This week in trans: The Lancet, the ACLU, the Guardian

[Jarhyn]

and you are inserting the context of "procreation" where it has not been invited.

Uh, why do you think there are males and females? Without procreation, we wouldn't be having this debate.

No, without idiots bringing in irrelevant contexts we would not be having this debate.

You seem to think procreation is important directly to the context of how to treat a waiter you will never see again let alone fuck, and 99.99% of even all the fucking done every day by every person doing the actual fucking isn't attempting to procreate.

Procreation is not even contextual to actual sex most of the time, except in the particulars of how to avoid it most times.

It's most certainly not relevant here

 

[Ahab]

Not to mention that Emily is begging the question by saying only women have menses... She'd have to take that up with my husband, who has menstruated a few times. And probably also with that one guy who was "peeing blood" from the penis... Which turned out to be menses from his ovaries and incomplete uterus.

Your husband is a woman who lives as a man. Your husband has ovaries and a uterus. The male-appearing person with a deleterious disorder had ovaries and a uterus. And while they may not have conformed to the normal phenology of a female, they were in fact an adult human female.

Why do you struggle with this concept so much? My son is NOT a 'girl living as a boy'. My son is my son regardless of what 'body parts' he possesses or doesn't possess.

One doesn't possess body parts in the way that one possess the coin in her pants pocket. Humans are bodies. Human bodies are sexually dimorphic. If your son's sex is not male then he is a young female living as a boy. Nothing wrong with that at all. Nothing wrong with calling him your son. What is wrong is to pretend that his sex has really changed. Changing one's gender does not change one's sex.

 

[Ahab]

You're on the wrong track now. There is no "normal" collective name now so I would have to answer this as "person".

Yes in fact there is.
It's woman.

There's a tiny fraction of people that don't fit the normative sexual categories, male and female. But yeah, there is a normal.

Even if it's politically incorrect to point out this basic truth, there is a normal. Somebody who's "husband" menstruates doesn't change that.
Tom

If one means 'average, typical, or commonplace' then really nothing is wrong with the usage of 'normal'.

However, far too many people stuck in a binary world, are really intending 'traditional, standard, or natural', when they use this word, implying something is wrong with 'those others' that aren't in the normative bucket.

Human sexuality, physically and mentally, is far closer to 50 shades of grey than their black and white projections and fears...and such binary people seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that our society has grown a little more caring and respectful of our human differences; and that these differences are ok.

One can be respectful of other's rights to take on the gender roles they feel most comfortable with without denying biological reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why do you struggle with this concept so much? My son is NOT a 'girl living as a boy'. My son is my son regardless of what 'body parts' he possesses or doesn't possess.

One doesn't possess body parts in the way that one possess the coin in her pants pocket. Humans are bodies. Human bodies are sexually dimorphic. If your son's sex is not male then he is a young female living as a boy. Nothing wrong with that at all. Nothing wrong with calling him your son. What is wrong is to pretend that his sex has really changed. Changing one's gender does not change one's sex.

And now we are getting back to the part of the lesson that EVERYONE loves and always kills the thread: your statement is not true.

Here's a hint: the part of their body that does the behaving is not the one dangling between their legs. It's the one seated above and between their shoulders. To continue to pretend that's the bit of their flesh that matters behaviorally is as ridiculous as pretending that it is not the actual hormonal drivers among trans athletes and so as to do your thinking with the flesh BEHIND your legs.

We already see various intersexings of the genitals. What you are proposing is that the actually impactful things re behavior and personality (who someone is!) Is 100% concordant between brain and genitals. Not even genitals are 100% concordant with themselves, re menstruating penises.

And this is not even accounting for the idea that there are most likely various gendered brain regions that can absolutely end up differently configured, and while the apparent differences seem small, this is much the difference between (AND) and (NOT) in a logical system.

 

[funinspace]

If one means 'average, typical, or commonplace' then really nothing is wrong with the usage of 'normal'.

However, far too many people stuck in a binary world, are really intending 'traditional, standard, or natural', when they use this word, implying something is wrong with 'those others' that aren't in the normative bucket.

Human sexuality, physically and mentally, is far closer to 50 shades of grey than their black and white projections and fears...and such binary people seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that our society has grown a little more caring and respectful of our human differences; and that these differences are ok.

What gametes are on the spectrum between an ovum and a sperm?

Hey, what's this roaring sound, whooshing over my what I'm suddenly gonna call my head? Wind! Is that a good name? It'll do. Yeah, this is really exciting.

 

[funinspace]

Human sexuality, physically and mentally, is far closer to 50 shades of grey than their black and white projections and fears...and such binary people seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that our society has grown a little more caring and respectful of our human differences; and that these differences are ok.

Nature is binary. Nature is uncompromising that mammals (and nearly all multi-cellular life) need a male and female to procreate. There's no shades of grey there.

Wow, so the totality of being human is procreation...impressive imagineering.

https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another.
<snip>
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow, so the totality of being human is procreation...impressive imagineering.

https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another.
<snip>
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier.

Yep, we have come to the biology lesson of "the trans thread". Just tag me in when you get bored.

 

[ZiprHead]

If one means 'average, typical, or commonplace' then really nothing is wrong with the usage of 'normal'.

However, far too many people stuck in a binary world, are really intending 'traditional, standard, or natural', when they use this word, implying something is wrong with 'those others' that aren't in the normative bucket.

Human sexuality, physically and mentally, is far closer to 50 shades of grey than their black and white projections and fears...and such binary people seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that our society has grown a little more caring and respectful of our human differences; and that these differences are ok.

One can be respectful of other's rights to take on the gender roles they feel most comfortable with without denying biological reality.

For what purpose?

 

[Jarhyn]

If one means 'average, typical, or commonplace' then really nothing is wrong with the usage of 'normal'.

However, far too many people stuck in a binary world, are really intending 'traditional, standard, or natural', when they use this word, implying something is wrong with 'those others' that aren't in the normative bucket.

Human sexuality, physically and mentally, is far closer to 50 shades of grey than their black and white projections and fears...and such binary people seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that our society has grown a little more caring and respectful of our human differences; and that these differences are ok.

One can be respectful of other's rights to take on the gender roles they feel most comfortable with without denying biological reality.

For what purpose?

See, people want to drag 'biological reality' outside of the doctor's office and bedroom.

Sometimes people wish to speak with their body, though the words they can say with it are generally free of such things as truth and offer; they are the prelude to such only. The rest must be said with words, and the words we choose to use to say those things shall keep the secret until it is the right time and place.

They do not have a right to know until they have asked to see it and the other person consents to show them. Even then it is a violation to speak of it.

 

[Metaphor]

Wow, so the totality of being human is procreation...impressive imagineering.

https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another.
<snip>
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier.

Ah, the intersex gambit. Some people have disorders of sexual development, so that means Laurel Hubbard is a woman.

 

[Trausti]

Wow, so the totality of being human is procreation...impressive imagineering.

https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another.
<snip>
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier.

Ah, the intersex gambit. Some people have disorders of sexual development, so that means Laurel Hubbard is a woman.

An intersex person cannot get himself/herself pregnant. Nature’s binary is inviolable.

 

[WAB]

I hear you spew hate, I don't hear much roaring though.

What hate? Please provide some support for your accusation.

You are a "menstruator", as much as you are a "woman". Your problem seems to be in others not immediately recognizing you in the way and capacity you would like.

So sayeth the testiculator.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Yay and forsooth, and herewith and forever after, as has been elsewhere somewhere aforementioned...I am Testicles***! Fear me, evildoers!

Show

***Test-eh-kleeeeez.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ah, the intersex gambit. Some people have disorders of sexual development, so that means Laurel Hubbard is a woman.

An intersex person cannot get himself/herself pregnant. Nature’s binary is inviolable.

It just isn't applicable in the discussion nor is it contextual, nor is it even pertinent to your own wishful point.

"What it takes for two people to make a baby once they connect and decide to have sex" is entirely insignificant to "how much respect you pay others' privacy with regards to their private parts, and how and why that is accomplished."

 

[funinspace]

Wow, so the totality of being human is procreation...impressive imagineering.

https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another.
<snip>
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier.

Yep, we have come to the biology lesson of "the trans thread". Just tag me in when you get bored.

Your it I only initially commented as TomC seems to be a reasonable person, and I was curious as to whether there was any rational discussion going on in the latest trans hobby horse thread; and I wanted to clarify a point on the word 'normal'.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yep, we have come to the biology lesson of "the trans thread". Just tag me in when you get bored.

Your it I only initially commented as TomC seems to be a reasonable person, and I was curious as to whether there was any rational discussion going on in the latest trans hobby horse thread; and I wanted to clarify a point on the word 'normal'.

Well, it looks like the discussion of "why do you feel entitled to know what their genitals look like?" has metastasized to it's own thread on NZ.

 

[Trausti]

Ah, the intersex gambit. Some people have disorders of sexual development, so that means Laurel Hubbard is a woman.

An intersex person cannot get himself/herself pregnant. Nature’s binary is inviolable.

It just isn't applicable in the discussion nor is it contextual, nor is it even pertinent to your own wishful point.

"What it takes for two people to make a baby once they connect and decide to have sex" is entirely insignificant to "how much respect you pay others' privacy with regards to their private parts, and how and why that is accomplished."

Qué? “Respect” is a whole different subject from the inviolability of Nature’s binary. The reason sex exists is for procreation. And there are only two sexes.

 

[TomC]

Why do you struggle with this concept so much? My son is NOT a 'girl living as a boy'. My son is my son regardless of what 'body parts' he possesses or doesn't possess.

If your child is of the sex that has large, sessile gametes, your child is a girl.

Every age has its war on reality, I guess. This is ours.

Honestly, no.
Sex and gender issues are tiny and unimportant compared to our war on reality concerning the biosphere. We humans aren't willing to recognize that we've pushed the carrying capacity of earth past it's ability to sustainably supply resources. But we keep pushing harder and harder.

That's the modern war on reality.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Every age has its war on reality, I guess. This is ours.

Honestly, no.
Sex and gender issues are tiny and unimportant compared to our war on reality concerning the biosphere. We humans aren't willing to recognize that we've pushed the carrying capacity of earth past it's ability to sustainably supply resources. But we keep pushing harder and harder.

That's the modern war on reality.
Tom

Uh, you mean the West’s incessant self-flagellation on the issue while pretending that China and India don’t exist? Don’t mean to be OT.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And see, this is the reason your participation I these threads earns you derision and ire: you have one position and that position is to demand that for all humans, "woman = ovaries/vagina/uterus."

This is the point in contention. You have begged the question yet again.

If Emily's use of the technique commonly known as proof by blatant assertion qualifies as "begging the question", then what does your use of proof by blatant opposing assertion qualify as? By all means please enlighten us -- are you equally committing the fallacy of "begging the question", or are you instead committing the fallacy of "special pleading"?

Reading this thread and others, I tend to doubt any of the the posters on either side of the ((transmen are women vs. transmen are men) and (transwomen are men vs. transwomen are women)) disputes taking place here even understand what sort of evidence would support their assertions (well, I'm on one side, but not debating at the moment ). No linguistic evidence or arguments is offered. And evidence about some of the properties of transmen or transwomen is offered, but without giving a reason connecting them with the debate.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I tend to doubt any of the the posters on either side of the ... disputes taking place here even understand what sort of evidence would support their assertions.

Hmm.
I, for one, do not understand what evidence would be necessary for my position.
I mean, someone presents as a woman, i'll accept them as a woman. I don't need evidence for this, i really don't care about whether or not she's wearing a penis. So what evidence would you expect me to cite?