Transgender

[Gralin]

Discussion continuing in Part 2 found here

Transgender - Part 2

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...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[faible]

“Gender is a different thing to sex even though they align in most cases.”
“No, they’re the same thing”

That’s basically the start and end of it

Yes, and they'd be incorrectly conflating the two.

 

[ElectricG]

Yes, and they'd be incorrectly conflating the two.

I mean, that statement is just you taking a side in the argument.

 

[Gethelred]

They understand the claim but reject it.

In order to reject it, they need to have a reason why other than, "it's absurd."

One of my gripes with my own team is that we treat an awful lot of arguments as having been had already. We treat certain things as established facts, as though the discussion's been had and we won; therefore, people who dissent are not people who are wrong on the other side of a debate, but are -phobic, -isms. That's not to say that there aren't a subset of the people we're talking to that aren't -phobic or -ist, but sometimes a position is arrived at through ignorance or a lack of time, and that position has not method of treating a newcomer to the argument. You either agreed, lost the argument and see the truth, or you're wrong.

But this is something that has been pretty well established over the last 20 or so years. Queer and gender theorists have never been more accessible, the sociological evidence to confirm the difference between biology and sociology never clearer.

If you're going to challenge a hypothesis, you need a basis for why it's wrong. You cannot disagree with it on the basis of not liking the field of science; I cannot suddenly say, "I dislike the theory of gravity!" and suddenly be immune to its effects.

You need a scientific reason to reject the theory of gender, because dislike is not a valid reason to reject a scientific theory.

 

[ElectricG]

In order to reject it, they need to have a reason why other than, "it's absurd."

One of my gripes with my own team is that we treat an awful lot of arguments as having been had already. We treat certain things as established facts, as though the discussion's been had and we won; therefore, people who dissent are not people who are wrong on the other side of a debate, but are -phobic, -isms. That's not to say that there aren't a subset of the people we're talking to that aren't -phobic or -ist, but sometimes a position is arrived at through ignorance or a lack of time, and that position has not method of treating a newcomer to the argument. You either agreed, lost the argument and see the truth, or you're wrong.

But this is something that has been pretty well established over the last 20 or so years. Queer and gender theorists have never been more accessible, the sociological evidence to confirm the difference between biology and sociology never clearer.

If you're going to challenge a hypothesis, you need a basis for why it's wrong. You cannot disagree with it on the basis of not liking the field of science; I cannot suddenly say, "I dislike the theory of gravity!" and suddenly be immune to its effects.

You need a scientific reason to reject the theory of gender, because dislike is not a valid reason to reject a scientific theory.

The thing is though gethelred, I think your side is trying to use the science as ammunition in the cultural debate. You’ve use the same slight of hand in your post by signing it off with an insistence that the science is settled and that it’s like arguing against gravity.

The insistence that we use the word “gender” in this way is purely a political / cultural argument.

 

[Gethelred]

The thing is though gethelred, I think your side is trying to use the science as ammunition in the cultural debate. You’ve use the same slight of hand in your post by signing it off with an insistence that the science is settled and that it’s like arguing against gravity.

The insistence that we use the word “gender” in this way is purely a political / cultural argument.

I'm telling you, it's not. The science here is what you'd be arguing with if you refuse to acknowledge the separation of gender and biology. This argument has actually been had. This part of it is not a political argument but a scientific one. It's the implications of it that are a political argument; what should we do, now these are the facts as we know them.

But the problem I think you're having is that these people are not making an argument that we're doing the wrong thing, but that the science is wrong. They (correctly) identify that if gender is separate from biological sex, it absolutely needs to be acknowledged; you can accuse conservatives of ideological inconsistency, but you cannot accuse them of inaction. They see something they think is wrong, they oppose it however they can. The usual response from here is faith; 'I can't demonstrate that you're wrong but I feel it to be true anyway, so I'll oppose you any way I can'.

But unless they have a basis to reject the science, they have no leg to stand on argumentatively.

 

[ElectricG]

I'm telling you, it's not. The science here is what you'd be arguing with if you refuse to acknowledge the separation of gender and biology. This argument has actually been had. This part of it is not a political argument but a scientific one. It's the implications of it that are a political argument; what should we do, now these are the facts as we know them.

But the problem I think you're having is that these people are not making an argument that we're doing the wrong thing, but that the science is wrong. They (correctly) identify that if gender is separate from biological sex, it absolutely needs to be acknowledged; you can accuse conservatives of ideological inconsistency, but you cannot accuse them of inaction. They see something they think is wrong, they oppose it however they can.

But unless they have a basis to reject the science, they have no leg to stand on.

Again, putting the rabbit in the hat. There is no amount of science that can change the agreed definition of “woman”, “gender”, etc. The definition of words with longstanding precedent is not changed Top-Down by the science and queer theorists in this way.

The issue is whether we agree that trans people should be referred to and treated as their identified gender or not, regardless of any underpinning biology.

 

[Gethelred]

Again, putting the rabbit in the hat. There is no amount of science that can change the agreed definition of “woman”, “gender”, etc. The definition of words with longstanding precedent is not changed Top-Down by the science and queer theorists in this way.

The issue is whether we agree that trans people should be referred to and treated as their identified gender or not, regardless of any underpinning biology.

... which is what the science implies we should be doing. That's where the discussion becomes political.

The problem is that those who are arguing against this are not arguing at the political level, but at the science. That's, quite literally, all I've been saying.

 

[ElectricG]

... which is what the science implies we should be doing. That's where the discussion becomes political.

The problem is that those who are arguing against this are not arguing at the political level, but at the science. That's, quite literally, all I've been saying.

So to be clear, people in academic circles (biologists, sociologists, etc.) have provided sufficient evidence that redefining words can accommodate the needs of trans people by allowing them to live as their true self. Therefore, to refuse to use the words in this way is to argue against the science?

If they accept the science but refuse to go along with it aren’t they just being flogs as opposed to anti-science from your side’s point of view?

I’m not being mocking here, I’ve just never seen someone put this forward.

 

[Gethelred]

So to be clear, people in academic circles (biologists, sociologists, etc.) have provided sufficient evidence that redefining words can accommodate the needs of trans people by allowing them to live as their true self. Therefore, to refuse to use the words in this way is to argue against the science?

Not quite. The above findings constitute a scientific basis to treat transgendered people by their gender. The next (re, the political) step is extent; how far can/should that be taken?

Most opposed don't attack the political, they try and attack the science. It just doesn't work unless they have a scientific basis to try.

If they accept the science but refuse to go along with it aren’t they just being flogs as opposed to anti-science from your side’s point of view?

Yep. That's what I'm saying.

I’m not being mocking here, I’ve just never seen someone put this forward.

Eh. I'm weird.

 

[faible]

There is no amount of science that can change the agreed definition of “woman”, “gender”, etc. The definition of words with longstanding precedent is not changed Top-Down by the science and queer theorists in this way.

But that’s the thing; sex and gender as words are different, have always been different.

You might disagree that Biological Sex and Gender can differ, but they are different words with different definitions, previously used loosely and incorrectly as interchangeable terms.

As time has moved forward, this distinction has gone from being a minor one used largely only in scientific-academic realms where these things were discussed, to a mainstream one where correct usage is important both for the people impacted (transgender gives you a hint here) and for the wider public in understanding what is being discussed.

Claiming to understand the arguments, and to respond to those arguments, whilst failing to understand the very basic terminology of Sex vs Gender shows a very limited understanding of the topic.

 

[ElectricG]

Claiming to understand the arguments, and to respond to those arguments, whilst failing to understand the very basic terminology of Sex vs Gender shows a very limited understanding of the topic.

Do you think the people who allegedly don’t understand couldn’t recite your “side’s” definition of gender to a satisfactory level upon request? Anyone who has spent even a small amount of time arguing online about this understands the notion of gender as something separate to sex perfectly well.

Maybe there’s nothing more to say.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Do you think the people who allegedly don’t understand couldn’t recite your “side’s” definition of gender to a satisfactory level upon request? Anyone who has spent even a small amount of time arguing online about this understands the notion of gender as something separate to sex perfectly well.

Maybe there’s nothing more to say.

At this point, when the difference between gender and sex is understood by all parties, it becomes a question of human rights, and of respect for those rights.

Do you respect the right that these people have in living their lives in the form that best makes them happy?

 

[ElectricG]

At this point, when the difference between gender and sex is understood by all parties, it becomes a question of human rights, and of respect for those rights.

Do you respect the right that these people have in living their lives in the form that best makes them happy?

I don’t really follow. A word’s historically accepted definition, and its proposed definition are understood by all parties therefore it’s human rights?

You can boil any argument down to emotional-blackmail-in-the-form-of-a-question. Meh.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I don’t really follow. A word’s historically accepted definition, and its proposed definition are understood by all parties therefore it’s human rights?

You can boil any argument down to emotional-blackmail-in-the-form-of-a-question. Meh.

Hang about. The bit of your reply, the bit I bolded, states that "Anyone who has spent even a small amount of time arguing online about this understands the notion of gender as something separate to sex perfectly well."

I took that as meaning anyone. Anyone. Right. Left. Religious. Agnostic. Anyone who has argued online understands that the notion of gender as something separate to sex. Perfectly well.

So the way that it then become an issue of human rights is whether one thinks a person should be able to live their own life as whatever gender they see fit, divorced from the issue of biologic function (sex). Should it be possible?

No emotional blackmail here.

 

[ElectricG]

Hang about. The bit of your reply, the bit I bolded, states that "Anyone who has spent even a small amount of time arguing online about this understands the notion of gender as something separate to sex perfectly well."

I took that as meaning anyone. Anyone. Right. Left. Religious. Agnostic. Anyone who has argued online understands that the notion of gender as something separate to sex. Perfectly well.

So the way that it then become an issue of human rights is whether one thinks a person should be able to live their own life as whatever gender they see fit, divorced from the issue of biologic function (sex). Should it be possible?

No emotional blackmail here.

They understand the claim, and they understand the way “gender” is being used by the people they are arguing with. They just do not agree with or accept it.

This isn’t a matter of science. It’s a matter of, I don’t know, linguistics. But in the end it boils down to the old progressive/conservative divide where progressives blame the system (language and culture) and conservatives blame the individual (person who doesn’t feel like their biologically assigned sex).

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

They understand the claim, and they understand the way “gender” is being used by the people they are arguing with. They just do not agree with or accept it.

This isn’t a matter of science. It’s a matter of, I don’t know, linguistics. But in the end it boils down to the old progressive/conservative divide where progressives blame the system (language and culture) and conservatives blame the individual (person who doesn’t feel like their biologically assigned sex).

Speaking for myself I think all issues of inclusion/exclusion in modern society are human rights issues at their core.

Person A wants to live their life in a manner as comfortable to them as can be but cannot due to inflexibilities in the system.

Person B says the pursuit of balance and happiness in ones life is vitally important. Live and let live. The system needs to be flexible to allow for variations.

Person C says you were born as a fixed sex and gender and that's how you must stay.

As someone who is very much a Person B I do blame the system for its inflexibilities. But I also know that any system is only as flexible or inflexible as what we as a society allow it to be.

Inclusive or exclusive.

 

[ElectricG]

Speaking for myself I think all issues of inclusion/exclusion in modern society are human rights issues at their core.

Person A wants to live their life in a manner as comfortable to them as can be but cannot due to inflexibilities in the system.

Person B says the pursuit of balance and happiness in ones life is vitally important. Live and let live. The system needs to be flexible to allow for variations.

Person C says you were born as a fixed sex and gender and that's how you must stay.

As someone who is very much a Person B I do blame the system for its inflexibilities. But I also know that any system is only as flexible or inflexible as what we as a society allow it to be.

Inclusive or exclusive.

I’m not sold that it’s a human rights issue but I otherwise agree with that write up.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I’m not sold that it’s a human rights issue but I otherwise agree with that write up.

Fair enough.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I’m not sold that it’s a human rights issue but I otherwise agree with that write up.

How would you yourself define it?

 

[Marcel Proust]

Creator of the 'what is a women?' doco.

Walsh seems to be gaining a lot of traction on the interwebs recently.

‘What is a Woman?’ showing draws plans for protests

Over two weeks ago, ETSU’s Turning Point USA organization sent out an email to the student body inviting the community to attend a showing of ...

easttennessean.com

 

[the_interloper]

I watched it online for nix, not that hard to find. It's pretty funny tbh, has a really odd ending though, sort of took the sting out of it for me.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I will watch 'What is a woman'. In the meantime I have to say (and this will likely end up being a complete tangent to the point of 'what is a woman' but here I go anyway) that I find the idea of 'gender nationalism' that the TERFers champion absolutely absurd. I understand their position that womanhood has always struggled for equality against the patriarchy, but this notion that they have of womanhood being like a nation that none but biologically-born females can join is absolutely bonkers.

I'll speak for my sex and my gender here. What is a man? Someone with a penis? What if someone who presents as a man yet has a vagina wants to be known as a man? Come on and join the party, I reckon. You're a man. There's no sacred bonding of the bio-born here.

'Mankind' and 'manhood' are not positions to be defended, nor a gendership to be overrun. Neither are 'Womankind' or 'womanhood'.

 

[Marcel Proust]

The Norah Vincent story is sad

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The Norah Vincent story is sad

Wow. Never knew of her story. Brave person to get into the nitty gritty of it like that.

Norah Vincent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Someone else to read up on. Thanks, Marcel

 

[Gethelred]

The hospital does top surgeries on kids and not only that its money driven. Im against all of that.

Prove it.

You have 24 hours. If you cannot produce evidence of your claim - not a general 'we operate within the law', 'we operate with parental consent when a patient is younger than 18'; specific 'this person was operated on when they were younger than 18' - you will be threadbanned and receive an infraction for spreading misinformation.