Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[gouki88]

Except for those who believe in both logic And feminism. Its not reasonable for those people.

if sex is a biological thing then you cant identify as it without actualy having the biological attributes making the concept of identity redundant. You either are biologically female, biologically part female, or not biologically female at all. Its simply not logically possible to identify as a biological concept without having the right biology as the biology is what defines the concept. There is no concept without it.

and if sex is a behaviourial thing, rather than a biological thing, then it completely undoes feminism which states that women can behave just like men and there are no specific male and female behaviours. I.e. a behaviorial description of females and males is not consistent with feminism.

What utter tosh. JK Rowling burner?

 

[kirsti]

Trans women in sport - The FACTS!

New Literature Review Does Not Support Bans on Transgender Women Athletes

Authors of “Transgender Women Athletes and Elite Sport: A Scientific Review” call for reasonable efforts to make sport accessible and inclusive

MEDIA RELEASE

Literature Review Does Not Support Bans on Transgender Women Athletes | Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

cces.ca

https://cces.ca/node/66938

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Chief]

Thanks kirsti

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Trans women in sport - The FACTS!

New Literature Review Does Not Support Bans on Transgender Women Athletes

Authors of “Transgender Women Athletes and Elite Sport: A Scientific Review” call for reasonable efforts to make sport accessible and inclusive

MEDIA RELEASE

Literature Review Does Not Support Bans on Transgender Women Athletes | Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

cces.ca

https://cces.ca/node/66938

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

This is just where I see it, but the only way to measure this is to have a period of top-of-the-line inclusion in elite sport, collect all the data, and figure it out from there. Keeping data collection to non-elite lower levels just won't work the same.

And why?

Motivation for one. At the highest level each individual athlete is competing for records as the ultimate accolade, to be the best of the best. At the lower level, the transgender athlete is motivated to prove they belong but what about their opponents? Natural competitiveness will play a part for sure, but they would essentially be competing to keep transgender athletes out of elite sport.

As a motivator that's only going to appeal to a certain demographic.

You don't want a competition where one 'outside' group is striving just to belong, you need one where all are at the top level upon qualification, and where data collection can show a more complete picture of where each competitor is at.

So what if after a period of top level competition transgender athletes ARE found to have a distinct and unfair advantage? In terms of head-to-head individual results the nearest cis-gendered runner-up could be the winner and all retrospective records and medals awarded be amended as such.

Team sports? Trickier. What was the impact of the transgender player on team performance? More data to collect and more to work out.

The data must be collected however. No judgement can ever be arrived at without results to study and pick apart.

 

[kirsti]

Thanks kirsti

Thanks for all the education you have been doing here legend X


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Nickoo]

They are the same. The term gender has been hijacked by the LGBTQI movement.

This BS about gender identity, expression etc... has gotten out of hand. Noone actually cares what you identity as and who you are sexually attracted to. They've made up 50+ terms that don't make sense.

When you're asked for your Sex/Gender they want to know if you're a biological male or female. Simple as that. Yes there are a tiny minority of people who are born intersex. Generally they will still have a dominant sex.

There’s no such thing as intersex. What is made up of intersex is chromosomal or hormonal abnormalities like Turners syndrome where a female has only one X chromosome. They point here is she’s female. Or Klinefelter syndrome where males have an extra X chromosome.

Or boys with gynecomastia, they’re males. Sex is genuinely binary but if you want to identify your gender as non-binary, no problems or be included in a support network called intersex just don’t tell a fiction that sex is dimensional it’s not, but it’s expression can be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Gethelred]

... don’t tell a fiction that sex is dimensional it’s not, but it’s expression can be.

Well, that's clear as mud.

Also, have a look at the stickied post before continuing.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Well, that's clear as mud.

His point might have been clearer if you hadn't clipped his post.

Also, have a look at the stickied post before continuing.

How does what he posted have relevance to the stickied post?

 

[Gethelred]

His point might have been clearer if you hadn't clipped his post.

I thought you'd decided to leave the SRP, Sorted.

In any case, the reason I snipped their post down to that sentence is because they'd spent an entire post trying to demystify biologically intersex people, before that sentence waded straight back in and muddied things right back up.

How does what he posted have relevance to the stickied post?

Because posting that is going to be gender critical is going to have to ensure that they tread a line to remain within the rules.

One does not have to be a bigot to be gender critical, but an awful lot of gender critical criticism is bigoted.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I thought you'd decided to leave the SRP, Sorted.

Yeah, pretty much. I discuss SRP type issues elsewhere. It's not worth getting a ban from the whole of Bigfooty for expressing the wrong opinion here. When it gets to the stage where it feels like you need to send a private message to a moderator asking if it's OK to post something it's time to drop out.

 

[Schneebly11]

Anti trans hate starting up in Australia again, far right religious Senator Alex Antic going with the “groomer” slur against drag queens (Antic btw is a far right Pentecostalist associated with Hillsong, founded by a Pedo and run by a Pedo enabler):

Senator Alex Antic accuses ABC of "child grooming"

Liberal senator Alex Antic accused the ABC and entertainer Courtney Act of "child grooming' during a Senate Estimates hearing on Tuesday.

www.outinperth.com

 

[gouki88]

Anti trans hate starting up in Australia again, far right religious Senator Alex Antic going with the “groomer” slur against drag queens (Antic btw is a far right Pentecostalist associated with Hillsong, founded by a Pedo and run by a Pedo enabler):

Senator Alex Antic accuses ABC of "child grooming"

Liberal senator Alex Antic accused the ABC and entertainer Courtney Act of "child grooming' during a Senate Estimates hearing on Tuesday.

www.outinperth.com

It's become very quickly normalised in the UK. Not long before it does so here too

 

[BattlerGM]

The conversation in this thread has been relatively sensible given the sensitive nature of the topic and that this is an internet forum. Well done, all.

I believe gender/sex/whatever term you use is determined by biological factors, almost entirely chromosomes. I could be wrong.

I'm not here for a shitfight. I previously considered those that disagreed with me as ignoring basic biology and well established scientific evidence and instead having an outlook fuelled only by compassion (a level of compassion I oddly admire). But I could have this all wrong and am open to a fair and honest discussion on the matter.

I saw posters claiming to have scientific evidence on their side when speaking of a trans woman's status as a 'real woman.' Can I please get a link to these articles?

Any other insights or comments are welcome.

 

[Bloods86]

The conversation in this thread has been relatively sensible given the sensitive nature of the topic and that this is an internet forum. Well done, all.

I believe gender/sex/whatever term you use is determined by biological factors, almost entirely chromosomes. I could be wrong.

I'm not here for a shitfight. I previously considered those that disagreed with me as ignoring basic biology and well established scientific evidence and instead having an outlook fuelled only by compassion (a level of compassion I oddly admire). But I could have this all wrong and am open to a fair and honest discussion on the matter.

I saw posters claiming to have scientific evidence on their side when speaking of a trans woman's status as a 'real woman.' Can I please get a link to these articles?

Any other insights or comments are welcome.

The basics:

Sex is biological/physiological, it is bi-modal, in that the vast majority of people will fit within 2 categories (male and female). There are various factors used when talking about the sex of a person including chromosomes, reproductive organs, genitalia, gametes (ovum and/or sperm).

When people say a trans woman is a woman for example, they are not saying that a trans woman is exactly the same biologically/physiologically as someone who was born female (this is a deliberately misrepresented position, a strawman), although there are some treatments and procedures that can affect certain factors used normally to determine sex

Gender and gender identity are social constructs. The use of these terms as separate from sex has been around for a very long time. There are cultures around the world, across time periods that have had more than 2 categories of gender, or similar concepts, around expected traits, roles, preferences within a particular culture/time. When we discuss man and woman, for example, it is often around what they are like, and you'll get some very different answers depending on which culture and time period you're talking about. That's why people can claim that a trans woman is a real woman, if they are taking on the aesthetic, traits, roles that women in that particular culture/time take on (typically). And even with that, "typically" is becoming less and less relevant, because you can't prescriptively say what a woman is like, or a man is like, even within a single culture/time. I know this hurts some peoples brains. Maybe one day we'll get to the point where gender is obsolete. But for now, there's some people who just want to fit into a category that they feel comfortable with, and that others might understand.

 

[BattlerGM]

Are there any citations for any of this?

You claim that the use of 'gender' and 'sex' at separate terms has been around for a long time but then offer nothing to substantiate beyond further assertions. I'd only heard of this notion recently and on the surface it appears to be an intentional bastardisation of terms to suit an outlook.

'When people say a trans woman is a woman for example, they are not saying that a trans woman is exactly the same biologically/physiologically as someone who was born female (this is a deliberately misrepresented position, a strawman)'

I'm not sure this is a strawman as much as it's a misunderstanding over how people define the term 'woman.' My claim is that if somebody isn't the same biologically as somebody who is female then they cannot be categorised as a woman (generally speaking).

I appreciate your response but I'm after something a little more concrete. I'll try a different angle. Please debunk the following two claims:

• For centuries the terms 'sex' and 'gender' meant the same thing and 'man' and 'woman' were clearly defined. People have only starting attempting to change this to suit a narrative.
• Sex/Gender (or whichever, you get my point) are determined entirely by biological factors and are not malleable. This was well established and widely accepted for decades.

Thanks for keeping things civil

 

[Bloods86]

Are there any citations for any of this?

You claim that the use of 'gender' and 'sex' at separate terms has been around for a long time but then offer nothing to substantiate beyond further assertions. I'd only heard of this notion recently and on the surface it appears to be an intentional bastardisation of terms to suit an outlook.

'When people say a trans woman is a woman for example, they are not saying that a trans woman is exactly the same biologically/physiologically as someone who was born female (this is a deliberately misrepresented position, a strawman)'

I'm not sure this is a strawman as much as it's a misunderstanding over how people define the term 'woman.' My claim is that if somebody isn't the same biologically as somebody who is female then they cannot be categorised as a woman (generally speaking).

I appreciate your response but I'm after something a little more concrete. I'll try a different angle. Please debunk the following two claims:

• For centuries the terms 'sex' and 'gender' meant the same thing and 'man' and 'woman' were clearly defined. People have only starting attempting to change this to suit a narrative.
• Sex/Gender (or whichever, you get my point) are determined entirely by biological factors and are not malleable. This was well established and widely accepted for decades.

Thanks for keeping things civil

It's literally one of the first things you find when you google "gender". Even wikipedia talks about books/works that discuss gender as being separate somehow from sex from the 1940s in western academia (I have heard / read from elsewhere but limited time to indulge people who could also bother to learn themselves). More than 2 genders in certain societies have been around for millennia (such as the hijras). Even some conservatives in India see them as just part of society, as I heard first-hand when I was there.

Also, this has been addressed before, but none of that matters. Definitions can evolve and expand, that's how language works. If we used another term other than "gender" it would still be opposed, because people don't actually care about that argument, many just don't want trans people to be accepted and this is a way of increasing stigma and opposition, without outing ones self as a bigot (even if it's not that hidden).

It is a strawman. Opponents will deliberately (at least those who spend a lot of their time railing against the trans community and should therefore be expected to be informed) paint it as people being dishonest about biological realities.

You are coming from a narrow, western perspective. I don't need to debunk those two claims because they are either untrue to begin with (not based in reality), they have not been true across cultures/time, and even if it were a recent change to the definition of gender, how is that a problem I need to address?

Edit: And yes, sex is determined by biological factors. No-one is denying that. That is what I said previously.

 

[Gethelred]

Are there any citations for any of this?

You claim that the use of 'gender' and 'sex' at separate terms has been around for a long time but then offer nothing to substantiate beyond further assertions. I'd only heard of this notion recently and on the surface it appears to be an intentional bastardisation of terms to suit an outlook.

'When people say a trans woman is a woman for example, they are not saying that a trans woman is exactly the same biologically/physiologically as someone who was born female (this is a deliberately misrepresented position, a strawman)'

I'm not sure this is a strawman as much as it's a misunderstanding over how people define the term 'woman.' My claim is that if somebody isn't the same biologically as somebody who is female then they cannot be categorised as a woman (generally speaking).

I appreciate your response but I'm after something a little more concrete. I'll try a different angle. Please debunk the following two claims:

• For centuries the terms 'sex' and 'gender' meant the same thing and 'man' and 'woman' were clearly defined. People have only starting attempting to change this to suit a narrative.
• Sex/Gender (or whichever, you get my point) are determined entirely by biological factors and are not malleable. This was well established and widely accepted for decades.

Thanks for keeping things civil

4cunningTonneTruck has helpfully provided me with a google doc, which I'm waiting on approval to post as a stickied post in this thread.

If you wish, I can furnish you with it via PM; it contains a significant amount - but not all - of the current evidence and support for gender and transitioning as beneficial.

 

[BattlerGM]

4cunningTonneTruck has helpfully provided me with a google doc, which I'm waiting on approval to post as a stickied post in this thread.

If you wish, I can furnish you with it via PM; it contains a significant amount - but not all - of the current evidence and support for gender and transitioning as beneficial.

Yes, would love to see it. Thanks!

 

[Gethelred]

Yes, would love to see it. Thanks!

I've been given the go ahead. Courtesy of 4cunningTonneTruck:

Backup Trans Rights Fact Sheet

docs.google.com

Hey all, remember that the following applies:

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[Gethelred]

Yes, would love to see it. Thanks!

See the sticky, at the top of the page.

 

[Gralin]

The basics:

Sex is biological/physiological, it is bi-modal, in that the vast majority of people will fit within 2 categories (male and female). There are various factors used when talking about the sex of a person including chromosomes, reproductive organs, genitalia, gametes (ovum and/or sperm).

When people say a trans woman is a woman for example, they are not saying that a trans woman is exactly the same biologically/physiologically as someone who was born female (this is a deliberately misrepresented position, a strawman), although there are some treatments and procedures that can affect certain factors used normally to determine sex

Gender and gender identity are social constructs. The use of these terms as separate from sex has been around for a very long time. There are cultures around the world, across time periods that have had more than 2 categories of gender, or similar concepts, around expected traits, roles, preferences within a particular culture/time. When we discuss man and woman, for example, it is often around what they are like, and you'll get some very different answers depending on which culture and time period you're talking about. That's why people can claim that a trans woman is a real woman, if they are taking on the aesthetic, traits, roles that women in that particular culture/time take on (typically). And even with that, "typically" is becoming less and less relevant, because you can't prescriptively say what a woman is like, or a man is like, even within a single culture/time. I know this hurts some peoples brains. Maybe one day we'll get to the point where gender is obsolete. But for now, there's some people who just want to fit into a category that they feel comfortable with, and that others might understand.

this is the thing that trips people up big time I think in a lot of cases

bimodal is a statistical idea where there are two centers that majority of data clusters around

it doesn't mean there are two choices, its not equivalent to binary

the categories we have for male and female are like everything constructs to make sense of the world

so when we say everyone is a or b, it's not accurate, its an over simplification

we like simple boxes, reality is not that simple

at the same time people are so much more than just their physiology, reducing someones identity choices to how your perceive their physical make up is completely ****ed

i would also say that sex is also a social construct because we've simplified something very complicated to create those boxes

I also don't believe there is no link between sex and gender, I also just don't think the relationship is rigid between the two.

 

[Cyber_punk]

Noticed this on social media, has a lot of "TERFS" and progressives divided. The progressives accuse the TERFS of bigotry and transphobia, while the TERFS accuse the progressives of internalized misogyny and aiding the patriarchy. From what I have read I'd estimate it's about 60% majority who don't support this winner. Regardless of that, I'm just glad there was no apparent swimsuit competition!

World's first biological male to win Miss America pageant

Who is Brian Nguyen? Transgender teen sparks online debate by winning Miss Greater Derry 2023

By being named Miss Greater Derry 2023, Brian Nguyen became the first transgender person to win a title under the Miss America organization.

www.sportskeeda.com

 

[morningbrown]

Multiple trans women have won an iteration of Ru Paul's Drag Race, trans women have been competing in pageants against cis women for years. This isn't a story.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Noticed this on social media, has a lot of "TERFS" and progressives divided. The progressives accuse the TERFS of bigotry and transphobia, while the TERFS accuse the progressives of internalized misogyny and aiding the patriarchy. From what I have read I'd estimate it's about 60% majority who don't support this winner. Regardless of that, I'm just glad there was no apparent swimsuit competition!

World's first biological male to win Miss America pageant

Who is Brian Nguyen? Transgender teen sparks online debate by winning Miss Greater Derry 2023

By being named Miss Greater Derry 2023, Brian Nguyen became the first transgender person to win a title under the Miss America organization.

www.sportskeeda.com

TERFers are gender nationalists. They've been fighting the good fight for complete gender equality for so long now that they see their gender as an exclusive nation of sorts. Nobody else can claim citizenship except for those already part of that nation from birth.

They see trans rights as a zero-sum game - if outsiders can become citizens of their nation, they lose everything and 'the patriarchy' wins by stealth.

I don't quite believe their struggle is the same thing as the ethno-nationalist's quest for ethnic purity but I think their position on gender is unhelpful and the mission creep from equality to what they are becoming is driving them closer to that same hateful destination..

I know I can't really say that I as a male can welcome my 'new transgender brothers' and expect it to ring the same tone of truth as the historical feminist struggle - we males have virtually never had that struggle to contend with as we've always ruled. Females have had to fight and to scrap their way out from the bedroom and the kitchen and the fight for equality regarding the gender pay gap (among many, many other things) is STILL not done yet.

So I understand the struggle. I favour an equal footing for all too. Male. Female. Non-binary. Transgender. People one, people all.

But gender nationalism? The struggle has produced an embittered siege mentality within the TERFer camp, and it is destroying them. The struggle now is rage at the outsider, and as I said its something very much on the onramp to the dark highways the ethno-nationalists and supremacists travel.

That can't be their intention, surely?

 

[the_interloper]

Are there any citations for any of this?

You claim that the use of 'gender' and 'sex' at separate terms has been around for a long time but then offer nothing to substantiate beyond further assertions. I'd only heard of this notion recently and on the surface it appears to be an intentional bastardisation of terms to suit an outlook.

'When people say a trans woman is a woman for example, they are not saying that a trans woman is exactly the same biologically/physiologically as someone who was born female (this is a deliberately misrepresented position, a strawman)'

I'm not sure this is a strawman as much as it's a misunderstanding over how people define the term 'woman.' My claim is that if somebody isn't the same biologically as somebody who is female then they cannot be categorised as a woman (generally speaking).

I appreciate your response but I'm after something a little more concrete. I'll try a different angle. Please debunk the following two claims:

• For centuries the terms 'sex' and 'gender' meant the same thing and 'man' and 'woman' were clearly defined. People have only starting attempting to change this to suit a narrative.
• Sex/Gender (or whichever, you get my point) are determined entirely by biological factors and are not malleable. This was well established and widely accepted for decades.

Thanks for keeping things civil

Where it can get confusing is that (as I understand it) the same terms are used for someone's sex and gender. So someone can be of male sex and identify as male, but they are referring to two different things. Maybe if there was a different term for someone's gender it would be more clear cut.