Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[KeepTalking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Enigma]

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

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

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

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

 

[Keith&Co.]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Jarhyn]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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]

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

To the surprise of literally nobody.

 

[TomC]

Quite frankly, I would be very interested in being fully capable of reproducing as a woman. I might be a little bit long in the tooth by the time this has become both available and affordable, but I'll save up a nest-egg, just in case.

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

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

 

[TomC]

the surprise of literally nobody.

It's no surprise to me. It's standard operating procedure in many threads, particularly the ones concerning transsexuals.

It's not just Gen55 and Meta. You and Politesse do it a lot as well. It's the norm in here.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

To the surprise of literally nobody.

A sock has got to sock.

 

[TomC]

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.

To the surprise of literally nobody.

A sock has got to sock.

Please don't feel offended that I left you out of post #153.
Tom

 

[Enigma]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there some factual inaccuracy in the statement?

 

[Jarhyn]

Quite frankly, I would be very interested in being fully capable of reproducing as a woman. I might be a little bit long in the tooth by the time this has become both available and affordable, but I'll save up a nest-egg, just in case.

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

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

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

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

I would do this as a surrogate for someone else.

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

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

It is something I would volunteer gladly for.

 

[TomC]

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

OK. We agree that it's irrational.

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

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

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

the surprise of literally nobody.

It's no surprise to me. It's standard operating procedure in many threads, particularly the ones concerning transsexuals.

It's not just Gen55 and Meta. You and Politesse do it a lot as well. It's the norm in here.
Tom

I don't post threads seeking "to understand" (more accurately: to disingenuously claim a desire while holding in reserve a perspective to play to). I respond to them, usually to lay them naked as such, and occasionally post threads (more often blogs) to discuss stuff that actually interests me.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

OK. We agree that it's irrational.

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

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

Tom

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

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

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