The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[laughing dog]

If it is the case that I have to believe obvious falsehoods--such as that trans women are women--to not be transphobic, then I'm afraid that I am forced to take the rational and transphobic position.

But transwomen are women, they are simply not women who were born biologically female.

I can't make myself believe obvious falsehoods.

You have argued that people cannot will their beliefs, so that is not a surprising claim, since you also cannot make yourself believe obvious truths as well.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Michael Steven Smith: I absolutely hate the name Mike and prefer my middle name, so I go by Steve or Steven.
You: WTF!! You have no right to make me call you Steve! Your name is Mike and I'm going to call you Mike until 4EVER!! Its facts - it's right there on your birth certificate -BOOM!

What a strange imagination you have.

Thank you.

I have a friend whose parents are from Sri Lanka. He has a first name on his birth certificate and all relevant documents, but I call him by his (non-Anglo) middle name, which he prefers and has told me is common in Sri Lanka.

But you would draw the line if he asked you to call him "she/her/female"?

But also, I've known people who have changed their names by deed poll. You can certainly change your individual name. The laws of biology don't prevent changing your name.

You can't change your sex, though.

Yes, you physically can through an operation. Those who don't are letting you know their preferences.

No one is taking any 'rights' from anyone...including the right to be an asshole.

aa

Of course they are. Women currently have (or had) the right to a sex-segregated intimate space (toilets and changing rooms) that they have lost (in some cases).

I don't know that that's true. I feel as though a large majority of public spaces have family or single occupant restrooms and changing stations. And the right is to privacy, not the right to a 'sex segregated intimate space'. I know that this flood of males in female bathrooms was touted as the biggest and worst possible consequence of transgender recognition, but has it really emerged as that?

aa

 

[Metaphor]

But transwomen are women, they are simply not women who were born biologically female.

To believe that requires that the word woman change its meaning, from adult human female (which trans women can never be) to something else.

So: I've given you a definition of 'woman' that precludes trans women from being women. My definition is also the actual definition.

What definition of 'woman' do you propose?

You have argued that people cannot will their beliefs, so that is not a surprising claim, since you also cannot make yourself believe obvious truths as well.

The fact that you cannot will what you believe is true and it's sad that you can't understand this. But, which obvious truths do I not believe?

 

[Metaphor]

But you would draw the line if he asked you to call him "she/her/female"?

I could never call him 'female'. He is not female and he can never be female, because he is male. I would also not call him a deer, even if he thought he was one and wanted me to call him by his otherkin name. I would also not call him white, since he can't change his genetic ancestry.

Now, as for pronouns, I don't call people by pronouns when I'm talking to them, but whether I used she/her outside his presence depends on the context. I am willing to accept that she/her could be applied to gender identity rather than sex, and in that case I don't think I'd have a particular problem with it. But I also already refer to some men with 'she' (e.g. the men on Drag Race), because they do it with each other and it comes naturally in that context. But most of the men on drag race are not trans women. They're gay men who dress in drag.

Yes, you physically can through an operation. Those who don't are letting you know their preferences.

...no. Plastic surgery does not change your sex. It can fashion a cock and balls into a pseudovagina, but it can't change the XY cells that make up that pseudovagina. You could remove the uterus from a woman, but she is still a woman. She does not become a man. You can take hormones for the rest of your life so that your internal chemistry more closely matches that of the other sex, but you do not become the other sex.

I don't know that that's true. I feel as though a large majority of public spaces have family or single occupant restrooms and changing stations. And the right is to privacy, not the right to a 'sex segregated intimate space'. I know that this flood of males in female bathrooms was touted as the biggest and worst possible consequence of transgender recognition, but has it really emerged as that?

A large majority? I don't know where you live, but shopping centres and places of work in Australia have sex-segregated toilets everywhere (and also 'family rooms' that used to be insultingly branded 'mothers rooms').

There are women who don't want biological males in their toilets. You can say they don't have the right to feel that way, but you cannot seriously deny that trans people using the toilet of the gender they identify with leads to biological males in women's toilets.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Abstract

Context: We report herein a remarkable family in which the mother of a woman with 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis was found to have a 46,XY karyotype in peripheral lymphocytes, mosaicism in cultured skin fibroblasts (80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X) and a predominantly 46,XY karyotype in the ovary (93% 46,XY and 6% 45,X).

Patients: A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

Results: Evaluation of the Y chromosome in the daughter and both parents revealed that the daughter inherited her Y chromosome from her father. Molecular analysis of the genes SOX9, SF1, DMRT1, DMRT3, TSPYL, BPESC1, DHH, WNT4, SRY, and DAX1 revealed normal male coding sequences in both the mother and daughter. An extensive family pedigree across four generations revealed multiple other family members with ambiguous genitalia and infertility in both phenotypic males and females, and the mode of inheritance of the phenotype was strongly suggestive of X-linkage.

Conclusions: The range of phenotypes observed in this unique family suggests that there may be transmission of a mutation in a novel sex-determining gene or in a gene that predisposes to chromosomal mosaicism.

Normal sexual differentiation in 46,XY individuals relies on a complex cascade of numerous genes, many of which have yet to be identified (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11). Defects in these genes can cause disorders of sexual development of varying severity. The external genitalia and Müllerian structures are typically female in women with complete 46,XY gonadal dysgenesis in association with streak gonads bilaterally. Because the gonads are dysgenetic and nonfunctional, spontaneous pubertal development seldom occurs in these women (12), and successful pregnancy is even more unusual; unassisted pregnancy is unheard of (1). There have been a few instances of fertility in 46,XX/46,XY true hermaphrodites (13), but no reports of fertility in a 46,XY woman. Pregnancy in Turner syndrome is reported to be possible in about 2% of cases, although it is rare for unassisted pregnancy to occur in nonmosaic Turner patients possessing only a 45,X line (14).

Herein we report the extraordinary case of a fertile woman with normal ovaries and a predominantly 46,XY ovarian karyotype, who gave birth to a 46,XY female with complete gonadal dysgenesis. The karyotype of this phenotypically normal mother was 46,XY in blood, 80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X in cultured skin fibroblasts, and 93% 46,XY, 6% 45,X, and <1% 46,XX in the ovary. The family pedigree on the mother’s side was notable for the presence of seven individuals over four generations with either sexual ambiguity, infertility, or failure to menstruate, including one individual with documented 45,X/45,XY mixed gonadal dysgenesis. Both the mother and the 46,XY daughter were screened for mutations in a number of genes known to be involved in mammalian testis determination. In all genes screened (see below), the open reading frame was found to be normal. This suggests that a mutation in a novel sex-determination gene or a gene that predisposes to chromosomal mosaicism may be responsible for the phenotype in this family.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

 

[laughing dog]

But transwomen are women, they are simply not women who were born biologically female.

To believe that requires that the word woman change its meaning, from adult human female (which trans women can never be) to something else.

So: I've given you a definition of 'woman' that precludes trans women from being women. My definition is also the actual definition.

There is "the actual definition". I am not playing pointless pedantry games with you.

The fact that you cannot will what you believe is true and it's sad that you can't understand this.

It is even sadder you have no idea what a fact is if you think that is a fact.

But, which obvious truths do I not believe?

I said "since you also cannot make yourself believe obvious truths as well. ". Unless you are now arguing that you can make yourself believe an obvious truth, your question is based on a straw man.

 

[Metaphor]

Abstract

Context: We report herein a remarkable family in which the mother of a woman with 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis was found to have a 46,XY karyotype in peripheral lymphocytes, mosaicism in cultured skin fibroblasts (80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X) and a predominantly 46,XY karyotype in the ovary (93% 46,XY and 6% 45,X).

Patients: A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

Results: Evaluation of the Y chromosome in the daughter and both parents revealed that the daughter inherited her Y chromosome from her father. Molecular analysis of the genes SOX9, SF1, DMRT1, DMRT3, TSPYL, BPESC1, DHH, WNT4, SRY, and DAX1 revealed normal male coding sequences in both the mother and daughter. An extensive family pedigree across four generations revealed multiple other family members with ambiguous genitalia and infertility in both phenotypic males and females, and the mode of inheritance of the phenotype was strongly suggestive of X-linkage.

Conclusions: The range of phenotypes observed in this unique family suggests that there may be transmission of a mutation in a novel sex-determining gene or in a gene that predisposes to chromosomal mosaicism.

Normal sexual differentiation in 46,XY individuals relies on a complex cascade of numerous genes, many of which have yet to be identified (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11). Defects in these genes can cause disorders of sexual development of varying severity. The external genitalia and Müllerian structures are typically female in women with complete 46,XY gonadal dysgenesis in association with streak gonads bilaterally. Because the gonads are dysgenetic and nonfunctional, spontaneous pubertal development seldom occurs in these women (12), and successful pregnancy is even more unusual; unassisted pregnancy is unheard of (1). There have been a few instances of fertility in 46,XX/46,XY true hermaphrodites (13), but no reports of fertility in a 46,XY woman. Pregnancy in Turner syndrome is reported to be possible in about 2% of cases, although it is rare for unassisted pregnancy to occur in nonmosaic Turner patients possessing only a 45,X line (14).

Herein we report the extraordinary case of a fertile woman with normal ovaries and a predominantly 46,XY ovarian karyotype, who gave birth to a 46,XY female with complete gonadal dysgenesis. The karyotype of this phenotypically normal mother was 46,XY in blood, 80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X in cultured skin fibroblasts, and 93% 46,XY, 6% 45,X, and <1% 46,XX in the ovary. The family pedigree on the mother’s side was notable for the presence of seven individuals over four generations with either sexual ambiguity, infertility, or failure to menstruate, including one individual with documented 45,X/45,XY mixed gonadal dysgenesis. Both the mother and the 46,XY daughter were screened for mutations in a number of genes known to be involved in mammalian testis determination. In all genes screened (see below), the open reading frame was found to be normal. This suggests that a mutation in a novel sex-determination gene or a gene that predisposes to chromosomal mosaicism may be responsible for the phenotype in this family.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

Intersex conditions exist. So?

Intersex conditions do not mean a human male can become female.

Some frogs can change sex. Humans are not frogs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I don’t know what cosplay is.

Cosplay is a contraction of costume play. The most common form is dressing up as favorite characters, mostly commonly from comics but it can be from other sources and sometimes no source at all, just something they came up with.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So?

People in the thread are saying biological sex is binary. The paper clearly shows it isn't, shows multiple factors within a spectrum some of which are even unknown causing it to be non-binary. We are born somewhere in a spectrum--we don't understand all the variables--it can change later in life--but people want us to be stuck with a legal assignment in such binary class of choices. If you want to invoke biology, then at a minimum we should have 3 categories upon birth, likely more though.

Intersex conditions do not mean a human male can become female.

What you are calling "a human male" may not have been a completely 100% genotypic and phenotypic male but instead a person forced into that label since it is clear that forcing a binary label is what happens in our society. It might also very well be some person with a psychological problem. How the fuck would I know?!

I am not some arrogant fucker to presume one way or another or to force people into shit like the Reich wing. Therefore, the best policy is one of self-determination with caveats and enhancements as much as we currently understand guiding the choices and mitigating problems of wrong choices.

Also, and this is crucial--WE ARE ALREADY FORCING INTERSEX PEOPLE INTO YOUR BINARY LABELS. For some reason, you are okay with it.

 

[Metaphor]

So?

People in the thread are saying biological sex is binary. The paper clearly shows it isn't, shows multiple factors within a spectrum some of which are even unknown causing it to be non-binary. We are born somewhere in a spectrum--we don't understand all the variables--it can change later in life--but people want us to be stuck with a legal assignment in such binary class of choices. If you want to invoke biology, then at a minimum we should have 3 categories upon birth, likely more though.

Intersex conditions do not mean a human male can become female.

What you are calling "a human male" may not have been a completely 100% genotypic and phenotypic male but instead a person forced into that label since it is clear that forcing a binary label is what happens in our society. It might also very well be some person with a psychological problem. How the fuck would I know?!

I am not some arrogant fucker to presume one way or another or to force people into shit like the Reich wing. Therefore, the best policy is one of self-determination with caveats and enhancements as much as we currently understand guiding the choices and mitigating problems of wrong choices.

Also, and this is crucial--WE ARE ALREADY FORCING INTERSEX PEOPLE INTO YOUR BINARY LABELS. For some reason, you are okay with it.

Actually, I'm not. If somebody is born with an intersex condition, I don't see a problem with putting X on their birth certificate.

But vanishingly rare intersex conditions do not make sex not binary, nor do they mean humans can change their sex.

Also, intersex conditions have zilch to do with transgender issues. The vast majority of trans identified people do not and never have had, intersex conditions.

 

[Metaphor]

People in the thread are saying biological sex is binary. The paper clearly shows it isn't, shows multiple factors within a spectrum some of which are even unknown causing it to be non-binary. We are born somewhere in a spectrum--we don't understand all the variables--it can change later in life--but people want us to be stuck with a legal assignment in such binary class of choices. If you want to invoke biology, then at a minimum we should have 3 categories upon birth, likely more though.



What you are calling "a human male" may not have been a completely 100% genotypic and phenotypic male but instead a person forced into that label since it is clear that forcing a binary label is what happens in our society. It might also very well be some person with a psychological problem. How the fuck would I know?!

I am not some arrogant fucker to presume one way or another or to force people into shit like the Reich wing. Therefore, the best policy is one of self-determination with caveats and enhancements as much as we currently understand guiding the choices and mitigating problems of wrong choices.

Also, and this is crucial--WE ARE ALREADY FORCING INTERSEX PEOPLE INTO YOUR BINARY LABELS. For some reason, you are okay with it.

Actually, I'm not. If somebody is born with an intersex condition, I don't see a problem with putting X on their birth certificate.

But vanishingly rare intersex conditions do not make sex not binary, nor do they mean humans can change their sex. Lions and tigers producing fertile offspring does not mean lions and tigers are not different species.

Also, intersex conditions have zilch to do with transgender issues. The vast majority of trans identified people do not and never have had, intersex conditions.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

but when i hear the argument or the assertion that a trans woman isn't a "trans woman" but is instead just "a woman" i consider that to be a bridge too far.

'Trans women are women' is a primarily rhetorical statement indicating the essential element for social and civic considerations is identity, especially in consideration of transgender identities being persistent, involuntary, most likely immutable, and typically resulting in significantly harmful dysphoria. As people polarize in certain circles (e.g. twitter), statements become more entrenched, but at heart this isn't a statement that trans women have ovaries, let's say. It's just, honestly, it feels a great deal like current social discourse doesn't let anyone give so much as a millimetre let alone an inch.


When people in every day life saw 'man' or 'woman' they are using ordinary layperson terminology, not scientific language. While that doesn't mean that ordinary usage must exclude definitional elements like chromosomes or genitals, it does mean exceptions can be recognized because ultimately we are talking about social convention and civic categorization. The question is not whether we can make exceptions to customary definitions--we indisputably have that power as a society--, but whether we should. If we do, what are we doing? The answer is not some denial of biology (biology which we never actually confirm for ordinary usage). The answer is merely that we are recognizing the significance of gender identity and its relationship to social and civic life.

but this thread itself is referencing a strain of the trans movement that acts like you're not allowed to acknowledge women's issues unless you explicitly include trans people, and addressing one group's struggles without linking it to the other group is seen as some kind of slight, and that is very weird and nonsensical to me.

How do you figure? The article Rowling responded to was literally about people who menstruate. This means a subset of cisgender and transgender people alike. The unifying characteristics was menstruation. Rowling took that and made the issue about women because heaven forbid an author chooses to be inclusive of trans identities. The menstruation article somehow necessitates or implies a statement that sex isn't real (or perhaps that just gets dragged in from elsewhere), and that this amounts to erasure of not only women's lived experiences, but negates homosexuality (I am referring to her subsequent tweets).


What started out as an article about challenges surrounding menstruation, in Rowling's hands, became the subject of transgender people erasing women's lived experiences and homosexuality (and ultimately her husband abusing her).

What I am getting at is these sorts of hijacks and derails aren't an issue of the 'trans movement'. It's just people in general.

ever seen pictures of when fans go to a comic book convention and dress up like their favorite comic book or TV show character? very broadly, that's cosplay... dressing up like something you're not and pretending to be it.

and the thing about cosplaying is that without a crowd around you all agreeing with what you're doing, you're just dressing very strangely and behaving very strangely and perhaps roleplaying in a manner that is completely bizarre and eccentric.
cosplaying is self expression that only works in the context of everyone else playing along. much like furries. much like (imo) trans people.

No, transition and gender expression are not like cosplay or furries. It's not a costume or a make-believe game, or... well, I don't know exactly what descriptors to apply to furries as that's a highly varied group. Its value isn't defined by others playing along. It's very often about reducing dysphoria to the best of our ability, especially where medical interventions are concerned. But we are social creatures. Gender expression, is often about expressing elements of our identity (as the term itself indicates). While it is highly variable and subject to many personal preferences and considerations, social gender norms do tend to play a part.


In transition, I was not asking any person to 'play along'. If someone sees me in a dress*, I am not asking them to hold a particular belief. Like, I don't expect my brother to walk up to me and say, "Nice XX chromosomes *nudge nudge wink wink*" knowing they are XY. I'm hoping he'll say, "I get how the way you present yourself relates to your gender identity, and through my actions--as appropriate--I will recognize the importance of that highly significant facet of your identity and experience." I mean, not literally say it out loud because that would be weird. He's not 'playing along' to refer to me as his sister, and I'm not pretending by presenting as female. Neither of us are indulging in falsehoods or subject to delusions. None of the medical steps in transition were ever presented to me or interpreted by me as being materially different than they actually were. None of the legal or social aspects of transition were ever pawned off as more than they are.


When I walk down the street and someone refers to me as ‘miss’ or ‘ma’am’, perhaps they understand I am trans and they recognize that gender identity is important and act accordingly. Perhaps they perceive me as a cisgender woman. In neither case am I presenting a falsehood or deception or costume or role play. I am, to the best of my ability, reconciling physical, social and legal facets of expression and identity to create some measure of harmony with the thing I can least change yet is most impactful to my sense of self: my brain.




*an example and in no way a statement on what transition or female expression mean

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... vanishingly rare intersex conditions do not make sex not binary...

No, sexual ambiguity, intersex, multiple genomic variables contributing to the non-binariness of biological sex make it non-binary and not completely understood.

... intersex conditions have zilch to do with transgender issues. ...

And yet people keep bringing up biology when discussing their authoritarian anti-trans political opinions.

Why is that?

It appears to be the case that anti-trans activists want to force this binary dichotomy and forced original labeling by others onto a free individual. If a person says, "there is something inside me that you don't know that makes me feel female [or if discussing gender a woman]," you want to be able to say, "your legal assignment by some other person makes you a male and so too bad." Or you want to say gender is crap, only biology matters--but you have to make biology binary to control people best, don't you?

Not me. It's not my fucking business until someone like you comes along, trying to force others and discriminate against them. That's just bullshit.

 

[Metaphor]

No, sexual ambiguity, intersex, multiple genomic variables contributing to the non-binariness of biological sex make it non-binary and not completely understood.

No. Sex in humans is binary. Intersex conditions don't change that, just as lions and tigers producing fertile offspring does not change the fact that they are different species to each other. Species might be fuzzy around the edges but it does not mean there is no such thing as species.

And yet people keep bringing up biology when discussing their authoritarian anti-trans political opinions.

Non. It is trans activists who are authoritarian. Trans activists want to wield the power of the State to force people to adopt their religion.

It appears to be the case that anti-trans activists want to force this binary dichotomy and forced original labeling by others onto a free individual. If a person says, "there is something inside me that you don't know that makes me feel female [or if discussing gender a woman]," you want to be able to say, "your legal assignment by some other person makes you a male and so too bad." Or you want to say gender is crap, only biology matters--but you have to make biology binary to control people best, don't you?

I didn't make sex binary to control people. Nature made sex binary.

Somebody's feelings are their feelings and I have no wish to control their feelings. But just as Rachel Dolezal isn't black, trans women are not women or female.

Don2, what is a woman?

Not me. It's not my fucking business until someone like you comes along, trying to force others and discriminate against them. That's just bullshit.

What have I tried to force on others?

 

[repoman]

No. Sex in humans is binary. Intersex conditions don't change that, just as lions and tigers producing fertile offspring does not change the fact that they are different species to each other. Species might be fuzzy around the edges but it does not mean there is no such thing as species.



Non. It is trans activists who are authoritarian. Trans activists want to wield the power of the State to force people to adopt their religion.

It appears to be the case that anti-trans activists want to force this binary dichotomy and forced original labeling by others onto a free individual. If a person says, "there is something inside me that you don't know that makes me feel female [or if discussing gender a woman]," you want to be able to say, "your legal assignment by some other person makes you a male and so too bad." Or you want to say gender is crap, only biology matters--but you have to make biology binary to control people best, don't you?

I didn't make sex binary to control people. Nature made sex binary.

Somebody's feelings are their feelings and I have no wish to control their feelings. But just as Rachel Dolezal isn't black, trans women are not women or female.

Don2, what is a woman?

Not me. It's not my fucking business until someone like you comes along, trying to force others and discriminate against them. That's just bullshit.

What have I tried to force on others?

Power of the friendly pinkwashing Human Resource-ocracy to enforce permanent blackball status for having opinions like yours.

 

[ZiprHead]

There's a big part of me that thinks Metaphor would still want to call kids with Downs Syndrome retards.

 

[Metaphor]

There's a big part of me that thinks Metaphor would still want to call kids with Downs Syndrome retards.

So, there's a big part of you that feels like making baseless assertions against people who don't believe in your religion?

 

[prideandfall]

And yet people keep bringing up biology when discussing their authoritarian anti-trans political opinions.

Why is that?

if i may... it's because pro-trans people keep trying to deny biology, because for some reason this ideological point is a hill they seem to want to die on for reasons that make no sense to me except in the context of being part of a mass delusion.
it reminds me a lot of how pro-choice people get lost in the weeds when arguing with forced-birthers about 'when life begins' - that just forces the conversation into an off-tangent about something unrelated where there is no possibility of winning the argument, and so it's a complete waste of time.

the argument shouldn't be about when life begins as a marker for when it's OK to end it, the argument should be that it's OK to end a life in this circumstance.
likewise, the argument shouldn't be about whether a cis-male performing whatever steps they deem viable to pretend to be a cis-female makes them magically become in actuality a cis-female - the argument should be about whether a cis-male pretending to be a cis-female is something we're all going to smile and nod along with, since it seems to make them feel better and doesn't require any real effort or sacrifice from the rest of us so fuck it why not.

trying to make the argument about whether or not a trans person is a cis person of the gender they wish they were is an ideological dead end, unsupported by sound reasoning or science or history or reality.
making the argument that a trans person should be treated with equality, respect, dignity, and as the gender they wish to see themselves as while out in public is not only reasonable but the moral duty of the rest of society to oblige to.

It appears to be the case that anti-trans activists want to force this binary dichotomy and forced original labeling by others onto a free individual. If a person says, "there is something inside me that you don't know that makes me feel female [or if discussing gender a woman]," you want to be able to say, "your legal assignment by some other person makes you a male and so too bad." Or you want to say gender is crap, only biology matters--but you have to make biology binary to control people best, don't you?

i know it's flippant, but i can't help but hear the bit from life of brian in my head whenever someone says something like this.
"why do you want to be a woman, stan?"
"i want to have babies"
"you want to have babies!?"
"it's my right as a man!"
"but you can't"
"don't you oppress me!"
"i'm not oppressing you stan, you haven't got a womb... where's the fetus gonna gestate, you gonna keep it in a box?"

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I could never call him 'female'. He is not female and he can never be female, because he is male. I would also not call him a deer, even if he thought he was one and wanted me to call him by his otherkin name. I would also not call him white, since he can't change his genetic ancestry.

Yes, this proves the point. You 'prefer' to call him according to your norms and definitions not hers. If she asks you to refer to her as female - there is no 'rights' removed if you don't, but she can also refer to you as an asshole without recourse, and you demanding that she insist she is a male is kind of the same as you demanding that Steve uses his first name.

Now, as for pronouns, I don't call people by pronouns when I'm talking to them, but whether I used she/her outside his presence depends on the context. I am willing to accept that she/her could be applied to gender identity rather than sex, and in that case I don't think I'd have a particular problem with it. But I also already refer to some men with 'she' (e.g. the men on Drag Race), because they do it with each other and it comes naturally in that context. But most of the men on drag race are not trans women. They're gay men who dress in drag.

Mostly in the context of you speaking with multiple people in the presence of a transgendered person of whom you are referring. (ie. introducing her to a friend and saying "she doesn't like being referred to as he").

...no. Plastic surgery does not change your sex. It can fashion a cock and balls into a pseudovagina, but it can't change the XY cells that make up that pseudovagina. You could remove the uterus from a woman, but she is still a woman. She does not become a man. You can take hormones for the rest of your life so that your internal chemistry more closely matches that of the other sex, but you do not become the other sex.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...are you saying that someone will go through all the trouble of gender reassignment and hormone treatment, but you won't recognize a "male" with all the parts and facial hair without a genetic test to determine if they actually have a Y chromosome?

A large majority? I don't know where you live, but shopping centres and places of work in Australia have sex-segregated toilets everywhere (and also 'family rooms' that used to be insultingly branded 'mothers rooms').

There are women who don't want biological males in their toilets. You can say they don't have the right to feel that way, but you cannot seriously deny that trans people using the toilet of the gender they identify with leads to biological males in women's toilets.

And is that a real problem in Australia, or a perceived one?

aa

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No. Sex in humans is binary. Intersex conditions don't change that, just as lions and tigers producing fertile offspring does not change the fact that they are different species to each other. Species might be fuzzy around the edges but it does not mean there is no such thing as species.

What a terrible analogy and point you just made. Your conclusion is "it does not mean there is no such thing as species," is analogous to me saying "there is no such thing as biological sex," which is a thing I didn't say. What I said is that it's a spectrum because of a host of things which comprise it which are themselves spectra with measurements in percents and observable qualities that vary needing specialists to determine.

This is somewhat overboard, but the point can still be illustrated nonetheless by imagining a world where you are labeled "light" or "dark" upon birth. No, I am not arguing there is no such thing as color. What I argue is that color is a spectrum. Sure the vast majority of people could hypothetically be considered close to light and close to dark on some color spectrum that we could hypothetically make up in that way. And we could have a color specialist come in and measure the darkness and lightness of an individual at their birth, too. However, as a person ages and gets sunlight, their skin tone may change. And additionally, of course, there is huge middle ground with an arbitrary cut off in the middle. Likewise, the terms themselves are not only about skin tone, but maybe hair color, and eye color and some other characteristics as well.

So it is with biological sex. There is a spectrum, but we don't even know all the influencing genetic factors that go into the biological sex thing we are calling it.

Clearly, though, as the science paper I linked shows, merely using genitalia isn't enough and also is quite ambiguous for some part of the population, just like some bronze-colored people may be hard to call light or dark on a lightness/darkness spectrum. In no way would it be an accurate portrayal to say I am claiming there is no such thing as color, no such thing as dark, or no such thing as light, merely that it's a spectrum, but MOREOVER, that people who keep appealing to biology as if biology claims it's binary are FULL OF SHIT.