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.

 

[scoman]

Why do so many conservatives only care about women's sport once trans women get involved?

Hi Chief

 

[chopflop]

Biological woman or female when it comes to humans is not as clear given the nature of human biology.

Woman is a social construct. Female is not, that is a sex category. A biological fact. No matter how hard I affirm a trans identity, i will never give birth.

Not surprising as the media is shifting to use that language also. And no its not scientifically accurate to say biological woman, woman is not a biological definition it is a social definition.

No this is parroting Butler who has now become mainstream but this is a 'theory' a very very speculative theory. Post-structuralists, like Butler, can be useful as descriptions of the way language and the world work, but they are not instructive of the way the world should work.

If you don't know Butler then it's hard to take your ideas about language and social definitions too seriously because you haven't consulted the source of all of these ideas.

You can trace Butler back to Foucault and if you need to see how smart and silly post structuralism can be, i will direct you to a debate between Chomsky and Foucault where Foucault looks like a genius until asked what we can do in the 'future' given his critique. It's not pretty

 

[CM86]

See this is what I was saying the other day. It's 'agree with Gralin' or 'TERF'. There's no middle ground. No debate. Use the exact language Gralin wants, or TERF. Agree with Gralin, or TERF.

You said I was disconnected from reality, because I couldn't explain my position correctly. I took that serious criticism on board, and I've struggled with it.

 

[Gralin]

Woman is a social construct. Female is not, that is a sex category. A biological fact. No matter how hard I affirm a trans identity, i will never give birth.

You don't have to give birth to be a woman though

No this is parroting Butler who has now become mainstream but this is a 'theory' a very very speculative theory. Post-structuralists, like Butler, can be useful as descriptions of the way language and the world work, but they are not instructive of the way the world should work.

Dude everything is at best a theory

If you don't know Butler then it's hard to take your ideas about language and social definitions too seriously because you haven't consulted the source of all of these ideas.

You can trace Butler back to Foucault and if you need to see how smart and silly post structuralism can be, i will direct you to a debate between Chomsky and Foucault where Foucault looks like a genius until asked what we can do in the 'future' given his critique. It's not pretty

I'm much happier agreeing with Judith Butler on this topic than random big footy poster

Though the guardian edited the above after posting it originally

Judith Butler: ‘We need to rethink the category of woman’

But again woman is just a word, biological women is a term used by gender crits because they want to push biological essentialism above all else.

They want to link gender and biology in a way that means people will refuse to use the word woman for a trans woman

I'm not helping them by using their language when discussing this topic.

 

[CM86]

Can anyone answer honestly... Did they have reservations against gay marriage, and also have reservations about Trans in sport?

 

[Gralin]

How so? I was very specifically referring to the biological category. If you think using woman versus female is the key word in that sentence then that's on you, no one else.

I think you talk like someone who is trans exclusionary

Feel free to provide some scientific sources refuting the figure of 1.7% as the upper limit of genuine intersex people then?

You think saying most people aren't x is a good enough reason to act like nobody is x

See this is what I was saying the other day. It's 'agree with Gralin' or 'TERF'. There's no middle ground. No debate. Use the exact language Gralin wants, or TERF. Agree with Gralin, or TERF.

You're using the language the anti trans activists, terfs and GCs use and want you to use.
Would you parrot the arguments used by nazis or white supremacists uncritically?

Like I'm saying that's what the people that want to kill trans people say, that's how they argue their points, and you don't go hmmm i should look into that you say stop calling me a terf

See above. Like when you called Malifice a fascist the other day. He's clearly not. But you repeatedly say it any way.

Its funny. Mal points out people are parroting nazi memes on the conspiracy board and the response is either I'm not a nazi or those memes aren't nazi
And they all go around saying Mal accused them of being nazis

Same thing is happening here

Incorrect. I was referring to biology. I used the term biology. Cis wasn't a relevant term. For your benefit I'll use female/woman and male/man so as to not confuse you or set off your anti-trans-TERF-fascist radar.

You're still being a dick doing that because you're still insisting woman=female with that

Women's sport is a separate category because of the biological implications of puberty for biological males/men versus biological females/women on sports performance.

That's not why womens sports were created

If someone isn't a biological male/man, there is little-to-no chance they'll undergo male/man puberty and thus benefit from the performance enhancing benefits of that male/man puberty.

Keep being a dick

Intersex people are different to transgender people. Caster Semenya is different to Laurel Hubbard or Lia Thomas or <insert high profile athlete of choice>. Both intersex and transgender athletes have been subject to various rulings and limitations on their participation in (largely women/female) categories in sport.

Everyone is different
You don't have to be intersex to have higer than usual testosterone levels, you don't even have to get a benefit from those higher testosterone levels
This whole argument has been stripped down to

Men are always better because testosterone and trans women are still men so are always better than women

Do you have any idea how misogynistic and inaccurate that is?

 

[chopflop]

You don't have to give birth to be a woman though

Dude everything is at best a theory

I'm much happier agreeing with Judith Butler on this topic than random big footy poster
View attachment 1430671
Though the guardian edited the above after posting it originally

Judith Butler: ‘We need to rethink the category of woman’

But again woman is just a word, biological women is a term used by gender crits because they want to push biological essentialism above all else.

They want to link gender and biology in a way that means people will refuse to use the word woman for a trans woman

I'm not helping them by using their language when discussing this topic.

"This radical splitting of the gendered subject poses yet another set of problems. Can we refer to a “ given ” sex or a “ given ” gender without first inquiring into how sex and/or gender is given, through what means? And what is “sex” anyway? Is it natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal, and how is a feminist critic to assess the scientific discourses which purport to establish such “ facts ” for us? Does sex have a history? Does each sex have a different history, or histories? Is there a history of how the duality of sex was established, a genealogy that might expose the binary options as a variable construction? Are the ostensibly natural facts of sex discursively produced by various scientific discourses in the service of other political and social interests? If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all. 11 It would make no sense, then, to define gender as the cultural interpretation of sex, if sex itself is a gendered category. Gender ought not to be conceived merely as the cultural inscription of meaning on a pregiven sex (a juridical conception); gender must also designate the very apparatus of production whereby the sexes themselves are established." (Butler, 2006, pp. 9-10)


A post-structuralist who tells you that biological sex is socially constructed. Could a more tenuous and empirically unsupported claim be made? Now this is conventional wisdom and law. In fact, biology is the basis for facism. The word games that people play these days.

 

[Jafa]

Right but the UK gender crits are sharing that photo as evidence that trans women can't play rugby with cis women, except it was a cis woman in the photo not a trans woman

Which again, they don't care about any women, they are attacking women, they are taking rights away from all women, because they actually want trans people dead.

Sport is just the first step for these ones and they don't care about the truth at all, just the end result

* me there is some tinfoil s**t in that lot.

 

[Chief]

A post-structuralist who tells you that biological sex is socially constructed. Could a more tenuous and empirically unsupported claim be made? Now this is conventional wisdom and law. In fact, biology is the basis for facism. The word games that people play these days.

You'll have to explain that a bit more.

"If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all."

There's a big IF in the front there. Then an "If so", then a conclusion or the effect of that IF being true.

You seem to have snipped out a bit and called it a definitely, widely held fact.

 

[Chief]

* me there is some tinfoil s**t in that lot.

The evidence is right there but you don't want to admit it.

 

[Jafa]

The evidence is right there but you don't want to admit it.

Its the second line that blew my mind.

 

[chopflop]

You'll have to explain that a bit more.

"If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all."

There's a big IF in the front there. Then an "If so", then a conclusion or the effect of that IF being true.

You seem to have snipped out a bit and called it a definitely, widely held fact.

Fortunately, when Butler originally wrote this in 1990, they were far more circumspect and guarded with their language use.
The part I have highlighted is their first assertion that biological sex is socially constructed and therefore can be subsumed by gender identity (which is also socially constructed). As you can see in the guardian excerpt post by Gralin, Butler has become far less cautious in their language use about the social "un"importance of biological sex.

They called it "a regressive and spurious form of biological essentialism" in the guardian article.

 

[Gralin]

"This radical splitting of the gendered subject poses yet another set of problems. Can we refer to a “ given ” sex or a “ given ” gender without first inquiring into how sex and/or gender is given, through what means? And what is “sex” anyway? Is it natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal, and how is a feminist critic to assess the scientific discourses which purport to establish such “ facts ” for us? Does sex have a history? Does each sex have a different history, or histories? Is there a history of how the duality of sex was established, a genealogy that might expose the binary options as a variable construction? Are the ostensibly natural facts of sex discursively produced by various scientific discourses in the service of other political and social interests? If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all. 11 It would make no sense, then, to define gender as the cultural interpretation of sex, if sex itself is a gendered category. Gender ought not to be conceived merely as the cultural inscription of meaning on a pregiven sex (a juridical conception); gender must also designate the very apparatus of production whereby the sexes themselves are established." (Butler, 2006, pp. 9-10)


A post-structuralist who tells you that biological sex is socially constructed. Could a more tenuous and empirically unsupported claim be made? Now this is conventional wisdom and law. In fact, biology is the basis for facism. The word games that people play these days.

I mean at the end of the day everything we use, our language our definitions, its all made up.

We like to say that the science isn't decided that science adapts when new information is presented.

But science is also a human creation conducted by humans and we have so much history of how those humans influenced the scientific thoughts of their times.

The more we have discovered about biology and genetics the more we know its not that simple.

The antitrans people and a lot of the fundy Christian types (there may be some overlap between groups) tend to take the adam and eve approach to biology.

That the science is decided that humans are only male or female, that it's the natural order (another term that bleagh)

Nature is messy, it doesn't fit into neat little boxes and neither do people.

Our understanding of sex is a construct, our understanding of gender is a construct.

And not everyone's understanding or experience of those are the same

Some people want to make it so that it is a binary.
The way they do that is the act like biology is binary and that biology doesn't change at all.
They then act like the only important part of biology is fertility and that man and woman can only be linked to that.

Its why you see well they'll never give birth so they can't be a woman used so much.

Gender and sex are linked but that doesn't mean there are only two choices or combinations.

Majority doesn't mean all and the reality is we don't have true data on things because of cultural pressures and things like governments refusing to acknowledge or gather statistics.

But that lack of data makes it easy for people to pretend the number is or should be zero

 

[Gralin]

Biological essentialism gives you Matt Walsh and his what is a woman
Is that more your speed?

Fortunately, when Butler originally wrote this in 1990, they were far more circumspect and guarded with their language use.
The part I have highlighted is their first assertion that biological sex is socially constructed and therefore can be subsumed by gender identity (which is also socially constructed). As you can see in the guardian excerpt post by Gralin, Butler has become far less cautious in their language use about the social "un"importance of biological sex.

They called it "a regressive and spurious form of biological essentialism" in the guardian article.

 

[chopflop]

Biological essentialism gives you Matt Walsh and his what is a woman
Is that more your speed?

Never heard of it or him.

 

[Gralin]

Never heard of it or him.

Well then I don't think you've been reading even this thread

 

[chopflop]

I was elected Greens’ state convenor. Two days later, all hell broke loose

This is a comment from this article. For all the TERFY insinuations flying about in this thread, it is important to show that discussing transgenderism and ethical complexities in sports, prisons, domestic violence shelters, hospital wards and so on doesn't make you a transphobe. It's not that plain and simple i.e., transphobic/not transphobic. Just like gender identity is not binary or that plain and simple.

 

[Gralin]

View attachment 1430749
I was elected Greens’ state convenor. Two days later, all hell broke loose

This is a comment from this article. For all the TERFY insinuations flying about in this thread, it is important to show that discussing transgenderism and ethical complexities in sports, prisons, domestic violence shelters, hospital wards and so on doesn't make you a transphobe. It's not that plain and simple i.e., transphobic/not transphobic. Just like gender identity is not binary or that plain and simple.

Do you understand the phrasing of the question she used and why she used it and the problems with it?

 

[chopflop]

Do you understand the phrasing of the question she used and why she used it and the problems with it?

I see zero problems with it.

Either do prominent and learned voices on the left it seems.

I don't know her so won't indulge in speculation about why she used a particular phrasing.

 

[Gralin]

I see zero problems with it.

Either do prominent and learned voices on the left it seems.

I don't know her so won't indulge in speculation about why she used a particular phrasing.

Well let me give you an example
Replace trans with black and you have the segregation argument from the 60s, from the keep it side, you know the racists
Won't someone think of the poor white women that might be forced to use the same toilet

More recently replace it with gay or lesbian, that was the argument in the 80s and 90s

What about the poor straight kids that have to use a toilet with a gay kid, how is that fair to the straight kids, won't someone think of their rights?

 

[Pessimistic]

Can anyone answer honestly... Did they have reservations against gay marriage, and also have reservations about Trans in sport?

I always believed in the rights to a marriage to anyone, but I actuall think gay marriage (and I note you used the words gay marriage not marriage equality suggesting you feel the need to say gay marriage). My point is gay marriage and marriage are different things.

Trans in sport? Failed culture war by a failing PM who had no intention to legislate

Surely it’s up to individual sports international national and social. If some countries priohibited it then the sport would have more of an issue with the country

 

[chopflop]

Well let me give you an example
Replace trans with black and you have the segregation argument from the 60s, from the keep it side, you know the racists
Won't someone think of the poor white women that might be forced to use the same toilet

More recently replace it with gay or lesbian, that was the argument in the 80s and 90s

What about the poor straight kids that have to use a toilet with a gay kid, how is that fair to the straight kids, won't someone think of their rights?

Not quite. I see where you are going with it but there are some important distinctions here.

What was the basis of racial segregation policies?

What is the basis of sex segregation in prisons?

Institutional racial segregation is thankfully in the past.

Institutional sex segregation in prisons is not. Why?

Why are they different and why should they be treated differently?

Here we come into those "complexities" that Linda was paying heed to.

 

[Gralin]

Not quite. I see where you are going with it but there are some important distinctions here.

What was the basis of racial segregation policies?

What is the basis of sex segregation in prisons?

Institutional racial segregation is thankfully in the past.

Institutional sex segregation in prisons is not. Why?

Why are they different and why should they be treated differently?

Here we come into those "complexities" that Linda was paying heed to.

Again though she's pushing for segregation based on the pretransition identity of the person, which is where the transphobia comes in.

Because how do they link it? By saying they're still really men and therefore
Predators.
This is exactly the argument used against gays and lesbians
They are predators
Groomers is back in fashion
There is no complexity there.
She wants to discriminate against trans women

 

[Scotland]

See this is what I was saying the other day. It's 'agree with Gralin' or 'TERF'. There's no middle ground. No debate. Use the exact language Gralin wants, or TERF. Agree with Gralin, or TERF.

I think that's a bit much. Sometimes it's 'agree with Gralin' or 'fascist'.

 

[chopflop]

Again though she's pushing for segregation based on the pretransition identity of the person, which is where the transphobia comes in.

Because how do they link it? By saying they're still really men and therefore
Predators.
This is exactly the argument used against gays and lesbians
They are predators
Groomers is back in fashion
There is no complexity there.
She wants to discriminate against trans women

You arguing in bad faith now Gralin.

I asked you a pretty straightforward question -
-------
The institutional racial segregation that was practised in pre-civil rights America.

and

The segregation of men and women globally in the institution of prison.
-----

What is the basis for these two different forms of discrimination?

This is nothing to do with transition or pre-transition or whatever.

Is there a difference between sex-based segregation of prisons and race-based segregation of diners and schools?