I don't really hate athletes, but it is just not something that I am interested in.

I'm not asking you to be interested in sports. I am asking you why sports should be separated by 'gender' and not sex.
I don't see that discussion as relevant to anything other than discussions of sport; it's a needless derail to a serious conversation about sex and gender, which exist whether people play sports or not.
It beggars belief you can find it irrelevant, since sports are one of the clearest cases where trans activists demands are unethical and frankly, beyond the pale.
If you think a very hypothetical advantage
False. The advantage is large and always in favour of male bodies (excepting some gymnastic routines). There is nothing 'hypothetical' about it.

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

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

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I like certain sports well enough, but if you ask me whether sports or civil liberties are more important, I have a pretty confident answer to that question.
Would you like to explain that comment? Do you believe it infringes the civil liberties of trans people to play on the sports team that corresponds to their sex?
Yes. A person shouldn't have to be subject to invasive medical tests just to play a game, nor to be subject to abuse and invective from spectators and fellow players of said game.
That's a disingenuous red herring. One thing does not flow from the other. Nobody has to be subject to 'invasive medical tests' to separate sports by sex.

Nor, if we cannot separate sports by sex, does it mean we ought separate by gender identity instead.
I'm all in favor of the wholesale emancipation of sport from gender essentialism. If we ended race-exclusionary leagues, we can end gender-exclusionary leagues too. But this doesn't seem to be a common perspective at the moment.
There are no gender-exclusionary leagues. Sports are (or were) separated by sex, not gender.
The same applies.
If you want to take away sex-segregation, it would end women's sports and women's access to scholarships and other benefits that flow from sports participation.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,272
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

Generation55

Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Messages
163
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Why is my post #58 being ignored? It is one of the most important posts about this subject. Not one of you has said "A woman can absolutely impregnate a man" or "Absolutely men can give birth."

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

:(
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,290
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
Why is my post #58 being ignored? It is one of the most important posts about this subject. Not one of you has said "A woman can absolutely impregnate a man" or "Absolutely men can give birth."

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

:(
Does Hayley Haynes count?

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

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

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
Quite frankly, I would be very interested in being fully capable of reproducing as a woman. I might be a little bit long in the tooth by the time this has become both available and affordable, but I'll save up a nest-egg, just in case.
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,497
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
This study is approachable: Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation
For me, it does a good job of defining sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It might be helpful to others.
The study does not even define what it means by 'gender', except circularly.
Sexual orientation signifies the sex of the object of one’s sexual attraction, whereas gender identity denotes the sex and gender role one identifies with.
What's circular about that?
They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'.

That's not circular. Circular would be using 'gender identity' to define 'gender'.
Using a word to define itself is circular. It's like defining 'woeful' as 'full of woe' but then not finding 'woe' in the same dictionary.

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

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,650
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
This study is approachable: Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation
For me, it does a good job of defining sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It might be helpful to others.
Something I've been struggling to align well enough to get words under the complexities of the thought...

Imagine two people.

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

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

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

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

Someone should call Emily Lake in here though... Seems like something she would be interested in reading, I think?
I definitely do not see these as masculine or feminine, but as masculine stereotype and feminine stereotype.
I would go so far as to say they are different enough triggers of the sexual function that there are definitely aspects of our sexual interest that happen in fairly consistent ways. Just this one aspect is a deeply important thing to acknowledge: the brain differentiates for many people specifically around whether an immediate and clear interest in sex is seen primarily as a red flag or a green one.

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

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

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
This study is approachable: Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation
For me, it does a good job of defining sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It might be helpful to others.
The study does not even define what it means by 'gender', except circularly.
Sexual orientation signifies the sex of the object of one’s sexual attraction, whereas gender identity denotes the sex and gender role one identifies with.
What's circular about that?
They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'.

That's not circular. Circular would be using 'gender identity' to define 'gender'.
Using a word to define itself is circular. It's like defining 'woeful' as 'full of woe' but then not finding 'woe' in the same dictionary.

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

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
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.
 

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
103
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
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.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
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)

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.
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.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
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.
 

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
103
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
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? :unsure:
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,650
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
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? :unsure:
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.
 

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
103
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
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? :unsure:
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.

KeepTalking has asserted that this definition of "man" is relevant for this discussion.
If it isn't relevant, then take it up with KeepTalking who said that it was.
If it isn't accurate, then take it up with Websters.

In any case, you probably shouldn't refer to any given transperson as "some thing".
Even I know that one.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
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? :unsure:
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.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,673
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Why is my post #58 being ignored?

I can't speak for everyone here, but I am ignoring your post because I am not responding to the whole thread. Until now. I am just lurking and only a little bit. I don't believe I have seen the post in question and kind of don't care anyway. My curiosity is just more like "I wonder if their discussion has advanced at all" and so I might check-in here and there to lurk just a little bit. I don't remember if I even read your post or not. You, on the other hand, seem very trans curious. It could at first glance be very fascinating to someone to try to understand why there is such an obsession in some people to try to label other people and their sexuality/gender/orientation/genitalia against their will. But after that first glance, it gets extremely boring because you just keep saying the same sorts of things over and over, especially with respect to putting things in only two boxes. Life isn't really like that as it involves multiple variables and most variables are continua or spectra of things. So other people in the thread who have this understanding and then have deep, informed opinions based on such experience and critical thinking are far more interesting to read in my lurking. Speaking of which, now that I have explained why I have not read and answered your post, I am going back to lurking.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,685
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom