Drag Shows

[Toni]

Eventually many trans individuals go on to change a great deal more than clothing. Including legal identity.

But they can never change their sex. It is impossible. Introducing a legal fiction does not change that reality.

The misuses of “biological sex”

Whether one is entering into military service, seeking identity documents, or participating in sports, the categorisation of bodies according to “sex” is central to the organisation of society. Who is categorised as a woman and who is categorised as a man may seem like simple questions, but...

www.thelancet.com

For many, these proposed methods for categorisation suggest a commonsense and clear-cut assessment. The US military definition of sex relies on the sex designation on a birth certificate, which is likely based on a glance at the genitals at birth. But its definition of biological sex includes chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals”—that is, all four characteristics. Someone with what are understood as female-typical genitals and 46,XY chromosomes would be classified as female if genitals are used as the indicator but male if chromosomes are used. The HHS-suggested definition appears to directly prioritise genitals yet gives chromosomes a role too.
Science does not drive these policies; the desire to exclude does. This intentional gerrymandering of sex opportunistically uses the idea of “biological sex”—which lends a veneer of science and thus rationality to any definition—to remove certain individuals from a category based on intolerance. One result is the nullification of the Title IX protections that were expanded under the Obama administration—laws applicable to transgender individuals and people with certain differences of sex development who serve in the military or otherwise seek to be safeguarded from discrimination

 

[Metaphor]

Eventually many trans individuals go on to change a great deal more than clothing. Including legal identity.

But they can never change their sex. It is impossible. Introducing a legal fiction does not change that reality.

The misuses of “biological sex”

Whether one is entering into military service, seeking identity documents, or participating in sports, the categorisation of bodies according to “sex” is central to the organisation of society. Who is categorised as a woman and who is categorised as a man may seem like simple questions, but...

www.thelancet.com

For many, these proposed methods for categorisation suggest a commonsense and clear-cut assessment. The US military definition of sex relies on the sex designation on a birth certificate, which is likely based on a glance at the genitals at birth. But its definition of biological sex includes chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals”—that is, all four characteristics. Someone with what are understood as female-typical genitals and 46,XY chromosomes would be classified as female if genitals are used as the indicator but male if chromosomes are used. The HHS-suggested definition appears to directly prioritise genitals yet gives chromosomes a role too.
Science does not drive these policies; the desire to exclude does. This intentional gerrymandering of sex opportunistically uses the idea of “biological sex”—which lends a veneer of science and thus rationality to any definition—to remove certain individuals from a category based on intolerance. One result is the nullification of the Title IX protections that were expanded under the Obama administration—laws applicable to transgender individuals and people with certain differences of sex development who serve in the military or otherwise seek to be safeguarded from discrimination

I imagine you think you've posted some kind of rebuttal. Nothing in what you've quoted addresses the fact that humans cannot change sex.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why is it "gender-critical" people manage to know so little about the biology human bodies despite obsessing over them constantly?

Pick a body part, organ, or function and search for sex differences. There’s a lot. Five million years of sexually dimorphic evolution will do that. And the sex binary is much older than that. Feeling uncomfortable in one’s body doesn’t change that. It’s the gender cultist who are the flat earthers.

Okay, the brain. The most important organ (after skin?) in the body. Please tell us the differences between men and women in the brain... specifically. Then you can move on to describing where in my brain that makes me specifically attracted to Asian women.

The funniest part is that Oleg simultaneously believes that the brain is different on account of "sex" (let's just gloss past where he fails to define what aspect of "sex" creates the differentiation they believe happens), and then... Believes absolutely nothing should be done to accommodate the difference of brain structure (and thus behavior) if this should ever be discordant with the genitals (or chromosomes, or both, or merely partial differentiation of both).

 

[Politesse]

No and no. Neither of those animals change sex.

Drag performers don't change sex, they change clothes.

Correct.

The same is true of trans-identified people. They do not and cannot change sex.

That is corrct. Which is why the language has shifted to refer to "Trans-identified people" more correctly as transgendered rather than transexual as was once common when we knew less. Welcome to the twenty-first century of the Common Era, Metaphor. What you are discovering - that cultural interpretation and portrayals of sex characteristics differ from what an objective scientist can observe of chromosomal sex - has been well known to the scientific community for well over a century now. Which is why we have now adopted the convention of differentiating between "sex" and "gender" in English.

Politesse, I cannot fathom why you think you are imparting any new information to me, or why (except for rhetorical points, obviously) you keep bringing up 'chromosomal sex'--a red herring you introduced and seem to want to force down everyone's throats.

I have consistently differentiated between sex (something that every human has, and cannot change, and there are only two), sex-roles or gender roles (a societal and cultural expectation of people's behaviours, interests, and aesthetic choices based on their sex and to a lesser extent age and class) and 'gender identity', which is a thought in a person's head.

No human can change his or her sex. Legal fictions cannot change your sex. Your gender identity does not change your sex.

No one has disagreed with that point, so why do you keep going on about it? No one has argued that drag queens change their biological sex, nor is that what this political dispute is about.

I only mentioned chromosomal sex to be precise. Biological sex characteristics don't appear by magic, they are the result of hormonal releases, which are themselves triggered by chromosomal patterns acquired at conception. None of this is a mystery, or controversial. You are at best misguided in saying that "there are only two", as we see a wide variation of biological patterns with regard to sex expression. None of this, I would like to reiterate, has anything to do with drag shows.

 

[Metaphor]

No one has disagreed with that point, so why do you keep going on about it?

People on this message board have disagreed both explicitly (Jarhyn and Toni have called transwomen "biologically female") and implicitly, when they repeatedly insist that gender identity should supplant sex in every situation where people are segregated by sex (bathrooms, sports, prisons).

I only mentioned chromosomal sex to be precise. Biological sex characteristics don't appear by magic, they are the result of hormonal releases, which are themselves triggered by chromosomal patterns acquired at conception. None of this is a mystery, or controversial. You are at best misguided in saying that "there are only two", as we see a wide variation of biological patterns with regard to sex expression.

There are only two sexes, Politesse. You are either of the sex organised around producing large, sessile gametes, or you are of the sex organised around producing small, motile gametes. Women especially are very attuned to knowing the difference, even when men use surgeries and hormones in an attempt to disguise this fact.

But claims that sex is 'messy' and a 'spectrum' and pointing to intersex conditions is a dishonest ruse. The men who seek access to women's spaces by calling themselves transwomen, and demanding society see them as women, using social censure and gov't force, are not somewhere on a sex spectrum anywhere other than 'male'. Transwomen are men in permanent drag, but they want you to believe the costumes are magickal, like a fantasy movie where people put on costumes and become the costume.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sex is defined by the type of gamete that an individual's reproductive anatomy is organized around,

OK, that's a good definition. It's falsifiable, so it qualifies as "scientific"; And it fits into your hypothesis "It is a physical impossibility for any single individual human to be both sexes", giving a falsifiable hypothesis. Yay, science!

even if that gamete does not actually get produced.

Ah, but then you fall down. You just added unfalsifiability to your definition, eliminating the scientific status of your claim. Why did you do that?

Because disingenuous arguers will inevitably make the childish claim that using gametes as a reference means that menopausal women are no longer female. Because dummies do dumb things.

Calm down. Take some breaths. Wait 24 hours before posting that everyone else is a dummy. Okay. If you post something like females are defined as A and males are defined as B, and then someone comes up with a giant subset of males/females who are not_A and not_B, then the problem was the definition you offered, not that everyone else is a dummy. Even if those persons are wrong, they could be trying to negotiate a consensus definition that is rational in earnest and declaring they have malicious intentions is an assumption of the worst case scenario. To add-the particular people you are arguing with are intelligent, not dummies.

 

[Toni]

Eventually many trans individuals go on to change a great deal more than clothing. Including legal identity.

But they can never change their sex. It is impossible. Introducing a legal fiction does not change that reality.

The misuses of “biological sex”

Whether one is entering into military service, seeking identity documents, or participating in sports, the categorisation of bodies according to “sex” is central to the organisation of society. Who is categorised as a woman and who is categorised as a man may seem like simple questions, but...

www.thelancet.com

For many, these proposed methods for categorisation suggest a commonsense and clear-cut assessment. The US military definition of sex relies on the sex designation on a birth certificate, which is likely based on a glance at the genitals at birth. But its definition of biological sex includes chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals”—that is, all four characteristics. Someone with what are understood as female-typical genitals and 46,XY chromosomes would be classified as female if genitals are used as the indicator but male if chromosomes are used. The HHS-suggested definition appears to directly prioritise genitals yet gives chromosomes a role too.
Science does not drive these policies; the desire to exclude does. This intentional gerrymandering of sex opportunistically uses the idea of “biological sex”—which lends a veneer of science and thus rationality to any definition—to remove certain individuals from a category based on intolerance. One result is the nullification of the Title IX protections that were expanded under the Obama administration—laws applicable to transgender individuals and people with certain differences of sex development who serve in the military or otherwise seek to be safeguarded from discrimination

I imagine you think you've posted some kind of rebuttal. Nothing in what you've quoted addresses the fact that humans cannot change sex.

I imagine that you think that you've latched on to some irrefutable truth that in fact depends on a particular definition. Because your interpretation of that particular definition supports your position, you will cling to it like a life raft on the Titanic.

 

[Politesse]

People on this message board have disagreed both explicitly (Jarhyn and Toni have called transwomen "biologically female") and implicitly, when they repeatedly insist that gender identity should supplant sex in every situation where people are segregated by sex (bathrooms, sports, prisons).

No one is "segregated by sex"; if we're talking about social identity, we're having a conversation about gender. And if we're saying "people of this category get to use this special room, but only people in that category get to do this ritual together", we're talking about social identity. How we choose to define, respond to, and exert political power over perceptions of sex is a purely cultural question, which different societies can and have devised different solutions to. Drag shows have only existed for two hundred years, they are not connected to the scientific discussion of biological sex traits except obliquely as part of our wider cultural conversation about gender.

And I do agree that transwomen are biologically female, at least in some respects. Your mind is no less a part of your body than any other part of you.

 

[thebeave]

Sex is defined by the type of gamete that an individual's reproductive anatomy is organized around,

OK, that's a good definition. It's falsifiable, so it qualifies as "scientific"; And it fits into your hypothesis "It is a physical impossibility for any single individual human to be both sexes", giving a falsifiable hypothesis. Yay, science!

even if that gamete does not actually get produced.

Ah, but then you fall down. You just added unfalsifiability to your definition, eliminating the scientific status of your claim. Why did you do that?

Because disingenuous arguers will inevitably make the childish claim that using gametes as a reference means that menopausal women are no longer female. Because dummies do dumb things.

Calm down. Take some breaths. Wait 24 hours before posting that everyone else is a dummy. Okay. If you post something like females are defined as A and males are defined as B, and then someone comes up with a giant subset of males/females who are not_A and not_B, then the problem was the definition you offered, not that everyone else is a dummy. Even if those persons are wrong, they could be trying to negotiate a consensus definition that is rational in earnest and declaring they have malicious intentions is an assumption of the worst case scenario. To add-the particular people you are arguing with are intelligent, not dummies.

Telling a woman to calm down? Nice. I hereby bequeth you the "IIDB Brass Balls of the Year" award.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sex is defined by the type of gamete that an individual's reproductive anatomy is organized around,

OK, that's a good definition. It's falsifiable, so it qualifies as "scientific"; And it fits into your hypothesis "It is a physical impossibility for any single individual human to be both sexes", giving a falsifiable hypothesis. Yay, science!

even if that gamete does not actually get produced.

Ah, but then you fall down. You just added unfalsifiability to your definition, eliminating the scientific status of your claim. Why did you do that?

Because disingenuous arguers will inevitably make the childish claim that using gametes as a reference means that menopausal women are no longer female. Because dummies do dumb things.

Calm down. Take some breaths. Wait 24 hours before posting that everyone else is a dummy. Okay. If you post something like females are defined as A and males are defined as B, and then someone comes up with a giant subset of males/females who are not_A and not_B, then the problem was the definition you offered, not that everyone else is a dummy. Even if those persons are wrong, they could be trying to negotiate a consensus definition that is rational in earnest and declaring they have malicious intentions is an assumption of the worst case scenario. To add-the particular people you are arguing with are intelligent, not dummies.

Telling a woman to calm down? Nice. I hereby bequeth you the "IIDB Brass Balls of the Year" award.

So you accept she is female because she said her name is Emily Lake. And with that you utilize an underlying cultural stereotype of women being nuts....so better never tell them to calm down. Is there still doubt as to how gender as a concept operates in society?

 

[lostone]

It was meant to be humorous. Lighten up.

 

[Emily Lake]

No and no. Neither of those animals change sex.

Drag performers don't change sex, they change clothes.

Correct.

The same is true of trans-identified people. They do not and cannot change sex.

Eventually many trans individuals go on to change a great deal more than clothing. Including legal identity.

Sure. But none of that changes their sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

I only mentioned chromosomal sex to be precise. Biological sex characteristics don't appear by magic, they are the result of hormonal releases, which are themselves triggered by chromosomal patterns acquired at conception. None of this is a mystery, or controversial. You are at best misguided in saying that "there are only two", as we see a wide variation of biological patterns with regard to sex expression.

Stop using bait and switch language, Poli.

There ARE only two sexes in humans. There ARE only two sexes in mammals. The overwhelming majority of vertebrates have only two sexes. FFS, clownfish only have two sexes - and they are one of a small number of vertebrates that can actually change sex. But even then - there are only two sexes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Eventually many trans individuals go on to change a great deal more than clothing. Including legal identity.

But they can never change their sex. It is impossible. Introducing a legal fiction does not change that reality.

The misuses of “biological sex”

Whether one is entering into military service, seeking identity documents, or participating in sports, the categorisation of bodies according to “sex” is central to the organisation of society. Who is categorised as a woman and who is categorised as a man may seem like simple questions, but...

www.thelancet.com

For many, these proposed methods for categorisation suggest a commonsense and clear-cut assessment. The US military definition of sex relies on the sex designation on a birth certificate, which is likely based on a glance at the genitals at birth. But its definition of biological sex includes chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals”—that is, all four characteristics. Someone with what are understood as female-typical genitals and 46,XY chromosomes would be classified as female if genitals are used as the indicator but male if chromosomes are used. The HHS-suggested definition appears to directly prioritise genitals yet gives chromosomes a role too.
Science does not drive these policies; the desire to exclude does. This intentional gerrymandering of sex opportunistically uses the idea of “biological sex”—which lends a veneer of science and thus rationality to any definition—to remove certain individuals from a category based on intolerance. One result is the nullification of the Title IX protections that were expanded under the Obama administration—laws applicable to transgender individuals and people with certain differences of sex development who serve in the military or otherwise seek to be safeguarded from discrimination

I imagine you think you've posted some kind of rebuttal. Nothing in what you've quoted addresses the fact that humans cannot change sex.

I imagine that you think that you've latched on to some irrefutable truth that in fact depends on a particular definition. Because your interpretation of that particular definition supports your position, you will cling to it like a life raft on the Titanic.

Please provide evidence of someone who was conceived as a male of the human species, developed through a normal male childhood and puberty, developed fully function male reproductive organs, and produced viable spermatazoa... and who then underwent a magical transformation that allowed them to develop ovaries and fallopian tubes and a uterus and to release viable ova.

I eagerly await your evidence of a human actually, in literal terms, changing sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

No one is "segregated by sex"; if we're talking about social identity, we're having a conversation about gender.

No we are not. We are talking about separating people on the basis of whether they have the internal anatomy that is associated with the production of ova (normally including the presence of a vulva and a vaginal opening, and a high likelihood to bleed out of their fucking vagina once a month after having reached menarche) versus people with the internal anatomy that is associated with the production of spermatazoa (normally including a penis which during puberty experiences random erections when the wind blows from the south, bouts of blue balls when they don't get to release sperm after arousal, and frequent night time emissions).

THOSE ARE NOT SOCIAL IDENTITIES

FFS, women who have been relegated to second class status, denied an education., and subject to gross mistreatment in... oh let's just say Afghanistan... are NOT being mistreated because they "identify" as women. They cannot "identify" out of their oppression and abuse. They can't just say magic words of "I'm actually a man" and suddenly they're allowed to go about with their hair uncovered and attend university.

Children in Sierra Leone can't just "identify" out of having their clitorises removed and their vulvar opening sewn shut!

And guess the fuck what - women in Texas can't just "identify" as men and wham - now they're allowed to fucking have abortions!

All of you rhetoric is ivory tower philosophizing that is divorced from reality. Males who identify as girls don't get sent to menstruation huts; females who identify as boys are not immune from being exiled to those huts.

Your inability to actually understand the reality of discrimination and abuse on the basis of sex is an elitist privilege.

 

[Toni]

No one is "segregated by sex"; if we're talking about social identity, we're having a conversation about gender.

No we are not. We are talking about separating people on the basis of whether they have the internal anatomy that is associated with the production of ova (normally including the presence of a vulva and a vaginal opening, and a high likelihood to bleed out of their fucking vagina once a month after having reached menarche) versus people with the internal anatomy that is associated with the production of spermatazoa (normally including a penis which during puberty experiences random erections when the wind blows from the south, bouts of blue balls when they don't get to release sperm after arousal, and frequent night time emissions).

THOSE ARE NOT SOCIAL IDENTITIES

FFS, women who have been relegated to second class status, denied an education., and subject to gross mistreatment in... oh let's just say Afghanistan... are NOT being mistreated because they "identify" as women. They cannot "identify" out of their oppression and abuse. They can't just say magic words of "I'm actually a man" and suddenly they're allowed to go about with their hair uncovered and attend university.

Children in Sierra Leone can't just "identify" out of having their clitorises removed and their vulvar opening sewn shut!

And guess the fuck what - women in Texas can't just "identify" as men and wham - now they're allowed to fucking have abortions!

All of you rhetoric is ivory tower philosophizing that is divorced from reality. Males who identify as girls don't get sent to menstruation huts; females who identify as boys are not immune from being exiled to those huts.

Your inability to actually understand the reality of discrimination and abuse on the basis of sex is an elitist privilege.

Have you ever considered that separating individuals by their reproductive roles is exactly what is causing every one of the grave harms you’ve mentioned?

Relegating women to their reproductive roles and accepting no other role, no other reality —and using this biological reality: women bleed, women give birth and produce milk for their babies—to ‘protect’ women from the harsh realities of a ‘man’s world’ is the problem here.

So maybe if we quit focusing on whether an individual was born with ovaries or testes ( or some variation) to determine the direction and the limitations of their life, people’s lives might be better. All people.

I personally know that I cannot fully appreciate what it means to be transsexual nor can I fully understand the physical, emotional, social and societal burdens placed on individuals who really only wish to be their true selves.

The fact that I cannot fully understand what it means to be trans absolutely does limit the value of my opinions. I have to trust that individuals are more capable of making good decisions about their physical, mental and emotional well-being, in partnership with their medical team, than I am. I’m as opinionated as hell but even I recognize that I have no role to play in making such decisions.

Any discomfort or confusion or inability to fully ‘get’ it is mine to deal with. Not something I get to foist on any other person.

 

[Emily Lake]

Have you ever considered that separating individuals by their reproductive roles is exactly what is causing every one of the grave harms you’ve mentioned?

Relegating women to their reproductive roles and accepting no other role, no other reality —and using this biological reality: women bleed, women give birth and produce milk for their babies—to ‘protect’ women from the harsh realities of a ‘man’s world’ is the problem here.

So maybe if we quit focusing on whether an individual was born with ovaries or testes ( or some variation) to determine the direction and the limitations of their life, people’s lives might be better. All people.

I personally know that I cannot fully appreciate what it means to be transsexual nor can I fully understand the physical, emotional, social and societal burdens placed on individuals who really only wish to be their true selves.

The fact that I cannot fully understand what it means to be trans absolutely does limit the value of my opinions. I have to trust that individuals are more capable of making good decisions about their physical, mental and emotional well-being, in partnership with their medical team, than I am. I’m as opinionated as hell but even I recognize that I have no role to play in making such decisions.

Any discomfort or confusion or inability to fully ‘get’ it is mine to deal with. Not something I get to foist on any other person.

Sure sure, all of that makes perfect sense. Which is of course why the UN and other international organizations push so hard to have separate toilet and change facilities for girls in developing nations where sexism is rife.

This is not, and has never been, separate but equal. It has always been, and continues to be, separate because unequal.

Males and females are NOT equal when it comes to aggression, violence, dominance, and control. We are NOT equal when it comes to physical strength and the ability to force the other into compliance. Males and females are NOT equal in terms of voyeurism, exhibitionism, flashing, and transgressing the sexual boundaries of others.

You may not have a role in making decisions about the best treatment for people with gender dysphoria - I'm with you there. Where I think you and I may differ, however, is that I do not consent to MYSELF being part of their treatment plan. Your discomfort at having an obviously male person in your presence while you and/or they are naked is yours to deal with - it is NOT theirs to demand. My discomfort at having a male doctor handle my boobs for a mammogram is mine to deal with - it is NOT his to demand that I MUST allow him to handle my breasts against my consent. How that male identifies on the inside of their mind does not negate my agency and right to define my own boundaries and to decline my own consent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is it "gender-critical" people manage to know so little about the biology human bodies despite obsessing over them constantly?

Pick a body part, organ, or function and search for sex differences. There’s a lot. Five million years of sexually dimorphic evolution will do that. And the sex binary is much older than that. Feeling uncomfortable in one’s body doesn’t change that. It’s the gender cultist who are the flat earthers.

But the blueprint doesn't always get followed exactly--especially as "male" is a template applied on top of the base state: female. We can see major cases of not following the blueprint in Swyar syndrome (which produces individuals that are unambiguously female despite being XY) as well as lesser examples. Why in the world would one suppose that the brain couldn't develop opposite the body?

 

[Emily Lake]

Why is it "gender-critical" people manage to know so little about the biology human bodies despite obsessing over them constantly?

Pick a body part, organ, or function and search for sex differences. There’s a lot. Five million years of sexually dimorphic evolution will do that. And the sex binary is much older than that. Feeling uncomfortable in one’s body doesn’t change that. It’s the gender cultist who are the flat earthers.

But the blueprint doesn't always get followed exactly. Intermediate results occur.

None of those intermediate results results in a sex that is anything other than male or female.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So when talking genders, it seems kind of stupid to shoehorn male and female based on everything about the human body, except what is going on in the most IMPORTANT part (as in by like several magnitudes) of the body.

What the hell does it matter what’s going on in someone’s head? You either have a male or female body. When you see an attractive Asian woman, do you care how she self identifies? That like saying you read Playboy for the articles.

People keep using this example, neglecting the fact that it is provably true that some people read it for the articles. The braille version (no idea if it still exists, I suspect they have been replaced with electronic versions) completely omitted the pictorials. Anyone reading it had to be reading it for the articles.