The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Metaphor]

Does that include in-utero accidents? Why or why not? Already getting ambiguous, you see.

Well, yes it does include in-utero accidents, though the kind of accident that would destroy the penis but not kill the fetus seems like it must be vanishingly rare.

It is in legal contexts. No legally binding definition of "male " exists. beyond the one "whatever your documents say", which is clearly not a biological definition.

Of course it's a biologically-based definition, because legal sex is what is on a birth certificate, and doctors generally correctly determine sex upon visual inspection at birth and put that on the birth certificate.

 

[Metaphor]

It matters to the women playing sports and the women in toilet and locker rooms all across the world. But, their feelings don't count, I guess.

It's a much-overlooked social norm that women's desires and needs don't count. They are, socially speaking, simply less important than the desires and needs of people with penises.

I'll say one thing. Nobody with a passing knowledge of my posts would call me a feminist. I think patriarchy theory is utterly false and feminism is built on a false foundation. But when I see, repeatedly, the views and comfort of transwomen being regarded as more important than the views and comfort of women, I find in myself some skerrick of being persuaded into accepting some aspects of feminism. But then those views are also consistent with trans activists really regarding transwomen to be women, perhaps even a higher order of women because they've chosen womanhood, and therefore their sympathies naturally lie with transwomen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. A ten year old can't consent to sex, much less to a 'sex change'.

And nobody does a sex change on a 10 year old. At that age all they're going to do is puberty blockers which makes choices easier down the road if they decide to proceed. If they change their mind go off the puberty blockers and it proceeds normally, just delayed.

 

[Metaphor]

It's not at all ambiguous for transgender people. They know their sex. They describe it as the gender they were assigned at birth.

Jesus fucking christ. Just stop. 'Gender assigned at birth' doesn't refer to our sex; it refers the process of making a civic record of us as male or female, and subsequently channelling us into social categories of male or female (boys/ girls, men/women). But I don't have gender assigned at birth chromosomes. My prostate isn't a gender assigned at birth characteristic.

The 'gender assigned at birth' is your sex (barring a handful of intersexed people and clerical mistakes). You were assigned male at birth because you are male.

The 'civic record' of your sex does not channel you into social categories. People do that when they know your sex.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It's not at all ambiguous for transgender people. They know their sex. They describe it as the gender they were assigned at birth.

Jesus fucking christ. Just stop. 'Gender assigned at birth' doesn't refer to our sex; it refers the process of making a civic record of us as male or female, and subsequently channelling us into social categories of male or female (boys/ girls, men/women). But I don't have gender assigned at birth chromosomes. My prostate isn't a gender assigned at birth characteristic.

The 'gender assigned at birth' is your sex (barring a handful of intersexed people and clerical mistakes). You were assigned male at birth because you are male.

The 'civic record' of your sex does not channel you into social categories. People do that when they know your sex.

I swear, any time I think you can't get any sillier, you go and top yourself.

I'm gonna give you a tip about life. Instead of giving a knee jerk reaction to what you assume the other person will say, read what they actually said.

OBVIOUSLY SEX IS THE BASIS FOR MALE /FEMALE DESIGNATIONS AT BIRTH. OB-VI-OUS-LY. The doctor/ nurse/ parent guardian takes the apparent sex of the child, and that's what gets written on the form. And that's why they name some kids Michael and some kids Michelle. That's why they paint some nurseries blue, and some nurseries pink. That isn't being contested. It has fuck all to do with the point being made.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am definitely concerned that acceptance of the idea that male and female brains are 'naturally' or 'innately' different will reinforce those barriers for women. They'll justify the social biases that I, and many other women, are trying so hard to curb.

What if male and female brains are naturally different in several - or many - ways?

If you do not know whether that is the case, then to tie your cause to the rejection of an idea that may well be true is a bad strategy, especially if there is a good chance that science will study the matter.

What if black and white brains are naturally different in several - or many - ways? If you do not know whether that is the case, then to tie your cause to the rejection of an idea that may well be true is a bad strategy, especially if there is a good chance that science will study the matter.

Indeed, that is a pretty bad strategy. Activists keep claiming that it is not the case that there are such differences. Still, that might be a good strategy in the short run, especially if you have the power to impose your views by force and silence doubters. If you also think you can bring about a revolution and get massive benefits quickly enough that you will be able to suppress any research that might prove you wrong in the future, then it might even be a good strategy - as long as the activists do not mind that their strategy is unethical.

But I was talking in general (and in a realistic case for feminism), not that in all possible circumstances, it will be a bad strategy.


Of course, in the case of women, the strategy is probably a lot worse, because it is clear that the differences that between the brains/minds of females and males (see my previous post on that) are much greater than the tiny differences that might - or might not- be between the brains/minds of males of different races, females of different races, etc..

But even then, saying that discrimination is wrong because there is no difference - for example - and making your case on the basis of that is generally a bad long term strategy if you do not know whether that is the case, as scientists might find - eventually, when some might investigate without fear of online bullying and generally devastating social repercussions - that the differences are real (again, unless the activist does not care about acting unethically and has good reasons to think it will be able to suppress evidence against them, and other cases of this sort).

 

[Metaphor]

The 'gender assigned at birth' is your sex (barring a handful of intersexed people and clerical mistakes). You were assigned male at birth because you are male.

The 'civic record' of your sex does not channel you into social categories. People do that when they know your sex.

I swear, any time I think you can't get any sillier, you go and top yourself.

I'm gonna give you a tip about life. Instead of giving a knee jerk reaction to what you assume the other person will say, read what they actually said.

OBVIOUSLY SEX IS THE BASIS FOR MALE /FEMALE DESIGNATIONS AT BIRTH. OB-VI-OUS-LY. The doctor/ nurse/ parent guardian takes the apparent sex of the child, and that's what gets written on the form. And that's why they name some kids Michael and some kids Michelle. That's why they paint some nurseries blue, and some nurseries pink. That isn't being contested. It has fuck all to do with the point being made.

It is your side, and you, who talks about 'gender assigned at birth'. Nobody assigned you a gender. A baby does not have thoughts in their head about gender. Your parents raised you with the knowledge that you were a baby boy. You were treated as a boy. That is not assigning a gender to you. It might influence your gender, sure. But treating people differently according to sex is not assigning a gender.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The 'gender assigned at birth' is your sex (barring a handful of intersexed people and clerical mistakes). You were assigned male at birth because you are male.

The 'civic record' of your sex does not channel you into social categories. People do that when they know your sex.

I swear, any time I think you can't get any sillier, you go and top yourself.

I'm gonna give you a tip about life. Instead of giving a knee jerk reaction to what you assume the other person will say, read what they actually said.

OBVIOUSLY SEX IS THE BASIS FOR MALE /FEMALE DESIGNATIONS AT BIRTH. OB-VI-OUS-LY. The doctor/ nurse/ parent guardian takes the apparent sex of the child, and that's what gets written on the form. And that's why they name some kids Michael and some kids Michelle. That's why they paint some nurseries blue, and some nurseries pink. That isn't being contested. It has fuck all to do with the point being made.

It is your side, and you, who talks about 'gender assigned at birth'. Nobody assigned you a gender. A baby does not have thoughts in their head about gender. Your parents raised you with the knowledge that you were a baby boy. You were treated as a boy. That is not assigning a gender to you. It might influence your gender, sure. But treating people differently according to sex is not assigning a gender.

So you don't know the definition of gender either. Great.

 

[Metaphor]

It is your side, and you, who talks about 'gender assigned at birth'. Nobody assigned you a gender. A baby does not have thoughts in their head about gender. Your parents raised you with the knowledge that you were a baby boy. You were treated as a boy. That is not assigning a gender to you. It might influence your gender, sure. But treating people differently according to sex is not assigning a gender.

So you don't know the definition of gender either. Great.

Gender is a feeling in your head. People treat the sexes differently. People have expectations about your sex-role. But they can't assign you a gender. Treating you differently because of your sex is not assigning you a gender.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It is your side, and you, who talks about 'gender assigned at birth'. Nobody assigned you a gender. A baby does not have thoughts in their head about gender. Your parents raised you with the knowledge that you were a baby boy. You were treated as a boy. That is not assigning a gender to you. It might influence your gender, sure. But treating people differently according to sex is not assigning a gender.

So you don't know the definition of gender either. Great.

Gender is a feeling in your head. People treat the sexes differently. People have expectations about your sex-role. But they can't assign you a gender. Treating you differently because of your sex is not assigning you a gender.

Gender is not a 'feeling in your head'. Perhaps you are thinking of gender identity, which is what is often used to define an individual's gender.

Gender is the concepts related to maleness and femaleness (and by extension, non-binary-ness) distinct from biological characteristics, especially primary and secondary sex characteristics.

From the OED (note, I snipped the salient bit highlighting this particular usage of 'gender'):

Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones;

 

[Emily Lake]

"Actual sex." You mean, "biological" sex and yes we can as in, we are capable of doing so. What you are referring to in your subsequent list is a current status of the art, not a permanent, or insurmountable status. Whatever we may not yet be able to achieve today will soon be something second hand tomorrow as the state of the art of such surgery/modifications improves over time.

...

That too makes unsubstantiated assumptions, such as there is something "inherent" as opposed to merely chemically dependent. The only reason I am male, for example, is because a particular drug triggered a sex change at a particular moment in my fetal development while I was in the womb.

But pointing to a drug and saying, "That is the magic potion that permanently changes lead into gold" is 16th century thinking at best. As is the notion that we constitute anything "inherent" instead of what we actually are; an ever changing bag of chemical reactions.

This really is some wishful thinking here. I mean, maybe at some point in the very, very distant future, we will be able to medically change a person's sex to whatever they feel like being, with all of the attendant physical and genetic components being fully functional. I bet that at some distant unspecified future state, we'll also be able to manipulate our skin so we can have whatever color skin we want - I definitely want to be purple!. We're hopefully about cryogenics and brain transplants too.

But if you're basing your "unsubstantiated assumption" claim on the possible existence of a future techology that might do this thing... that doesn't seem like a sound argument. But sure, I'll appease you and say:

Current medicine cannot actually change a person's sex. It can only change the appearance of their sex. Current medicine cannot give a male-born person functional ovaries that care that person's DNA, nor can it give them functional fallopian tubes or a uterus or a cervix.

Changing the outward appearance of a thing doesn't change its inherent nature, remember? Metaphor has testicles, which serve only one biological purpose; to impregnate women. Therefore, he is biologically heterosexual.

This doesn't even make sense, Koy. It's not even wrong at this point.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'll say one thing. Nobody with a passing knowledge of my posts would call me a feminist. I think patriarchy theory is utterly false and feminism is built on a false foundation. But when I see, repeatedly, the views and comfort of transwomen being regarded as more important than the views and comfort of women, I find in myself some skerrick of being persuaded into accepting some aspects of feminism. But then those views are also consistent with trans activists really regarding transwomen to be women, perhaps even a higher order of women because they've chosen womanhood, and therefore their sympathies naturally lie with transwomen.

There's a bit of nuance involved in my view. "Patriarchy theory" in the caricatured sense of "men are trying to keep us down" is, largely, crap in modern society. But there is a persistent and pernicious gender bias in place. It rests on many factors, but the largest of them, in my view, can be categorized into two items:
1) Socially defined roles and behavioral expectations
2) Inherent institutional structure

Those two overlap as well, but they're broadly clear enough to be worth talking about.

Regarding social roles and behavioral expectations... some of that is evolutionary sex-based roles. Pretty much all mammals exhibit a division of labor along the lines of sex. Some are firmer, some are less stringent, but they're all there. To some extent the needs of reproduction come into it all. But a lot of those roles are legacy residue from a history that was run by men, for men. In particular, there's a pretty strong influence from the judeo-christian-islamic religions that defined how a proper woman was supposed to behave. We've managed to move past actually burning non-conforming women as witches... but there's still a lot of residual in there. Consider the effect of religion on social acceptance of homosexuality... it's a similar dynamic. Some particularly zealous religious areas still stone women to death for being seen in public with her hair exposed.

When it comes to institutional structure, it's not a case of evil old men trying to be meanies to women. It's more a case of the underpinnings and internal workings of our society were, for the most part, designed and built by men for men.And in general, when a particular group creates a system that fits their group very well... it generally doesn't fit other groups particularly well.

So yeah, it's not some shadowy cabal of "patriarchs" wielding scepters of doom over women's heads. It's just a social structure and behavioral expectation that is very slow to evolve to include women. Or even to recognize when women are being disadvantaged at all.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This really is some wishful thinking here.

No, it's just science and how it exponentially increases with time and focus (and profitability).

Current medicine cannot actually change a person's sex.

Still not accurate. Current medicine can significantly change a person's sex; it just cannot yet fully change it, but then, who the fuck determines what is or is not "fully"?

Current medicine

You can stop there, since it's the entirety of your argument.

cannot give a male-born person functional ovaries that care that person's DNA

So?

, nor can it give them functional fallopian tubes or a uterus or a cervix.

Not necessarily in regard to a functioning uterus, but, again, so what? There are thousands of women who have hysterectomies and/or were born without functioning fallopian tubes etc., etc., etc. Biology is not sacrosanct. Nor is it steadystate. We evolved, remember? At one point in our ancestry we were hermaphrodites. At one point, we were asexual. Hell, as zygotes we reproduced through meiosis ffs.

We are not robots built out of immovable, unchangeable materials. We are entirely fungible and can adapt to just about any situation and just about any environment--more so when we discovered we could extend and compound our abilities with "artificial"--aka, "technological"--advances, rather than waiting around for the far slower evolutionary process to effect changes we determined we wanted.

Your position is as anachronistic (and two-dimensional) as arguing that because you have a metal hip, you are no longer human or have now morphed inherently into something other than human.

When we get to the point where we can download consciousness into entirely synthetic machines, will that make us any less human? Of course not, because we don't define ourselves in purely biological terms.

The main reason there are any differences between men and women in regard to such things as physical prowess is more likely due to the fact that until this last one hundred years or so, the men (typically) were the hunters while the women (typically) were the gatherers; the men, therefore, more expendable and requiring different physical abilities and the women, because they gave birth, more protected and needing different physical abilities as well, but we no longer need to break down our tribes into those categories thanks entirely to industrialization/technology.

But in evolutionary terms, this just happened a nano second ago.

Which simply means that evolution--"natural" evolution--is no longer the primary driver for us. We have taken nature off of automatic and put it on manual, but ultimately all that means is a new phase of evolution where such things as biology simply won't have any meaning any more.

Iow, you're clinging to already outdated models that simply won't have any relevance within a few decades, if not sooner.

Changing the outward appearance of a thing doesn't change its inherent nature, remember? Metaphor has testicles, which serve only one biological purpose; to impregnate women. Therefore, he is biologically heterosexual.

This doesn't even make sense, Koy.

To you, evidently, so I'll go through it again. He insists on strict "biological" categorization. Biologically speaking, testicles serve only one purpose--to impregnate females--thus, according to his own (il)logic, if he has testicles, he must therefore be biologically heterosexual.

Get it now? It demonstrates how idiotic is his--and your--position. You are not defined by your biology. He is not defined by his biology. But he insists that transgendered people must be or else the sky will fall. It is an idiotic, two dimensional approach to a far more complicated question.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your position is as anachronistic (and two-dimensional) as arguing that because you have a metal hip, you are no longer human or have now morphed inherently into something other than human.

....

Iow, you're clinging to already outdated models that simply won't have any relevance within a few decades, if not sooner.

..

 

[Emily Lake]

Current medicine can significantly change a person's sex; it just cannot yet fully change it

Please expand on this. In what ways can current medicine significantly change a person's sex? It would be helpful if you also include a brief description of what you consider to be encompassed by the term 'sex' in this context.

 

[Metaphor]

Current medicine can significantly change a person's sex; it just cannot yet fully change it

Please expand on this. In what ways can current medicine significantly change a person's sex? It would be helpful if you also include a brief description of what you consider to be encompassed by the term 'sex' in this context.

Current medicine cannot change a person's sex. A man getting surgically fashioning his penis and testes into a pseudovagina does not change his sex. A woman aping the internal chemistry of a man with synthetic hormones and growing facial hair does not change her sex. Vocal coaching to turn your baritone-bass into a high tenor does not change your sex. None of it changes your sex.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

..

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Current medicine can significantly change a person's sex; it just cannot yet fully change it

Please expand on this. In what ways can current medicine significantly change a person's sex? It would be helpful if you also include a brief description of what you consider to be encompassed by the term 'sex' in this context.

Current medicine cannot change a person's sex.

Already covered. Try to keep up.

 

[Metaphor]

Current medicine cannot change a person's sex.

Already covered. Try to keep up.

Koy, you have proven yourself incapable of responding thoughtfully. You shouldn't try to keep up. You should give up.

 

[Jarhyn]

Current medicine can significantly change a person's sex; it just cannot yet fully change it

Please expand on this. In what ways can current medicine significantly change a person's sex? It would be helpful if you also include a brief description of what you consider to be encompassed by the term 'sex' in this context.

Current medicine cannot change a person's sex. A man getting surgically fashioning his penis and testes into a pseudovagina does not change his sex. A woman aping the internal chemistry of a man with synthetic hormones and growing facial hair does not change her sex. Vocal coaching to turn your baritone-bass into a high tenor does not change your sex. None of it changes your sex.

The genitals are the least part of sex. You are trying to derive roles, capabilities, expectations, limitations, social position and decision making on the basis of a part that makes no actual decisions, does no actual thinking.

You say here that a person having all the internal chemistry of "a man" does not make "her" a "man". Yeah, the part between people's legs grows into something different depending on who you are, and that's part of how human reproduction works.

If for whatever reason (mutilation, mutation, infection, whatever), a person has no gonads by the time they hit puberty, and they have an estrogen puberty: are they a boy or a girl? I mean, my mom didn't stop being a woman when they scooped her baby factory due to cancer.

Current medicine can absolutely CHANGE someone's sex, if "sex" is genitals. It won't exactly make you 'perfect', but it'll give you a hole or a pole with the all the features you want short of baby making. NOTHING short of (likely very unethical) brain surgery of the far future can change a person's "sex", if it is as I imagine and more to do with the shape of the brain.

What is certain is that specific parts of sex come to arise as a result of hormone exposure during puberty, and certain parts of sex arise from a hormone (and other chemical) exposure in utero and certain parts of sex come from society and the ways our sexed brains interact with society.

You, on the other hand, have a genital fixation; your fixation is such that only being born with a specific genital will sufficiently qualify some person as "he/him/man/male". That's all that matters to you. Thus, "fixation".