Drag Shows

[Toni]

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.

ON AVERAGE males are more physically aggressive, more likely to be violent, more likely to be physically taller, have greater muscle mass, and to have greater physical strength as is conferred by the larger frame and muscle mass. ON AVERAGE Males are more likely to be sexually aggressive.

Of course there are very tall women, women who are very strong, stronger than most men. There are women who are physically aggressive, and verbally aggressive and even threatening. Every single day, women force others into compliance--the socially accepted types of force used by mothers (and teachers and nurses) on their charges. I don't discount that type of force as being not aggressive. Sometimes, it absolutely is aggressive and is used to bring charges into compliance for the convenience of the woman asserting her control and dominance. I don't make light of this type of force/domination nor should you. It also shapes the world, including how men function in society and in the world at large.

Of course women can exploit their position, their age, their status and sometimes, their strength and control over males for their own sexual pleasure. Mary Kay LeTourneau, anyone? Unfortunately she was hardly the only woman who exploited a child for her sexual pleasure and emotional fulfillment. It is possible for women to forcibly rape men. No, it doesn't happen as often, but it is foolish and morally wrong to fail to acknowledge this fact.

Women can be mathematicians, scientists, engineers, soldiers, sailors, pilots, truck drivers, carpenters, plumbers. You name it: women can do that job. They can also be murderers, child abusers, rapists, drug dealers, kidnappers, arsonists, mass murderers, etc.

Everybody deserves the right to privacy in their showers, bathrooms, dressing rooms, exam rooms. Everybody.

Women and men are equally human, equally flawed. Equal.

We just have to start treating them as such.

 

[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.

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.

Of course, that is not what the above post was about. It was about the FACT, recognized by scientists and medical professionals, that and I quote: SCIENCE does not drive the policies of characterizing individuals as male or females. The desire to exclude does.

Women, who for thousands of years have had our biology used against us to limit us, to exclude us from power, even power over our own lives ought to be able to recognize this truth.

 

[Metaphor]

No one is "segregated by sex";

Of course they are - or were.

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.

By 'mind' I assume you mean 'brain', and no. Having certain thoughts in your head does not change your sex or cause you to be the opposite sex.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Not only will you look at an obviously male person and call him 'she', you will like it, and you will believe he is a she.

The same people who wish to bring about this fascist state of affairs also talk about the importance of consent. You could not make it up.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course, that is not what the above post was about. It was about the FACT, recognized by scientists and medical professionals, that and I quote: SCIENCE does not drive the policies of characterizing individuals as male or females. The desire to exclude does.

Yeah, every biologist and zoologist and botanist in history could not wait to 'exclude' everything in the animal and plant kingdom. Like, female praying mantises (who aren't even female really) are misunderstood as a result of being studied by mostly white, mostly male entomologists and who knows the gender identity of the brain she's eating anyway do you I don't think so.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Of course, that is not what the above post was about. It was about the FACT, recognized by scientists and medical professionals, that and I quote: SCIENCE does not drive the policies of characterizing individuals as male or females. The desire to exclude does.

Women, who for thousands of years have had our biology used against us to limit us, to exclude us from power, even power over our own lives ought to be able to recognize this truth.

Yes.

As an analogy, it seems a bit like how in the US second and third generation immigrants could be very racist. Some German American descendants became very against Irish and Italians. Then, that died down. After Irish and Italians gained some social status, then some were very racist against Blacks. It seems like this has to do with trying to derisk the little gains made by differentiating themselves to upper echelon of society and/or competition for scraps.

In the case of one strain of feminism, it seems to be the same driving force to be anti-trans.

 

[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.

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.

Of course, that is not what the above post was about. It was about the FACT, recognized by scientists and medical professionals, that and I quote: SCIENCE does not drive the policies of characterizing individuals as male or females. The desire to exclude does.

Women, who for thousands of years have had our biology used against us to limit us, to exclude us from power, even power over our own lives ought to be able to recognize this truth.

Yes.

As an analogy, it seems a bit like how in the US second and third generation immigrants could be very racist. Some German American descendants became very against Irish and Italians. Then, that died down. After Irish and Italians gained some social status, then some were very racist against Blacks. It seems like this has to do with trying to derisk the little gains made by differentiating themselves to upper echelon of society and/or competition for scraps.

In the case of one strain of feminism, it seems to be the same driving force to be anti-trans.

No.

Absolutely no.

As far as I can tell, more women are more sympathetic towards trans individuals than men.

That said: Discomfort crosses all boundaries of sex, gender. I think most of the discomfort is a function of unfamiliarity, and of change in norms and in understanding of previously set in stone standards.

Emily Lake brings up good points about potential abuses of social norms as these norms change, and as we try to figure out how to address issues of safety, privacy, modesty, equity and equality.

 

[bilby]

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.

According to that definition, they aren't.

Because dummies do dumb things.

One essential element of any definition that you want to claim as "scientific" is observer independence - given the same situation, all observers who follow the explicit instructions that the definition provides will categorise a given subject into the exact same categories.

If a definition doesn't achieve this, and leaves the final categorisation up to the opinions of the observers, it's not a scientific definition; The only way to rescue it as "science", is to change the definition to eliminate any and all grey areas; Or to allow a "none of the above" category for entities that don't fit one of your defined groups, and/or allow subjects to be assigned to multiple groups whose definitions they all fit.

Calling observers whose opinions differ from yours "disingenuous" or "dummies" is not a viable way to rescue a poorly designed definition.

If you define "woman" in such a way as to exclude people you clearly don't want to be excluded from that category, then the problem is that your definition is shit, not that the people who point out its obvious failings are disingenuous dummies.

A person with a female-typical uterus, fallopian tubes, vagina, etc. is considered by evolutionary biologists to be female, even if they don't have ovaries, even if their karyotype ends up being XY.

...and if that person also has a male-typical penis and testes, then they are simultaneously considered by those same evolutionary biologists to be male, assuming that those biologists are being consistent and not unscientific.

A single human being cannot have both a female-typical uterus, fallopian tubes, and vagina AND ALSO have a male-typical penis and testes.

A single human being can lack every single one of those things; Or can have some elements from each list.

One such case is described by the paper in Toni's post.

It's not possible. Those anatomies develop from the differentiation of the SAME TISSUES. For a person to have both male-typical and female-typical organs AT THE SAME TIME, they would have needed to have TWO FULL SETS OF TISSUE AS A FETUS.

Your claim is like saying a person can have both two completely brown eyes and two completely blue eyes at the exact same time - they'd have to have FOUR eyes to pull that off.

No, my claim is more like saying people can have two different eye colours. Which they can, regardless of the opinions of people who write passport descriptions in which only one option can be selected for "eye colour".

Your definition doesn't exclude people with ovaries and a penis; Or with testes and fallopian tubes (for example), from being placed into both categories or neither.

It's really difficult to write a definition of sex that sorts all humans into two categories, without any individual falling into both, or into neither. As far as I am aware, nobody in history has yet succeeded in doing this. You had a crack, apparently in the false belief that it would be easy; You failed miserably, and rather than try to improve on your first attempt, or to start over with a new approach, you declared a victory that wasn't yours, and backed this up with insults against anyone who had the temerity to point out your failures.

That's not how science works (although it's sadly common behaviour amongst individuals who wish to be thought scientists). Scientists are supposed to point out failures in each other's work, and to respond to being shown to have failed, by producing a more robust product, that can survive the test(s) that destroyed their previous efforts.

If you can come up with an observer independent definition that divides "men" from "women" with no overlap and no remainder of un-categorisable humans, a Nobel Prize may await you.

Until you do, it's childish and pointless to declare that one must exist, and that anyone who doesn't concur is a disingenuous dummy.

 

[Toni]

No one is "segregated by sex";

Of course they are - or were.

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.

By 'mind' I assume you mean 'brain', and no. Having certain thoughts in your head does not change your sex or cause you to be the opposite sex.

So you are still ignoring studies which have identified structures in the brain that more closely resemble the sex the trans person is claiming than the sex they were assigned at birth?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No one is "segregated by sex";

Of course they are - or were.

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.

By 'mind' I assume you mean 'brain', and no. Having certain thoughts in your head does not change your sex or cause you to be the opposite sex.

So you are still ignoring studies which have identified structures in the brain that more closely resemble the sex the trans person is claiming than the sex they were assigned at birth?

Of course Metaphor understands it all, it isn't like it is brain science.

Seriously... but what about the organs? Just not the most important one. They have genitals, therefore end of story. I mean, sure some with a penis like others with a penis. But they both have a penis therefore neurology isn't important.

 

[Metaphor]

No one is "segregated by sex";

Of course they are - or were.

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.

By 'mind' I assume you mean 'brain', and no. Having certain thoughts in your head does not change your sex or cause you to be the opposite sex.

So you are still ignoring studies which have identified structures in the brain that more closely resemble the sex the trans person is claiming than the sex they were assigned at birth?

What about them? Gay men have some brain structures that more closely resemble those of straight women than they do other men. Gay men are not women.

 

[laughing dog]

Why are you people riding Metaphor’s genitalia hobby horse?

 

[ZiprHead]

What about them? Gay men have some brain structures that more closely resemble those of straight women than they do other men. Gay men are not women.

Nope. It's just thoughts in your head.

 

[Metaphor]

Why are you people riding Metaphor’s genitalia hobby horse?

Jimmy Higgins brought up genitalia, and then you did. Not me.

 

[Metaphor]

What about them? Gay men have some brain structures that more closely resemble those of straight women than they do other men. Gay men are not women.

Nope. It's just thoughts in your head.

Nope, what? Are you agreeing that gay men are not women?

 

[Oleg]

So you are still ignoring studies which have identified structures in the brain that more closely resemble the sex the trans person is claiming than the sex they were assigned at birth?

Not aware of such studies, but it wouldn’t be surprising if there were markers for probable AGP in the brain. But a male experiencing sexual arousal at the thought of being a female doesn’t make a man a woman. That should be obvious.

 

[Oleg]

What about them? Gay men have some brain structures that more closely resemble those of straight women than they do other men. Gay men are not women.

Nope. It's just thoughts in your head.

Nope, what? Are you agreeing that gay men are not women?

Don’t fall for it. Trans ideology is going after gays and lesbians because they’re same sex attracted. This is incompatible with gender “theory,” as the gender cultist believe a women can have a penis and a man can have a vagina. Thus, all that matters is how you identify. Lesbians need to do the work and learn to like lady dick. ZiprHead’s comparison of trans to gays is silly as gays and lesbians are not demanding we ignore biological reality.

 

[Arctish]

"Getting fucked makes you female because fucked is what a female is"?

That sounds like a denial of the existence of men who like being 'receivers'.

 

[Metaphor]

"Getting fucked makes you female because fucked is what a female is"?

That sounds like a denial of the existence of men who like being 'receivers'.

Well, yes. You are shocked that incoherent and regressive attitudes come from trans people?

EDIT: The amount of regressive claptrap required in trans ideologies is nothing short of amazing, really. Do you know what a lesbian is? A non-man who is attracted to non-men. You could not make it up.

 

[Arctish]

"Getting fucked makes you female because fucked is what a female is"?

That sounds like a denial of the existence of men who like being 'receivers'.

Well, yes. You are shocked that incoherent and regressive attitudes come from trans people?

As some of the long term members here know, whenever I see out-of-context quotes made into memes, my bullshit detector immediately starts pinging. It's rare to find one that accurately conveys what the speaker was saying. I am not surprised that a meme portrays a Feminist or Trans activist as saying something shocking or ridiculous, I am surprised that so many people take it at face value.

If you're interested in reading what the people in those memes were saying, here are some links:

Jacob Tobia wants to be desired

Grace Lavery finds being treated like a woman empowering as a transperson while also being committed to the struggle to eliminate sexism.

And if you want to know what Andrea Long Chu was talking about in her book, Females, here's a good place to start.

EDIT: The amount of regressive claptrap required in trans ideologies is nothing short of amazing, really. Do you know what a lesbian is? A non-man who is attracted to non-men. You could not make it up.

Apparently someone did.