Drag Shows

[Emily Lake]

Suppose you are right: transgender is a delusion. How does that harm you or me? If someone wishes to live as a male who was born female, why should they not? Women have done that for centuries, in fact. Now, they can have surgery and other medical interventions to make their body look the way they feel. Why should they not? Why should a person who is born with the appearance of being male but who feels themselves ti be female not be allowed to have the medical treatment to help them look the way they want to? Why should society not recognize the change? Why shouldn’t the law?

I absolutely share your concerns about violent individuals gaining access to their preferred victim type. This should not be allowed. Regardless of sex or gender identity

To a fair extent, I don't have any problem with transgender people. If someone born male wishes to dress and present in stereotypically female ways, more power to them - they don't even need to identify as trans to do that. Anyone who wants to wear heels and a skirt shoudl feel free to do so.

If adults wish to have surgery to make their bodies look different, they should be free to do so. I'm not overly fond of that being funded by the public, as it is a cosmetic undertaking. But still, adults can do as they wish with their own bodies. I only object to permanent changes being applied to children.

*IF* a person has complete surgical alteration, I don't even really object to them being recognized by law, and being granted to single-sex spaces for the opposite sex. But that *IF* is a really big and important piece of it, and its one that the overwhelming majority of transgender identified males do NOT have. Somewhere around 80% or so of transgender identified males are male-bodied and have no intention of having surgery.

And that's where it gets sticky for me. There's a reason that many services are sex-segregated. Sex is a very real, very meaningful element of our existence. And it's also a source of discrimination faced almost exclusively by females throughout history. And whether it's nice or not, whether it's polite, whether it hurts someone's feelz... it is a fact of existence that males have used their physicality to oppress, subjugate, dominate, and to rape females throughout history. I think it's reasonable to have sex-segregated spaces and services where people are naked or are vulnerable.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, it wasn't 'known.' It was assumed, based upon whatever testing your mother allowed to be performed. Once you were born, your apparent sex was in agreement with whatever testing was previously performed and there was no need to conduct further examination.

But unless you have had testing to demonstrate that you actually produce motile sperm, you don't KNOW that you do. Unless you have had genetic testing done, you do not KNOW that you have XY chromosomes and not some other configuration.

What you believe to be true about yourself likely comports with observable traits and would likely also agree with any genetic testing you had performed or if you submitted a sample of ejaculate. But you don't KNOW as a fact that this is so. You ASSUME that it is so. Your feelings about your sex and about your sexual orientation are in agreement with your apparent sex. But you do not KNOW as a fact what your karotype is or whether or not you produce sperm or if that sperm is motile.

Have you ever had a blood draw at a doctor's office or a hospital? Guess what they check? They aren't going to do a complete karyotype analysis... but they can very easily and very accurately determine sex from your run-of-the-mill blood test. And they do. Because sex is frequently a factor in medicine. Not "identity", but actual sex.

All of these arguments of "Oh but you don't really really know, you could totally actually be female and not know it" is bullshit. It's also incredibly disrespectful toward people who actually DO have disorders of sexual development. Because those DSD conditions are MEDICAL FUCKING CONDITIONS THAT ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE COMPLICATIONS.

Stop arguing that there might be a teapot orbiting mercury, and that because nobody truly knows for certain wr have to somehow act like a teapot is definitely there. It's bad argument.

Yeah, I’ve had my blood drawn a number of times. But only when there was a gynecological issue did they check hormone levels, etc. there has never been a genetic analysis performed. Or any need to do so.

A standard blood draw will identify type and sex. There's no need to do a genetic work-up to tell one's sex from a blood draw. They may not tell you "oh you're female", because chances are you already know that But you don't need a genetic analysis in order to determine the sex of 99.8% of people. And those remaining 0.2% are likely already aware that they have a DSD.

The point is that arguments about whether or not someone has had an in-depth genetic analysis done are an irrelevancy and a distractions. Anyone who goes to the doctor for any sort of routine check up will already have had their sex noted and known. It's not a mystery. It's standard practice.

And sex is relevant to a LOT of medical treatments outside of purely gynecological (or even reproductive) situations. Sex plays a role in how many medicines work. It plays a role in how well my anti-seizure medicines work, and which migraine meds are most likely to work for me. Because different drugs work differently for each sex.

In fact, we've been running into trouble as a whole society because historically, clinical trials have only included males - doctors didn't want the hormone cycles of women messing up their results. But those hormone cycles are a reality of life for the vast majority of women, and the fact that we get prescribed medicines based on how they worked for men has caused a lot of problems. We've just recently started requiring that clinical tests include a statistically valid sample of both male and female participants.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't identify as 5'2". I AM 5'2".

If one allows that someone who is 5'2" to identify as something other than 5'2", then there is no reason to disallow that someone who is 5'2" to also identify as 5'2".

Sure, sure. Let's allow the 3' tall kid to identify as 5'7" so they can ride the roller coaster...

We don't allow people to self-declare their height. They might be able to get a couple of inches by us here and there... but we pretty much all operate in the same world, by the same rules, and a person who is measurably 5'2" gets laughed at if they claim that they're actually 6'2".

 

[Metaphor]

The exact opposite. It is, therefore I say it.

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

I have never disputed somebody's claimed gender identity (even though obviously they can lie about that if they want to).

I just don't care what their gender identity is. It's like you volunteering your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

 

[Toni]

Suppose you are right: transgender is a delusion. How does that harm you or me? If someone wishes to live as a male who was born female, why should they not? Women have done that for centuries, in fact. Now, they can have surgery and other medical interventions to make their body look the way they feel. Why should they not? Why should a person who is born with the appearance of being male but who feels themselves ti be female not be allowed to have the medical treatment to help them look the way they want to? Why should society not recognize the change? Why shouldn’t the law?

I absolutely share your concerns about violent individuals gaining access to their preferred victim type. This should not be allowed. Regardless of sex or gender identity

To a fair extent, I don't have any problem with transgender people. If someone born male wishes to dress and present in stereotypically female ways, more power to them - they don't even need to identify as trans to do that. Anyone who wants to wear heels and a skirt shoudl feel free to do so.

If adults wish to have surgery to make their bodies look different, they should be free to do so. I'm not overly fond of that being funded by the public, as it is a cosmetic undertaking. But still, adults can do as they wish with their own bodies. I only object to permanent changes being applied to children.

*IF* a person has complete surgical alteration, I don't even really object to them being recognized by law, and being granted to single-sex spaces for the opposite sex. But that *IF* is a really big and important piece of it, and its one that the overwhelming majority of transgender identified males do NOT have. Somewhere around 80% or so of transgender identified males are male-bodied and have no intention of having surgery.

And that's where it gets sticky for me. There's a reason that many services are sex-segregated. Sex is a very real, very meaningful element of our existence. And it's also a source of discrimination faced almost exclusively by females throughout history. And whether it's nice or not, whether it's polite, whether it hurts someone's feelz... it is a fact of existence that males have used their physicality to oppress, subjugate, dominate, and to rape females throughout history. I think it's reasonable to have sex-segregated spaces and services where people are naked or are vulnerable.

I don’t disagree that there should be separation between ANY person who is physically or sexually violent towards whoever the preferred victim set is. There ARE women who sexually abuse children, other women or men. Or anyone they see as vulnerable. There are men who sexually abuse children, women and other men or anyone they see as vulnerable. Of course no one should be allowed access to those they wish to victimize. I think it is unhelpful at best and naive to not recognize that the subset of individuals who feign being trans in order to obtain better access to victims is quite small but still greater than zero and that threats to vulnerable resins are more likely to come from cis individuals.

 

[Politesse]

I just don't care what their gender identity is. It's like you volunteering your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

You have done this over and over and over in this thread. You really think we're stupid enough to forget that?

I'm glad you're ashamed enough about this behavior to lie about it, though.

 

[Emily Lake]

When our first child was born, I was certain that there were no gender differences in how children played, if they were given free choice, no gendered differences in whether or not any given child would prefer to play with say, trucks or dolls. I played with both as a child, for example. Turns out: yes, some kids indeed do choose stereotypical toys and play. Turns out a penis is also a gun and little boys are fascinated with penises: theirs and other people's. Turns out that even if they are raised with no television, no weapons, or books or media about weapons, some children will gravitate to...using their fingers, carrot sticks, celery sticks, and yes, their penis as a 'gun.' I was shocked when our child at barely a year old picked up something and pointed it, saying POW. I still have no idea where he got that idea.

No matter how little you may have emphasized sex and sex-based behavioral expectations to your kids... you didn't raise them on an island in isolation. Other people outside of your home still exert influence, even if it's inadvertent and unconscious.

And even if you don't do... there's an extremely deep-seated tendency in western societies to treat girls and boys differently. They get praised for different things, they get chastised for different things. Even if you yourself didn't, I would be you had friends and relatives who made a point of telling your little girls how pretty they look in their pretty dresses, or how pretty and nice their shoes are, or their hair, etc. Or telling your boys what strong independent boys they are, how smart they are for stating their own opinions and for asking (and expecting) to have their desires satisfied. I bet your girls were praised for such good behavior when they were polite and quiet and kept out of the way, while your boys were rewarded for getting involved and taking part and speaking up.

Even if you, personally, never allowed your kids to watch TV or to listen to the radio, or to read any books... the rest of the world still exists, and it's not possible to completely shelter children from the social trappings of sex-roles.

And... Even with all of that acknowledged... there is a well documented tendency for girls and boys to gravitate toward toys that more closely align with the evolutionary pressures on our sexes. Girls tend to gravitate toward care-giving and organizing games, boys gravitate toward physically expressive and competitive games that frequently involve building and hunting skills. We are, after all, animals. And we're a fairly sexually dimorphic animal at that. Given that female humans have a nine-month gestation period followed by a year or two of breastfeeding, followed by another decade until their offspring reaches sexual maturity and is pretty much able to survive on their own... It should hardly be surprising that we have evolutionarily based behavioral tendencies that divide along the lines of sex. That's not a rule book, but it is a pretty strong guideline.

Ok but my son used to breastfeed his Micky Mouse stuffed toy. And at the same age he also loved matchbox cars, a large dump truck and I allowed my father to give him a ‘cowboy set’ complete with hat, pistols and holster and I believe a long gun. Obviously toys.

This permission to have a toy gun set happened after a couple of years of watching my son use his finger, carrot and celery sticks and yes, his penis as a ‘gun.’ Again, at this point we didn’t have a television and we were living in grad student housing with a lot of pretty….anti-gun people. We lived hundreds of miles from grandparents so my son did not pick up the gun play from my father who loved to hunt.

My favorite toy as a child was a firetruck, followed by tinker toys and Lincoln logs. I did play with dolls but they were characters in elaborate play ( much more compliant than my siblings), not something I cuddled and took care of as a mother does a child. The most girl thing I did was to make clothes for my sister’s Barbie doll. I was frequently told how much like my dad I was and he was the parent I wanted to be like. There were a lot of family dynamics involved, of course.

Like I said - not a rule book, but guidelines. It's a tendency, not a prediction.

I had dolls and stuffed animals, but yeah - I also didn't really do much in the way of "caretaking". But I lived my blocks and lincoln logs and legos and hot wheels. I had barbies, and gi joes. Like I said - tendency, on average.

 

[Metaphor]

I just don't care what their gender identity is. It's like you volunteering your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

You have done this over and over and over in this thread. You really think we're stupid enough to forget that?

I'm glad you're ashamed enough about this behavior to lie about it, though.

You made a false statement about me. You said:

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

I have never said somebody is lying about their gender identity. Not once. Stop your false accusations.

 

[Toni]

No, it wasn't 'known.' It was assumed, based upon whatever testing your mother allowed to be performed. Once you were born, your apparent sex was in agreement with whatever testing was previously performed and there was no need to conduct further examination.

But unless you have had testing to demonstrate that you actually produce motile sperm, you don't KNOW that you do. Unless you have had genetic testing done, you do not KNOW that you have XY chromosomes and not some other configuration.

What you believe to be true about yourself likely comports with observable traits and would likely also agree with any genetic testing you had performed or if you submitted a sample of ejaculate. But you don't KNOW as a fact that this is so. You ASSUME that it is so. Your feelings about your sex and about your sexual orientation are in agreement with your apparent sex. But you do not KNOW as a fact what your karotype is or whether or not you produce sperm or if that sperm is motile.

Have you ever had a blood draw at a doctor's office or a hospital? Guess what they check? They aren't going to do a complete karyotype analysis... but they can very easily and very accurately determine sex from your run-of-the-mill blood test. And they do. Because sex is frequently a factor in medicine. Not "identity", but actual sex.

All of these arguments of "Oh but you don't really really know, you could totally actually be female and not know it" is bullshit. It's also incredibly disrespectful toward people who actually DO have disorders of sexual development. Because those DSD conditions are MEDICAL FUCKING CONDITIONS THAT ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE COMPLICATIONS.

Stop arguing that there might be a teapot orbiting mercury, and that because nobody truly knows for certain wr have to somehow act like a teapot is definitely there. It's bad argument.

Yeah, I’ve had my blood drawn a number of times. But only when there was a gynecological issue did they check hormone levels, etc. there has never been a genetic analysis performed. Or any need to do so.

A standard blood draw will identify type and sex. There's no need to do a genetic work-up to tell one's sex from a blood draw. They may not tell you "oh you're female", because chances are you already know that But you don't need a genetic analysis in order to determine the sex of 99.8% of people. And those remaining 0.2% are likely already aware that they have a DSD.

The point is that arguments about whether or not someone has had an in-depth genetic analysis done are an irrelevancy and a distractions. Anyone who goes to the doctor for any sort of routine check up will already have had their sex noted and known. It's not a mystery. It's standard practice.

And sex is relevant to a LOT of medical treatments outside of purely gynecological (or even reproductive) situations. Sex plays a role in how many medicines work. It plays a role in how well my anti-seizure medicines work, and which migraine meds are most likely to work for me. Because different drugs work differently for each sex.

In fact, we've been running into trouble as a whole society because historically, clinical trials have only included males - doctors didn't want the hormone cycles of women messing up their results. But those hormone cycles are a reality of life for the vast majority of women, and the fact that we get prescribed medicines based on how they worked for men has caused a lot of problems. We've just recently started requiring that clinical tests include a statistically valid sample of both male and female participants.

I am quite aware that sex can affect response to a variety of drug therapies. Sex is noted on exam. Standard blood draws do not include testing for sex.

I’m well aware of how norms were established historically and that there is a strong effort to collect blood samples from a much greater variety of people for the purposes of establishing more representative normative values.

Yes, normative values can differ by age, race and sex.

When blood samples are collected, the type of collection and collection tube containing specific anticoagulants is chosen dependent on what tests are being performed. Some tests are performed on whole blood; some tests are performed only on red blood cells; some performed only on white blood cells. Other tests are performed on serum and some are performed on plasma. Some tests can use multiple sample types.

 

[Toni]

I just don't care what their gender identity is. It's like you volunteering your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

You have done this over and over and over in this thread. You really think we're stupid enough to forget that?

I'm glad you're ashamed enough about this behavior to lie about it, though.

You made a false statement about me. You said:

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

I have never said somebody is lying about their gender identity. Not once. Stop your false accusations.

You have repeatedly implied that trans individuals are basing their claims of identity on ‘thoughts in their heads’ and that ‘thoughts in your head’ do not determine sex.

The unavoidable conclusion is that in your opinion, trans individuals are either lying or delusional because they insist something is true that you believe is impossible to be true.

 

[Emily Lake]

My definition of woman absolutely does NOT exclude menopausal or prepubertal females.

It does if your definition is supposed to be scientific. A scientific definition must be rigorous, in a way that a casual definition need not be.

And your argument re: falsifiability is in error. You want me to include some sort of state-dependent element, which is neither rational nor necessary.

Consider that a table can be defined a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface on which objects may be placed, and that can be used for such purposes as eating, writing, working, or playing games.

That definition is fine for casual use, but it's valueless as a scientific definition.

It's not really necessary to have a scientific definition of what is and is not a table (or, indeed, what is or is not a woman), unless people are making stupidly absolute claims that require such rigour, such as "All furniture is either a table OR a chair, with no furniture being both or neither"; or "There are only two sexes among humans - male and female. No human is any other sex, nor is any human both sexes, nor is any human some in-between sex".

When such a controversial and definitive statement is made, it can only be supported if you have a rigorous scientific definition of what the key words mean. Casual usage and meaning is subjective, so for the claim to be objectively true, an objective definition is absolutely required.

Scientific rigour isn't optional, and cannot be replaced with "common sense", without becoming mere opinion - and likely wrong.

You have expressed your opinion. You are being asked to support it. Instead you're asking for your definition to be corrupted (because it excludes a large population your common sense tells you must be included), and at the same time you're asking for that definition to be considered pristine, even after you messed it up.

Each individual's sex is ultimately determined by the type of gamete around which their reproductive anatomy is arranged. Even people with DSDs have anatomies that are ultimately arranged around the production of sperm or the production of ova... even if they are not able to actually produce those gametes.

A rigorous definition would say something that can be used as a test against any individual. For example:

1) Does this individual produce spermatozoa? If so, they are in the "male" category.
2) Does this individual produce ova? If so they are in the "female" category.

The problem (as you are clearly aware; indeed, you pointed it out yourself) is that this rubric puts most individuals into neither category. That's only a problem if you are adamant that every human must fit into one or the other, but not both; It's a problem of your own making, that derives from your heartfelt beliefs. Those beliefs appear, as a result of the vast number of people who fit neither category, to be false. So you must either be wrong, or change your beliefs, or change your definition.

You propose to do the latter, but you apparently can't do so without introducing some subjective appeal to "common sense". According to the scientific process that you claim to be following, that's a foul play - you need to either find a way to objectively test for membership of "male" and "female" that leads to zero overlap between these categories and zero humans who fall into neither; Or to accept that your argument is subjective and opinionated, and is not a scientific or objective argument at all.

I am more than happy to change my position to one of unreserved support for your claim; All you need do is provide a test or set of tests that divides all humans into two categories without overlap, and that does so without defining as "male" anyone who is in your opinion "obviously female" (eg post menopausal women), or vice-versa.

Instead of attempting to refine your definition to provide such a set of objective testing criteria, you are appealing to "common sense" or "obviousness" or other forms of subjectivity. That makes me strongly suspicious that you in fact have no such definition available, and that therefore your claim that "There are only two sexes among humans - male and female. No human is any other sex, nor is any human both sexes, nor is any human some in-between sex" isn't based on a scientific understanding of human biology at all.

It's just your opinion, and it's false for all objective definitions of which I am aware; You need to either concede that fact, or provide the definition that will change my mind.

Tell you what: You bring me an individual with patchwork anatomy and we can evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. Hell, we can even let them decide for themselves if they want to be categorized as male or female.

At least one medical paper has already been presented in this thread that describes just such an individual.

But all of those extraordinarily rare medical conditions have zero bearing on either the definition of male and female, nor on the development of law and policy that addresses the sexes as separate from one another.

Maybe, maybe not; That's a function of whether you're being scientific and rigorous, or just using your subjective judgment to form those definitions. But they DO render this claim false:

There are only two sexes among humans - male and female. No human is any other sex, nor is any human both sexes, nor is any human some in-between sex.

You are mostly correct in general. Outliers are fairly uncommon. But that's insufficient to render your absolute claim correct in the specific, because you clearly claim that outliers do not exist at all.

Few > Zero, for all non-zero values of Few.

Which is a big problem for your absolute claim.

1) Pluto got demoted from planet, using a well-defined definition, which is not anywhere near as perfectly rigorous as you seem to be demanding.

2) Your definition makes pre-pubertal children sexless, which is obviously and clearly wrong. It also makes infertile adults sexless, which is also obviously and clearly wrong.

3) In humans there are ONLY two sexes. There exists no third sex, nor is any human being an in-between sex. Sex is a function of having evolved as a sexually reproductive species, in which the fusion of two distinctly different gametes is required in order to produce offspring. Humans (all mammals for that matter) have ONLY two gametes - large sessile gametes called eggs and small motile gametes called sperm. There is no third gamete among mammals. That is an absolute statement, and it is the result of how the fuck evolution works.

Not all humans produce viable gametes. The production of viable gametes is NOT a necessary condition for an individual to be classed as one sex or the other. It is a sufficient condition. As you say IF the subject produces ova, THEN the subject is female; IF the subject produces sperm, THEN the subject is male. But this is IF, not IFF. It is a sufficient condition, but it is not a necessary condition. The necessary condition is having, during some point in the post-fetal developmental process, reproductive anatomy associated with the production of one or the other gamete. A subject who has NEVER AT ANY POINT had ANY of the set of uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, and cervix CANNOT be female. A person who has NEVER AT ANY POINT had ANY of the set of testicles, vas deferens, penis, and prostate CANNOT be male.

It's even possible for a person to have some ambiguity in the formation of their reproductive anatomy during development... and that still does not make them something in-between or make them a third sex. Disorders of sexual development are SEX SPEIFIC conditions. Even if it can be difficult to determine, even if it requires looking more deeply than at visible genitals, no mammal is anything other than male or female.

Sex is a reproductive classification, and the definition that I am using is the definition used by evolutionary and reproductive biologists. If you have a problem with the definition used by the actual fucking scientists who actually study this exact thing... take it up with them. Don't try to squash your own arbitrary idea of a "rigorous scientific definition" down my throat.

Additionally, go back and look at the paper you keep appealing to. That paper does NOT in any way support your claim of them being a "patchwork". It was a phenotypically male person, with a male-classified karyotype. That male person had one fertile testis, and had one organ of ovarian tissue. And AFTER having surgically removed that ovarian tissue, the doctors who looked at it said it looked like MAYBE it MIGHT HAVE at some point released an egg.

 

[Emily Lake]

The exact opposite. It is, therefore I say it.

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

I don't care about other people's gender identities. I don't care how they view themselves. They can identify however they wish!

But their gender identity does not negate nor override their sex. Nor do I think that their gender identity ought to impose any obligation on me to pretend that they are not the sex they are. Nor do I think their gender identity should entitle them by law to disregard sex-specific spaces and impose their other sex into my sex's spaces!

This isn't that hard Poli. People can identify however they feel best, but that identity does not override observable reality. A female who identifies as a male is still a female - their identity is irrelevant to the fact of their biology. A male who identifies as a female is still a male, no matter how genuinely and deeply they feel themselves to be female.

 

[Emily Lake]

Suppose you are right: transgender is a delusion. How does that harm you or me? If someone wishes to live as a male who was born female, why should they not? Women have done that for centuries, in fact. Now, they can have surgery and other medical interventions to make their body look the way they feel. Why should they not? Why should a person who is born with the appearance of being male but who feels themselves ti be female not be allowed to have the medical treatment to help them look the way they want to? Why should society not recognize the change? Why shouldn’t the law?

I absolutely share your concerns about violent individuals gaining access to their preferred victim type. This should not be allowed. Regardless of sex or gender identity

To a fair extent, I don't have any problem with transgender people. If someone born male wishes to dress and present in stereotypically female ways, more power to them - they don't even need to identify as trans to do that. Anyone who wants to wear heels and a skirt shoudl feel free to do so.

If adults wish to have surgery to make their bodies look different, they should be free to do so. I'm not overly fond of that being funded by the public, as it is a cosmetic undertaking. But still, adults can do as they wish with their own bodies. I only object to permanent changes being applied to children.

*IF* a person has complete surgical alteration, I don't even really object to them being recognized by law, and being granted to single-sex spaces for the opposite sex. But that *IF* is a really big and important piece of it, and its one that the overwhelming majority of transgender identified males do NOT have. Somewhere around 80% or so of transgender identified males are male-bodied and have no intention of having surgery.

And that's where it gets sticky for me. There's a reason that many services are sex-segregated. Sex is a very real, very meaningful element of our existence. And it's also a source of discrimination faced almost exclusively by females throughout history. And whether it's nice or not, whether it's polite, whether it hurts someone's feelz... it is a fact of existence that males have used their physicality to oppress, subjugate, dominate, and to rape females throughout history. I think it's reasonable to have sex-segregated spaces and services where people are naked or are vulnerable.

I don’t disagree that there should be separation between ANY person who is physically or sexually violent towards whoever the preferred victim set is. There ARE women who sexually abuse children, other women or men. Or anyone they see as vulnerable. There are men who sexually abuse children, women and other men or anyone they see as vulnerable. Of course no one should be allowed access to those they wish to victimize. I think it is unhelpful at best and naive to not recognize that the subset of individuals who feign being trans in order to obtain better access to victims is quite small but still greater than zero and that threats to vulnerable resins are more likely to come from cis individuals.

I posit that there's a higher likelihood of assault by a non-op transgender identified male who demands the right to transgress female sex-specific boundaries than there is from any female using female sex-specific spaces.

I also posit that there's a higher likelihood of assault of males by a male sex-specific spaces than there is from any transgender identified female who demands on transgressing male sex-specific boundaries.

If you have a sure-fire way to tell which males are a risk and which are not, then I will reconsider my stance on sex-specific spaces, and will alter my position to be "bad actor" exclusive.

 

[Emily Lake]

I just don't care what their gender identity is. It's like you volunteering your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

You have done this over and over and over in this thread. You really think we're stupid enough to forget that?

I'm glad you're ashamed enough about this behavior to lie about it, though.

You made a false statement about me. You said:

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

I have never said somebody is lying about their gender identity. Not once. Stop your false accusations.

You have repeatedly implied that trans individuals are basing their claims of identity on ‘thoughts in their heads’ and that ‘thoughts in your head’ do not determine sex.

The unavoidable conclusion is that in your opinion, trans individuals are either lying or delusional because they insist something is true that you believe is impossible to be true.

I challenge your conclusion.

Let's start with a simple question: If a male person identifies as a woman, does that person become transformed into a female?
Let's follow it up with a slightly more complicated question: Is identity, as used in this context, verifiable or observable by a third party? If so, in what ways can it be verified or observed?

I'll also add that if we were to accept your interpretation of Met's position, then we would necessarily have to conclude that you believe that a person's stated gender identity literally transforms them into the opposite sex. I suspect that does not align with your actual view.

 

[Toni]

I just don't care what their gender identity is. It's like you volunteering your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

You have done this over and over and over in this thread. You really think we're stupid enough to forget that?

I'm glad you're ashamed enough about this behavior to lie about it, though.

You made a false statement about me. You said:

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

I have never said somebody is lying about their gender identity. Not once. Stop your false accusations.

You have repeatedly implied that trans individuals are basing their claims of identity on ‘thoughts in their heads’ and that ‘thoughts in your head’ do not determine sex.

The unavoidable conclusion is that in your opinion, trans individuals are either lying or delusional because they insist something is true that you believe is impossible to be true.

I challenge your conclusion.

Let's start with a simple question: If a male person identifies as a woman, does that person become transformed into a female?
Let's follow it up with a slightly more complicated question: Is identity, as used in this context, verifiable or observable by a third party? If so, in what ways can it be verified or observed?

I'll also add that if we were to accept your interpretation of Met's position, then we would necessarily have to conclude that you believe that a person's stated gender identity literally transforms them into the opposite sex. I suspect that does not align with your actual view.

I'm not interested in your challenge. I was discussing Metaphor's statements in this and in other threads.

Your premise is that sex is firmly determined at conception or shortly thereafter. In fact, this is likely not the case and certainly there are exceptions which have been noted throughout history, and found in many cultures, some of which have been far more accepting that traditional western culture.

 

[Metaphor]

I just don't care what their gender identity is. It's like you volunteering your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

You have done this over and over and over in this thread. You really think we're stupid enough to forget that?

I'm glad you're ashamed enough about this behavior to lie about it, though.

You made a false statement about me. You said:

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

I have never said somebody is lying about their gender identity. Not once. Stop your false accusations.

You have repeatedly implied that trans individuals are basing their claims of identity on ‘thoughts in their heads’ and that ‘thoughts in your head’ do not determine sex.''

Correct.

The unavoidable conclusion is that in your opinion, trans individuals are either lying or delusional because they insist something is true that you believe is impossible to be true.

If a biological male believes he is instead a biological female because his gender identity is 'female', then he is delusional, yes. That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him delusional.

If a biological male believes his 'gender identity' of 'female' means he should have access to single-sex spaces designed for females, I would not say that is a lie, it's simply an incoherent and selfish demand.

 

[Metaphor]

I just don't care what their gender identity is. It's like you volunteering your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

You have done this over and over and over in this thread. You really think we're stupid enough to forget that?

I'm glad you're ashamed enough about this behavior to lie about it, though.

You made a false statement about me. You said:

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

I have never said somebody is lying about their gender identity. Not once. Stop your false accusations.

You have repeatedly implied that trans individuals are basing their claims of identity on ‘thoughts in their heads’ and that ‘thoughts in your head’ do not determine sex.

The unavoidable conclusion is that in your opinion, trans individuals are either lying or delusional because they insist something is true that you believe is impossible to be true.

I challenge your conclusion.

Let's start with a simple question: If a male person identifies as a woman, does that person become transformed into a female?
Let's follow it up with a slightly more complicated question: Is identity, as used in this context, verifiable or observable by a third party? If so, in what ways can it be verified or observed?

I'll also add that if we were to accept your interpretation of Met's position, then we would necessarily have to conclude that you believe that a person's stated gender identity literally transforms them into the opposite sex. I suspect that does not align with your actual view.

I'm not interested in your challenge.

I'm interested in your answer to Emily's question.

 

[Toni]

I just don't care what their gender identity is. It's like you volunteering your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

You have done this over and over and over in this thread. You really think we're stupid enough to forget that?

I'm glad you're ashamed enough about this behavior to lie about it, though.

You made a false statement about me. You said:

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

I have never said somebody is lying about their gender identity. Not once. Stop your false accusations.

You have repeatedly implied that trans individuals are basing their claims of identity on ‘thoughts in their heads’ and that ‘thoughts in your head’ do not determine sex.''

Correct.

The unavoidable conclusion is that in your opinion, trans individuals are either lying or delusional because they insist something is true that you believe is impossible to be true.

If a biological male believes he is instead a biological female because his gender identity is 'female', then he is delusional, yes. That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him delusional.

If a biological male believes his 'gender identity' of 'female' means he should have access to single-sex spaces designed for females, I would not say that is a lie, it's simply an incoherent and selfish demand.

So, Politesse did not lie about you.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't identify as 5'2". I AM 5'2".

If one allows that someone who is 5'2" to identify as something other than 5'2", then there is no reason to disallow that someone who is 5'2" to also identify as 5'2".

Sure, sure. Let's allow the 3' tall kid to identify as 5'7" so they can ride the roller coaster...

We don't allow people to self-declare their height. They might be able to get a couple of inches by us here and there... but we pretty much all operate in the same world, by the same rules, and a person who is measurably 5'2" gets laughed at if they claim that they're actually 6'2".

Your reply is non-responsive to my point. Someone who is X and states it, identifies as X. What you identify as your height is your true height. The fact you communicate your height means you identify as it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

An appeal to magic? You say it, therefore it is?

We fellow forum posters have no reason to believe that you are male in any sense; all we know is that you identify as such on this forum.

This is 100% postmodernist philosophical hogwash. And you know it. So stop.

Wtf. No.