Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[braces_for_impact]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

@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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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.

 

[Politesse]

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

 

[SigmatheZeta]

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.