University of Otago student association gives "sportswoman of the year" award to a man.

[LoAmmo]

That is not helpful to me. You must have meant something when you wrote 'gender' in the above paragraph. In this thread, the very first challenge I got was to define 'woman', which I did. I am now asking people who use the term 'gender' to explain what they mean.

I was using it essentially as shorthand for "sex." As people frequently do--out of convenience, perhaps, more than anything else.BUT
a) I also noted that there IS a difference between "gender" and "sex" in that "gender" is more a description of, shall we say, societal expectations or tendencies (men are tough, they don't cry, women nurture, they are less aggressive, etc) whereas "sex" is more biological; it's a categorization based on chromosomes, on physical realities such as, this baby has a penis, this one has a vagina.

What I mean when I use "gender" more casually, like in filling out a form, is more synonymous with "sex." But I'm also saying that this shorthand is insufficient when talking in more detail about the broader and more inclusive effort to account for EVERYBODY. In short, I'd say that "gender" "means sex" only in a broad sense, one in which you might use them interchangeably only in a..."everybody does, and you want them to understand you" kind of way.

But you have not explained what you mean by gender. You appear to indicate it sometimes, in some situations (most situations?) means "sex". It is a "polite-sounding" synonym for sex. But what does it mean when you are not using it to mean "sex"?

When I am NOT using it to mean "sex" is when I'm referring to the social construct aspect of gender, the part that's, well, in a way, arbitrary, and artificial, and is the product of different cultural norms. You could say I use them interchangeably when speaking or writing casually, broadly, and separate them only when speaking or writing more seriously/specifically, as in a more "serious" discussion, like this one. I genuinely hope that helps. I think at this point I've articulated "my" definitions clearly enough, and provided enough context that what I'm saying is "gettable."

Put it this way: I don't think we could get easily get along without the word "sex' in our vocabulary. We NEED the ability to distinguish, verbally, legally, clearly, between "boys n' girls." We could lose the word "gender", tomorrow, and not suffer in the slightest. The word, along with all the preconceived stereotypes and historical, invented, arbitrary characteristics that supposedly define it, could easily disappear tomorrow with no ill effect.

Sex is a biological fact, and sex in humans is immutable. Some people do not accept that but that's okay - they are beyond help.

Sex in humans is most assuredly not immutable. I honestly don't know why you're so invested in it BEING immutable, but it is not, because if it were, it would be impossible for people to change sexes--and, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, people do change sexes.

I don't mean Ralph likes to put on a sun dress and prance around in high heels on Sundays, I mean that there are men who have elaborate surgeries to remove their genitals and have them replaced with functional vaginas, take full-blast hormone replacement treatments to the point that they express natural breasts, and can even menstruate. It takes some doing, to "overcome" the sex expressed at birth--as one might expect--but the point is that they do it, and at the end of that process, they have become a woman, to the point that withholding assent to that concept is untenable; unreasonable. God only knows what kind of "out-of-body" mental anguish must drive these people to do it, because it isn't an easy process, but THEY know they're in 'the wrong body' and they'll do whatever it takes to feel right. (And as a side issue, I think they deserve our support and respect rather than being easy punchlines for "normal" people who had the good fortune to be born in the body that feels right for them.)

I'd further clarify that maybe one reason that "sex was immutable" for centuries is that the mechanisms to change it did not exist. Genetics weren't known, hormones were not fully understood, surgery was not that advanced. Honest question: Do you think it coincidental that the era in which sex is starting to become articulated as less binary and more fluid corresponds exactly to the era in which physically changing it is becoming increasingly possible, due to advances in medicine, surgery, and understanding?

Now, as humans, we have sex-segregated some activities, like sports. This sex-segregation recognises the physiological advantages that human males have over human females. Okay.

So, if sports are separated by sex, why should a male, no matter their 'gender identity' - which as far as I can ascertain is a thought in their head - be competing against females? Why should a thought in their head make it okay to let them compete with females?

I will say this: I largely agree with you here. Sports, in which (ostensibly) a fair and level playing field is desirable, is a tricky one to navigate, and perhaps impossible to resolve to everyone's complete satisfaction. I don't think a man, born a boy and grown into a man, who for whatever reason "identifies as a woman" should be allowed to play on a women's football team. I don't. And some people would pillory me for saying that.

I DO believe a man, born a boy and grown into a man, who's undergone all of the transformative changes, surgically and hormonally, to become a woman--ie, she now has breasts, a vagina, she menstruates, now has a higher-pitched voice , she is (mostly) hairless/smooth, etc, etc, etc, I believe she should be allowed to play on a women's football team. And I know some people would pillory me for saying that, as well.

But sports, (especially in, for instance, the Olympics, where records are kept separately for men and women, and have for some time) is, I think, one area in which transgender athletes might be called upon to compromise, depending on the level of, I hate to call it "commitment", but, depending on how far down that road they've gone to change sexes.

 

[Metaphor]

I was using it essentially as shorthand for "sex." As people frequently do--out of convenience, perhaps, more than anything else.BUT
a) I also noted that there IS a difference between "gender" and "sex" in that "gender" is more a description of, shall we say, societal expectations or tendencies (men are tough, they don't cry, women nurture, they are less aggressive, etc)

So, in this case, 'gender' is not something about an individual at all: it is about societal expectations of people based on their sex? Is that right? This isn't a snarky challenge. This is trying to understand and not strawman you.

So, could this use of 'gender' also be described as 'sex-role'? And, for this use of the term 'gender', it isn't about an individual's thoughts or feelings or anything like that, it is the list of society's expectations that are based on sex.

whereas "sex" is more biological; it's a categorization based on chromosomes, on physical realities such as, this baby has a penis, this one has a vagina.

What I mean when I use "gender" more casually, like in filling out a form, is more synonymous with "sex." But I'm also saying that this shorthand is insufficient when talking in more detail about the broader and more inclusive effort to account for EVERYBODY. In short, I'd say that "gender" "means sex" only in a broad sense, one in which you might use them interchangeably only in a..."everybody does, and you want them to understand you" kind of way.

When I am NOT using it to mean "sex" is when I'm referring to the social construct aspect of gender, the part that's, well, in a way, arbitrary, and artificial, and is the product of different cultural norms. You could say I use them interchangeably when speaking or writing casually, broadly, and separate them only when speaking or writing more seriously/specifically, as in a more "serious" discussion, like this one. I genuinely hope that helps. I think at this point I've articulated "my" definitions clearly enough, and provided enough context that what I'm saying is "gettable."

So, to re-iterate: 'gender' is the list of societal expectations of a person based on their sex?

Sex in humans is most assuredly not immutable. I honestly don't know why you're so invested in it BEING immutable, but it is not, because if it were, it would be impossible for people to change sexes--and, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, people do change sexes.

Humans cannot change sex; no mammal can. It is a scientific impossibility.

I don't mean Ralph likes to put on a sun dress and prance around in high heels on Sundays, I mean that there are men who have elaborate surgeries to remove their genitals and have them replaced with functional vaginas, take full-blast hormone replacement treatments to the point that they express natural breasts, and can even menstruate.

Your sex is not determined by the outward appearance of your body. Surgically altering your body does not change your sex. Losing your external genitals deliberately or accidentally does not change your sex.

Your sex is not determined by the amount of various hormones in your system. Artificial or even natural deviations of the typical level of hormones do not change your sex.

You are either of the sex that produces small, motile gametes, or you are of the sex that produces large, sessile gametes. And if you are a mammal, as all humans are, this sex does not change.

It takes some doing, to "overcome" the sex expressed at birth--as one might expect--but the point is that they do it, and at the end of that process, they have become a woman, to the point that withholding assent to that concept is untenable; unreasonable. God only knows what kind of "out-of-body" mental anguish must drive these people to do it, because it isn't an easy process, but THEY know they're in 'the wrong body' and they'll do whatever it takes to feel right. (And as a side issue, I think they deserve our support and respect rather than being easy punchlines for "normal" people who had the good fortune to be born in the body that feels right for them.)

You cannot 'overcome' (by which I assume you mean: change the sex of) the body you have at birth, any more than I can 'overcome' the fact that I have the ethnic heritage of somebody from Southern Europe.

I'd further clarify that maybe one reason that "sex was immutable" for centuries is that the mechanisms to change it did not exist.

The mechanisms to change it in mammals still do not exist.

Genetics weren't known, hormones were not fully understood, surgery was not that advanced. Honest question: Do you think it coincidental that the era in which sex is starting to become articulated as less binary and more fluid corresponds exactly to the era in which physically changing it is becoming increasingly possible, due to advances in medicine, surgery, and understanding?

Sex is functionally binary in mammals. Gender can be anything, in the 'sex-role' sense, since societal expectations of people according to their sex can change.

I will say this: I largely agree with you here. Sports, in which (ostensibly) a fair and level playing field is desirable, is a tricky one to navigate, and perhaps impossible to resolve to everyone's complete satisfaction. I don't think a man, born a boy and grown into a man, who for whatever reason "identifies as a woman" should be allowed to play on a women's football team. I don't. And some people would pillory me for saying that.

I DO believe a man, born a boy and grown into a man, who's undergone all of the transformative changes, surgically and hormonally, to become a woman--ie, she now has breasts, a vagina, she menstruates, now has a higher-pitched voice , she is (mostly) hairless/smooth, etc, etc, etc, I believe she should be allowed to play on a women's football team. And I know some people would pillory me for saying that, as well.

A man cannot become a woman. Humans cannot change their sex.

Also, men do not menstruate. Sometimes, men can have a neo-vagina and possibly some kind of neo-cervix fashioned for them, but they cannot have a uterus fashioned for them, nor can the lining of their non-existent wombs slough off about once every 28 days.

But sports, (especially in, for instance, the Olympics, where records are kept separately for men and women, and have for some time) is, I think, one area in which transgender athletes might be called upon to compromise, depending on the level of, I hate to call it "commitment", but, depending on how far down that road they've gone to change sexes.

No level of "commitment" can cause a sexed puberty to be undone, nor can humans change sex.

 

[LoAmmo]

So, in this case, 'gender' is not something about an individual at all: it is about societal expectations of people based on their sex? Is that right? This isn't a snarky challenge. This is trying to understand and not strawman you.

Yes. Gender is more a myriad blend of the cumulative expectations of “a man” or “a woman” based on the cumulative characteristics of “ALL men” and “ALL women.” (When it’s not being used as simple shorthand for “sex,” as in a printed form that asks you: Gender: M/F (circle one.)

So, could this use of 'gender' also be described as 'sex-role'? And, for this use of the term 'gender', it isn't about an individual's thoughts or feelings or anything like that, it is the list of society's expectations that are based on sex.

Yes, I think “gender” is roughly synonymous with “sex role.” To the point that seemingly half the time you even see the word “gender” in print, it’s used as part of the phrase “gender roles.”
Which I think are discussed more often these days, since there’s a growing awareness of a need to loosen them up; have them be less rigid.

I don’t think I’d fully agree that gender “isn’t about an individual’s thoughts or feelings,” in that, to a person born as a male but thinking he should have been born female and feeling like he’s in the wrong body, part of what he longs to express IS the “gender role” of the opposite sex. In other words, “that list of societal expectations based on sex,” etc.

As a side note, this is my last attempt to define the difference between “gender” and “sex” for you, for what that’s worth. I have the suspicion that you know full well, by now, how I (and most people) define each, and are choosing to make this distinction a sticking point, enabling you to repeatedly claim an earnest discussion can’t be had because “none of us will define what we mean.”

You’re very articulate and I notice that you tend to use language with precision—and I always appreciate people with both the ability and the desire to do that—and so I think you know what the fuck people are trying to tell you, and you just don’t want to hear it.

Humans cannot change sex; no mammal can. It is a scientific impossibility.
…
Surgically altering your body does not change your sex. Losing your external genitals deliberately or accidentally does not change your sex.
…
A man cannot become a woman. Humans cannot change their sex.
…
No level of "commitment" can cause a sexed puberty to be undone, nor can humans change sex.

I recognize this level of passion for a belief; I’m just more accustomed to it being attached to some variant of the claim that “The Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. It just IS.”

But, on the diminishing chance that there’s a discussion to be had here, what I think you’re saying is…well let me start by articulating what I DON’T think you’re saying. You’re not saying that trans people don’t exist. Because the easy comeback to the claim “Humans can’t change sex” is to retort, “Of course they do, or there wouldn’t be transexuals running about, and we know that there are.”
What you’re saying is, if I read you right, is that, basically, “trans people didn’t REALLY change their sex.”
They may have gone to very elaborate lengths—surgically, hormonally, mentally, no matter what dimension of their being they tried to change, at the end of the day, deep down inside, they’re really [whatever they were born as.]

Don’t let me put word in your mouth, but as far as I can tell, you’d agree with the following premise:
a male baby who grew up, went through puberty as a boy, grew into a man, who at, say, age 30, after a lifetime of feeling “off” about his sexuality, underwent extensive HRT, had a long series of reconstructive (de-constructive?) surgeries, grew pronounced breasts, has a functional vagina, shaves their legs, wears their hair long, wears women’s clothes, and so on and so forth,
at the end of that process, they are still a man. Maybe a man who looks very convincingly LIKE a woman, and maybe sounds and acts just like a woman, but since at some molecular level they have small, motile gametes “under the hood,” they are, and ever will be, a man masquerading as a woman.

I’d like to stop and ask you if that’s a fair assessment of your position before asking a follow-up question.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. Gender is more a myriad blend of the cumulative expectations of “a man” or “a woman” based on the cumulative characteristics of “ALL men” and “ALL women.” (When it’s not being used as simple shorthand for “sex,” as in a printed form that asks you: Gender: M/F (circle one.)



Yes, I think “gender” is roughly synonymous with “sex role.” To the point that seemingly half the time you even see the word “gender” in print, it’s used as part of the phrase “gender roles.”
Which I think are discussed more often these days, since there’s a growing awareness of a need to loosen them up; have them be less rigid.

I don’t think I’d fully agree that gender “isn’t about an individual’s thoughts or feelings,” in that, to a person born as a male but thinking he should have been born female and feeling like he’s in the wrong body, part of what he longs to express IS the “gender role” of the opposite sex. In other words, “that list of societal expectations based on sex,” etc.

As a side note, this is my last attempt to define the difference between “gender” and “sex” for you, for what that’s worth. I have the suspicion that you know full well, by now, how I (and most people) define each, and are choosing to make this distinction a sticking point, enabling you to repeatedly claim an earnest discussion can’t be had because “none of us will define what we mean.”

You’re very articulate and I notice that you tend to use language with precision—and I always appreciate people with both the ability and the desire to do that—and so I think you know what the fuck people are trying to tell you, and you just don’t want to hear it.

Humans cannot change sex; no mammal can. It is a scientific impossibility.
…
Surgically altering your body does not change your sex. Losing your external genitals deliberately or accidentally does not change your sex.
…
A man cannot become a woman. Humans cannot change their sex.
…
No level of "commitment" can cause a sexed puberty to be undone, nor can humans change sex.

I recognize this level of passion for a belief; I’m just more accustomed to it being attached to some variant of the claim that “The Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. It just IS.”

But, on the diminishing chance that there’s a discussion to be had here, what I think you’re saying is…well let me start by articulating what I DON’T think you’re saying. You’re not saying that trans people don’t exist. Because the easy comeback to the claim “Humans can’t change sex” is to retort, “Of course they do, or there wouldn’t be transexuals running about, and we know that there are.”
What you’re saying is, if I read you right, is that, basically, “trans people didn’t REALLY change their sex.”
They may have gone to very elaborate lengths—surgically, hormonally, mentally, no matter what dimension of their being they tried to change, at the end of the day, deep down inside, they’re really [whatever they were born as.]

Don’t let me put word in your mouth, but as far as I can tell, you’d agree with the following premise:
a male baby who grew up, went through puberty as a boy, grew into a man, who at, say, age 30, after a lifetime of feeling “off” about his sexuality, underwent extensive HRT, had a long series of reconstructive (de-constructive?) surgeries, grew pronounced breasts, has a functional vagina, shaves their legs, wears their hair long, wears women’s clothes, and so on and so forth,
at the end of that process, they are still a man. Maybe a man who looks very convincingly LIKE a woman, and maybe sounds and acts just like a woman, but since at some molecular level they have small, motile gametes “under the hood,” they are, and ever will be, a man masquerading as a woman.

I’d like to stop and ask you if that’s a fair assessment of your position before asking a follow-up question.

I see what you're doing here. I've seen it tried before. Best of luck.

 

[Metaphor]

As a side note, this is my last attempt to define the difference between “gender” and “sex” for you, for what that’s worth. I have the suspicion that you know full well, by now, how I (and most people) define each, and are choosing to make this distinction a sticking point, enabling you to repeatedly claim an earnest discussion can’t be had because “none of us will define what we mean.”

I have tried my utmost to understand what people mean when they say gender, so that my responses to what they say are not inadvertent strawmen. Some people responded with something meaningful, like yourself. Others, like Toni, responded with dismissive nonsense.

You’re very articulate and I notice that you tend to use language with precision—and I always appreciate people with both the ability and the desire to do that—and so I think you know what the fuck people are trying to tell you, and you just don’t want to hear it.

I cannot make this clearer: I do not know what people are telling me. When people use 'gender' to mean 'sex', I understand. When people use 'gender' to mean 'the list of expectations based on sex', I understand. But you introduced a third meaning of 'gender' in this post: the thoughts in somebody's head that make them unhappy with their sex and a desire to be the other sex, or a desire to imagine they somehow do not have a sexed body.

EDIT: Or some other feelings that I have not articulated. For what it is worth, I do not have a gender identity as I understand the term. I do not feel like a man, or 'identify' as a man. I just am one.

I recognize this level of passion for a belief; I’m just more accustomed to it being attached to some variant of the claim that “The Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. It just IS.”

You are attempting to poison the well here: comparing my statements as if they were made on faith, or as if I were making what in philosophical terms would be a brute fact (a fact that has no further explanation). But that isn't what I am doing. The idea that humans cannot change sex is not a religious belief. It's a statement about the biological facts of mammals.

There are species that can change sex. So it isn't as if changing sex in the animal kingdom is impossible. It's just impossible for humans, and all mammals.

But, on the diminishing chance that there’s a discussion to be had here, what I think you’re saying is…well let me start by articulating what I DON’T think you’re saying. You’re not saying that trans people don’t exist. Because the easy comeback to the claim “Humans can’t change sex” is to retort, “Of course they do, or there wouldn’t be transexuals running about, and we know that there are.”
What you’re saying is, if I read you right, is that, basically, “trans people didn’t REALLY change their sex.”
They may have gone to very elaborate lengths—surgically, hormonally, mentally, no matter what dimension of their being they tried to change, at the end of the day, deep down inside, they’re really [whatever they were born as.]

Yes, it is literally impossible (without sci-fi technology that does not yet exist) for a human to change their sex. I wouldn't say 'deep down inside', as if they had partly become the other sex. A man who has his genitals fashioned surgically into a neovagina has not become a woman. A man who blocks testosterone has not become a woman. Nothing he can do can make him a woman, because mammals cannot change sex. There are animals that can and do change sex. This is not a faith-based claim. It's a claim about biology.

Don’t let me put word in your mouth, but as far as I can tell, you’d agree with the following premise:
a male baby who grew up, went through puberty as a boy, grew into a man, who at, say, age 30, after a lifetime of feeling “off” about his sexuality, underwent extensive HRT, had a long series of reconstructive (de-constructive?) surgeries, grew pronounced breasts, has a functional vagina, shaves their legs, wears their hair long, wears women’s clothes, and so on and so forth,
at the end of that process, they are still a man. Maybe a man who looks very convincingly LIKE a woman, and maybe sounds and acts just like a woman, but since at some molecular level they have small, motile gametes “under the hood,” they are, and ever will be, a man masquerading as a woman.

Yes. He cannot ever be a woman. He cannot ever become female.

I’d like to stop and ask you if that’s a fair assessment of your position before asking a follow-up question.

It is indeed a fair summary of my position.

Men cannot become women, any more than I could change my European heritage into Asian heritage, no matter what I did to my body surgically. I cannot become 21 years old again, no matter how young I feel, or what I do to alter my appearance to look younger.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've been preparing my personal ordered lists, on many different topics, for almost six decades! Great fun. As just one example, who are the seven greatest U.S. Presidents? (I go with the four on Mount Rushmore, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower and ... Harry Truman! For the record, Jefferson's inclusion is a no-brainer: Recall that his Louisiana Purchase squeaked through Congress on a 59-57 vote.)

Right now, America has a LOT of problems. (That's "LOT" with a capital L! ) I'm afraid to make a List of the Ten Most Important Problems Facing the U.S.A. — Afraid that Ten won't be enough to cover the many important and urgent problems we face.

Question: Does anyone think gender confusion — or whatever this thread is about — would make the Top Twenty List of America's pressing problems?

Raise your hand if you think it would make the Top Hundred List.

 

[WAB]

I've been preparing my personal ordered lists, on many different topics, for almost six decades! Great fun. As just one example, who are the seven greatest U.S. Presidents? (I go with the four on Mount Rushmore, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower and ... Harry Truman! For the record, Jefferson's inclusion is a no-brainer: Recall that his Louisiana Purchase squeaked through Congress on a 59-57 vote.)

Right now, America has a LOT of problems. (That's "LOT" with a capital L! ) I'm afraid to make a List of the Ten Most Important Problems Facing the U.S.A. — Afraid that Ten won't be enough to cover the many important and urgent problems we face.

Question: Does anyone think gender confusion — or whatever this thread is about — would make the Top Twenty List of America's pressing problems?

Raise your hand if you think it would make the Top Hundred List.

 

[Bomb#20]

Question: Does anyone think gender confusion — or whatever this thread is about — would make the Top Twenty List of America's pressing problems?

Raise your hand if you think it would make the Top Hundred List.

Metaphor can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think gender confusion is what this thread is about. Putting all his trans-themed threads together, I think I'm sensing a pattern. So let's take a seventy year trip in the Wayback Machine. It's 1951. You tell us: does McCarthyism make the Top Twenty List of America's pressing problems?

 

[Metaphor]

I've been preparing my personal ordered lists, on many different topics, for almost six decades! Great fun. As just one example, who are the seven greatest U.S. Presidents? (I go with the four on Mount Rushmore, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower and ... Harry Truman! For the record, Jefferson's inclusion is a no-brainer: Recall that his Louisiana Purchase squeaked through Congress on a 59-57 vote.)

Right now, America has a LOT of problems. (That's "LOT" with a capital L! ) I'm afraid to make a List of the Ten Most Important Problems Facing the U.S.A. — Afraid that Ten won't be enough to cover the many important and urgent problems we face.

Question: Does anyone think gender confusion — or whatever this thread is about — would make the Top Twenty List of America's pressing problems?

Raise your hand if you think it would make the Top Hundred List.

I'm curious: at what point in your personal ordered lists are other people allowed to comment on a problem? More people die from heart disease than kidney disease. Would it be strange to try to get people to pay attention to kidney disease, even if heart disease has not yet been eliminated from the world? Would that be a moral failing?

 

[Metaphor]

I've been preparing my personal ordered lists, on many different topics, for almost six decades! Great fun. As just one example, who are the seven greatest U.S. Presidents? (I go with the four on Mount Rushmore, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower and ... Harry Truman! For the record, Jefferson's inclusion is a no-brainer: Recall that his Louisiana Purchase squeaked through Congress on a 59-57 vote.)

Right now, America has a LOT of problems. (That's "LOT" with a capital L! ) I'm afraid to make a List of the Ten Most Important Problems Facing the U.S.A. — Afraid that Ten won't be enough to cover the many important and urgent problems we face.

Question: Does anyone think gender confusion — or whatever this thread is about — would make the Top Twenty List of America's pressing problems?

Raise your hand if you think it would make the Top Hundred List.

Swammerdami, some people do not live in America. But perhaps you are being devilishly ironic. You see, your condescending dismissal of my posts as being about something dreadfully tiresome and unimportant is poetically echoed by your seemingly reflexive centreing of America, on an international message board, and after a series of posts that covered geographies as far flung (from the centre of the earth, America) as the UK and NZ. My posts have no perspective and you owned me by "ironically" demonstrating that you have no perspective beyond America.

 

[Swammerdami]

Swammerdami, some people do not live in America. But perhaps you are being devilishly ironic.

I thought my questions were straightforward, rather than ironic and/or devilish, but I apologize if you took them personally. I'd forgotten (if I ever noticed) that you're from Oz — by default your Location doesn't appear for me. I'm not sure if America is so unique anyway: my sister reports that QAnon is popular among young people in France!

BTW, I don't live in America either. I live in Thailand where homosexuals and transsexuals are rather common and very well-accepted. We have a married transsexual friend. One of the best detectives at the local police station is a male who dresses and makes up like a pretty woman. At parties I've watched him and other male police enjoy each other's company or even pretend to flirt. (And of course the transvestite shows in Pattaya are world-famous.)

Admittedly, I am unacquainted with any Thai weightlifters, whether male, female or "other."

 

[LoAmmo]

Back to the topic and to Metaphor, the question I would ask you is:

what is it that would really be lost for you, even if it meant perhaps changing your mind, to accept that some small minority of people
a) feel an overwhelming urge to change (they might say, “correct,”) their sex
b) go to incredible (and expensive) lengths to become that other sex, and…
c) at the end of this process, they’ve successfully “become” that other sex, if not 100% biologically/genetically to your specifications, but to the point that withholding assent (that they’ve “changed sexes”) is no longer reasonable.

I have a feeling you’d happily grant me condition “A.” Yes, you’d say, clearly some people desperately want to be the sex they weren’t born into. You may even be aware that the term for this is gender dysphoria, which is the distress a person feels due to a mismatch between their gender identity and their biological sex as expressed at their birth. So far, so good.

I believe you’d happily grant me condition “B” as well. Yes, you’d agree, there are people who go to extreme lengths to change their bodies, both externally and internally, in the quest to become that other sex. We know this because there are multiple examples running around in plain sight, either as very visible celebrities or (more commonly) as people simply trying to fit in and be comfortable in their new body. Still so far, so good.

Getting to stage “C”, as you’ve made unmistakably clear, is your sticking point—you’ve adamantly labelled it an impossibility—and you do it with a fervor that, I’m sorry, DOES closely resemble the closedmindedness of Young Earth Creationists. That isn’t poisoning the well, that’s pointing out the similarity of steadfastly clinging to a belief you don’t HAVE to cling to, which is contradicted by evidence, which is increasingly outdated and obsolete, and which, to put it clumsily, “doesn’t hurt you, either way.”

I guess I’m asking, why do you care (and, please don’t tell me that you don’t) if Carl wants so bad to be Carla (because for his entire life he’s felt he’s a girl walking around in a boy’s body, and later a woman in a man’s body) that he spends many thousands of dollars and endures painful recoveries to do everything physically possible to transform his body into that of a woman, including breasts, a vagina, smooth legs?
What is so important to you (because something clearly is) about being able to scoff, “Nope. Still a man”?

Further, at the end of this process, isn’t this hypothetical Carla “enough of a woman” to warrant being called a woman and being called Carla instead of Carl by her former friends, and be seen by society as a woman, and use women’s restrooms, and join women’s clubs or groups, among other things? I hang quotes around “enough of a woman” to kind of give you your point (which is true) that at the biological level, “Carla” is not 100% female, even if she is socially, mentally, externally (by appearance, etc.)

I would think of this Carla as a woman, and call her one, if for no other reason than that’s what she wants, and that’s what she’s gone to great lengths to attain, and she finally feels “right” as that, and, not to put too fine a point on it, it’s no fucking skin off MY nose if she’s a woman now. And yes, I’d call her a woman even knowing that traces of her “maleness” still lurk in her body, and always have, and always will. But, and this is the point, for all intents and purposes, this person is now a woman. You can hang an asterisk on her, if you must (WAS BORN A MAN! WAS BORN A MAN!) but at the end of the day, withholding assent (that she has changed sexes) is no longer reasonable.

SOMETHING really sticks in your craw about trans people. I don’t know what it is and don’t care to speculate, but, as far as I can see, you’re irrationally concerned about something that doesn’t affect you, much if at all, and adamant to the point of stubbornness on the premise that people can’t [effectively] change sexes.

What would you be giving up to grant that, yes, in vanishingly small numbers and after a virtual battery of treatments, some people [effectively, if you must] ‘change sexes’?

 

[Ahab]

LoAmmo,
Not going to answer for Metaphor but will say that for me it is pretty clear why this issue is important:
Some of the rights that are being claimed for trans people conflict with the rights of that material class we call 'females': fairness in sports, the right to single sex spaces.
By placing more importance on gender rather than sex the gender ideologues are reinforcing traditional gender roles which ends up supporting the patriarchy. Being pro gender is a very conservative position that seeks to restrict the freedom of males and females to adopt any gender roles they feel comfortable with.
The harm that is being done to young people through surgical procedures (like top surgery) and administration of puberty inhibitors along with the implicit support for the claim that one is born with the wrong body.


Is this the most pressing issue of the day? No. But then most of the issues being discussed here and elsewhere aren't either. If an issue interests someone they should be free to discuss it. Generally I don't take part in discussions I'm not interested in. I simply ignore them.

 

[none]

Obviously somebody screwed up when man came into existence

 

[Trausti]

Obviously somebody screwed up when man came into existence

Eve. She’s responsible for the fall.

 

[WAB]

What Ahab said.

Plus, I don't think I agree with what none said, although it's tempting to say humans are corrupt as a species, i.e. through and through, top to bottom.

What I really believe, and again, I am not certain, is that humankind is the pinnacle of evolutionary development on this planet.

And finally, I will not speak for Metaphor, but agree with some of his points. And I also agree with Emily Lake at least with respect to how this trans topic effects women's forward-moving progress in society.

 

[Jarhyn]

What Ahab said.

Plus, I don't think I agree with what none said, although it's tempting to say humans are corrupt as a species, i.e. through and through, top to bottom.

What I really believe, and again, I am not certain, is that humankind is the pinnacle of evolutionary development on this planet.

And finally, I will not speak for Metaphor, but agree with some of his points. And I also agree with Emily Lake at least with respect to how this trans topic effects women's forward-moving progress in society.

What I may pose to you is whether people have a right to "single sex spaces" outside of "single person, private spaces", and whether "fairness in sports" is put at threat by the majority (the sane) of trans people and the majority of their advocates.

If you pay attention to the thread, it is not: I point out that if people have a "right to fairness in sports", that right is not based directly on sex in the first place but on the effects of hormone exposure.

 

[none]

Obviously somebody screwed up when man came into existence

Eve. She’s responsible for the fall.

Well whoever pulled her out of a rib cage got some splain' to do Lucy.

 

[Emily Lake]

Actually no. It's obvious Metaphor has a REAL ISSUE with transgendered persons since the vast majority of posts that he starts are on the topic and derogatory.

It's possible sure. But I think it's more that Met has a problem with gender ideology than with actual transgender people. So do I. I know several transgender people, and I like most of them. I have transgender family. But even though I love my now-niece, I still don't think that she should be in the female prison so long as she is in possession of a penis. Nor do I agree with her that her sexual attraction to female-bodied people makes her a "lesbian". Regardless of her social presentation, she is still male, and a male attracted to a female is heterosexual. If I were to ever see her pressuring or harassing a lesbian who doesn't want to have sex with her, I would absolutely 100% lay into her about coercing lesbians - something that men have done for time out of mind.

I can support fair treatment, protection from discrimination, and respect without having to swallow an ideology that is anti-science and frankly, anti-female. I can support legal protections for transgender people without having to support calling women "menstruators" or "bodies with vaginas" which is incredibly offensive and dehumanizing.

And I rather suspect that Met is in roughly the same positions when it comes to the ideological drive that is influencing policy.

 

[none]

Actually no. It's obvious Metaphor has a REAL ISSUE with transgendered persons since the vast majority of posts that he starts are on the topic and derogatory.

It's possible sure. But I think it's more that Met has a problem with gender ideology than with actual transgender people. So do I. I know several transgender people, and I like most of them. I have transgender family. But even though I love my now-niece, I still don't think that she should be in the female prison so long as she is in possession of a penis. Nor do I agree with her that her sexual attraction to female-bodied people makes her a "lesbian". Regardless of her social presentation, she is still male, and a male attracted to a female is heterosexual. If I were to ever see her pressuring or harassing a lesbian who doesn't want to have sex with her, I would absolutely 100% lay into her about coercing lesbians - something that men have done for time out of mind.

I can support fair treatment, protection from discrimination, and respect without having to swallow an ideology that is anti-science and frankly, anti-female. I can support legal protections for transgender people without having to support calling women "menstruators" or "bodies with vaginas" which is incredibly offensive and dehumanizing.

And I rather suspect that Met is in roughly the same positions when it comes to the ideological drive that is influencing policy.

Swallow?