Support NeoGAF

[Sgt.Asher]

It's funny because for a long while I always thought that "Gender" was simply just a more socially acceptable term of saying "Sex" because of how "naughty" the word "Sex" can be. I never presumed the two to be considered as anyway meaningfully different.

Look up John Money and the fucked up things he did. All these woke lunatics get their terminology from his quackery.

 

[benno]

Explain how expanding the cultural definition of a woman to include trans-women would negatively impact society as a whole. Having done that, Google "moral panic" and then tell me how the first doesn't qualify as the second.

. . .or don't.

because it's untrue. 2+2 is not 5. Mutilated men on HRT are never going to be women.

The "moral panic" as you call it is due to a lot of people being able to clearly see the consequences of this way of thinking, ie children are being placed on irreversible growth damaging hormone treatments at an early age. It's child abuse.

 

[ANDS]

because it's untrue. 2+2 is not 5. Mutilated men on HRT are never going to be women.

The "moral panic" as you call it is due to a lot of people being able to clearly see the consequences of this way of thinking, ie children are being placed on irreversible growth damaging hormone treatments at an early age. It's child abuse.

To your first point, there's no "truth" value inherent in cultural norms. There just isn't. And thank goodness there isn't because other otherwise my country of birth wouldn't have moved on from harmful "traditions" that were perceived to be "true." To the second, that isn't a consequence of adjusting language and you know it isn't. That is a consequence of the science used to treat gender dysphoria.

. . .and not for nothing, but your post is literally Helen Lovejoy bemoaning "Won't somebody please think of the children" for an issue that affects how many kids?

 

[Shmunter]

Explain how expanding the cultural definition of a woman to include trans-women would negatively impact society as a whole. Having done that, Google "moral panic" and then tell me how the first doesn't qualify as the second.

. . .or don't.

Biological females will always be physically disadvantaged compared to biological males that nominate to be women. So as an example, in things like sport females will lose out on balance. Doesn’t need to be said, it is why sports are segmented between the sexes.

It’s fringe at the moment, but if one were to look at the end game, a woman’s sports team at its best would be fully transsexual.

Biological women do not wish to be pushed out for obvious reasons. Fathers, mothers are also unlikely to support their daughters missing out on scholarships, sporting acclaim, Olympics, etc.

As such, this movement is like pissing in the wind, no majority will ever embrace it - there is a significant cost to it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Dude ranked 500 or so in men's swimming, calls himself a girl while still busting chub swinging under the towels to the girls in the locker rooms, a year later dominates all women and "wins a women's national championship*"

 

[benno]

To your first point, there's no "truth" value inherent in cultural norms. There just isn't.

Great argument you have. I simply must just accept your warped thinking.

And thank goodness there isn't because other otherwise my country of birth wouldn't have moved on from harmful "traditions" that were perceived to be "true." To the second, that isn't a consequence of adjusting language and you know it isn't. That is a consequence of the science used to treat gender dysphoria.

Word salad that makes no sense to me what-so-ever.

. . .and not for nothing, but your post is literally Helen Lovejoy bemoaning "Won't somebody please think of the children" for an issue that affects how many kids?

So there's some sort of scale where child abuse is allowed now. "it's only 10 kids so it's fine"

So Yes. That is exactly it. I don't give a shit if Dave plays dick tuck with his mates , but when you start pushing it and kids get involved then it becomes an issue.

 

[Lokaum D+]

What's illegal exactly. I'm lost on what you're saying here.

i said "kinda" its about their defamation law, if you tarnish someone's honor u can be sued even if u are right.

a quick resume on the video

 

[Arkangelus0]

Explain how expanding the cultural definition of a woman to include trans-women would negatively impact society as a whole. Having done that, Google "moral panic" and then tell me how the first doesn't qualify as the second.

. . .or don't.

You can try to bend the reality all you want, you are going to keep failing, in the end a women is a adult female, and all that cultural definition of a women

But let just pretend the reality in your little head its true

expanding the cultural definition of a woman to include trans-women would negatively impact society as a whole, because now trans women become a second clases women,

People dont want to marry and fuck disabled People, they become second class citizen and thats the Hard truth (i dont ser many People with down syndrome getting married to non disabled People

Its the same principle, Who want to marry and have a Long life to a second class women Who cant have children, need to be on meds all the time to have the ilustion of a women, and even that cant look like real, dont have a vagina, so you need to be at least bisexual to have an atraction to that, only People Who stay with second tier partners

When they are on retirement age and single, they become a liability to the whole society, because they dont give birth to member of society Who are going to pay for that retirement and that meds old People need, like the issues japan is facing right now

See i give you a problem you dont even think about

 

[mckmas8808]

It's funny because for a long while I always thought that "Gender" was simply just a more socially acceptable term of saying "Sex" because of how "naughty" the word "Sex" can be. I never presumed the two to be considered as anyway meaningfully different.

And this is why this conversation along with many others is good to have. I helps elevate the conversations that people have and all of our understandings of things.

When discussing larger societal and political issues we need to consider the facts. There is a difference between females and trans women. And we should be able to acknowledge that fact when it is relevant. Trans people don't get to one-sidedly decide when it's relevant or not.

Rowling's publications about transgenderism seemed honest and informed to me and I have yet to see someone prove otherwise. People should be able to have a discussion about it. Labeling it transphobia is just a means to censor unwanted criticism. This ongoing smear campaign sooner makes me think she might have a point.

I think the majority of trans people would agree that there's a difference between women and trans women. They aren't all trying to one-sidedly decided the relevancy in that. Like in all groups, they have a fringe part of their community that's loud that may lead you to a difference conclusion about them. But understand that the internet isn't a real place. On social media, algorithms are controlling what you see on your feed. You aren't getting the true impression of most groups, if you are only seeing "their" side on Twitter only.

You guys bring up some good points above.

Xandaca's post is really good telling a history of words. Problem is in present day I don't think anyone (especially activists) give a shit about history. They just want what they want how they want it now.

CGiRanger's quick post is similar to me. If it wasn't for all the social media and trans stuff the past 5 years, I thought Sex and Gender were the same thing. It's like filling out a form. Some use Sex, some use Gender. Interchangeable. Maybe in modern day forms they might have both demographic metrics to fill out, but I bet if you pull out random blank forms, that box you fill out will say M or F no matter what the company labeled that box. So it shows even government and companies can't even tell the difference.

As for me, I will stick to the scientific route. If that's what JK Rowling was doing in her old tweets, then I agree with her.

I don't care what a person thinks they are. But in reality, they are going to be 99.99% chance you are born Male (dick) or Female (pussy). And women are the ones who give birth. There is a rare chance you are both (hermaphrodite I believe) where you are born with both parts. Ok, so if there's one group of people who has a case for having H as an option on a form it's them.

When it comes to standards for sex and gender, there's reasons for it. You can see all the mayhem Lia Thomas has done to women's swimming, but I'll give you another one that applies to everyone.

The classification of being an adult or anything at a certain age. Makes no difference if a country's adult classification for driving or drinking law requires someone to be 18, 19 or 21 etc.... There's a specific age needed to do certain things.

If you think about it? What is age? Why does the government do this? Well because they are thinking if you reach a certain age you are mature enough to do that thing. That's not true. If a city says you can drink booze at 18 or older, who says someone 16 cant handle booze? Who says a 26 year old can? There are drunks getting into car accidents at 56 years old.

But for sake of standards, the government puts a stake in the sand to basically keep life and order going. Just like having someone say they are M or F on a driver's license. You can think what you want, but the formal classification is M or F.

Now someone can say, "I think I'm mature enough at 16 to do things requiring me to be 18". And that can be 100% true. But the gov will say fuck you and wait two more years. Your classification is 16 years old. And no matter what you think or how good you are at controlling beer intake, you aren't 18. You are 16 and not allowed to drink.

- To the first bolded, I think it's not the activists that don't care about history. It's the majority of people on the internet having these conversations that don't care about history. We are in the mist of a culture war about this subject and the most harden people on both sides don't want to concede anything to the other. It's always bad to lump people in a one-sized-fits all grouping.

 

[ANDS]

Word salad that makes no sense to me what-so-ever.

It isn't a word salad; it's you not understanding or agreeing with a point and instead of engaging with it, instead just dismisses it as incoherent. Either way I'll make the first point PAINFULLY obvious with an example: marriage in the United States used to be culturally (and statutorily) defined as being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples were not included under this definition of marriage until very recently, and the moral panic around this (even same sex partnering in general) had been around for decades before. What was the inherent "truth" of this cultural definition? What was the resultant harm of extending the definition of "married couple" to same-sex couples that critiques were sure was to come if same-sex couples were allowed to marry?

The second point, similar clear on its face, but I'll make it obvious as well: your example isn't a consequence of expanding the cultural definition of women it is in bad science and/or public health policy not being developed to account for the (not well understood) risks.

So there's some sort of scale where child abuse is allowed now. "it's only 10 kids so it's fine"

. . .still doing it.

 

[CGiRanger]

Look up John Money and the fucked up things he did. All these woke lunatics get their terminology from his quackery.

From what little I've heard yeah, sounds like all this literally came from pedophiles playing as "Academics"

 

[mckmas8808]

What is the meaning of words? Why do we even speak or try to communicate?

Just try and change the meaning of all words and see how well you can get your point across.

Reality is there to be observed even without language. But with language we can try to make sense of things and derive or distill meaning and ideas out of this chaos we call life.

The meaning of a word is bigger than any one of us. A word has a history. A word is an idea.

Like Jared Leto's Joker.

Words matter, but come on bro. You know darn well the same word can have multiple meanings based on the circumstance, region of the country, country you live in, etc. Lets not get all high and mighty and act like the Trans people are making us screw up the human language.

The meaning of words have been constantly changing for 1,000s of years already. And for good reason. As societies evolve, so does our language. It's a must that words change definition as time goes on. It's one of our best attributes as humans on this Earth.

 

[benno]

. . .still doing it.

your quick nonchalant dismissal to actual things that are happening towards children is quite revealing. Carry on.

 

[ANDS]

your quick nonchalant dismissal to actual things that are happening towards children is quite revealing. Carry on.

I've been on the internet for decades. The "I guess I just care more. . ." line has never worked.

. . .and your point wasn't dismissed; if you were actually engaging in this thread in good faith you would see I addressed it TWICE already, including in that gigantic block of text you seemingly missed in the response you last quoted.

 

[mckmas8808]

Dude ranked 500 or so in men's swimming, calls himself a girl while still busting chub swinging under the towels to the girls in the locker rooms, a year later dominates all women and "wins a women's national championship*"

And while most of you know where I stand on this, I don't think we should have trans women competing against cis gender women in sports. I know they can test for testosterone levels or something, but I don't think we are advanced enough to honestly make it a fair contest. The reality is the trans women should be made to go through years of HRT and\or blockers and prove that their testosterone levels are equal to cis gender women. But as I understand it, some in the Trans community are against that.

i said "kinda" its about their defamation law, if you tarnish someone's honor u can be sued even if u are right.

a quick resume on the video

OH GOD!!!! I know this is cultural, but this is one of the dumbest things I've heard of all year! Thanks for posting this by the way, but there's ZERO reason as to why any other country should adopt this madness.

From what little I've heard yeah, sounds like all this literally came from pedophiles playing as "Academics"

There's just "slightly" more research on the matter than Money. People that want to make it all about Money are being inconsiderate to the conversation at hand. It's the same way people want to tie everything about the knowledge of evolution to every word that Charles Darwin said. Clearly years of research has shown where he was wrong on certain things related to that topic. But it doesn't mean tossing those untruths out there, means that evolution is a fraud.

 

[rob305]

i said "kinda" its about their defamation law, if you tarnish someone's honor u can be sued even if u are right.

a quick resume on the video

Pretty sure you can be sued for that in other countries like Germany as well

 

[DeepEnigma]

And while most of you know where I stand on this, I don't think we should have trans women competing against cis gender women in sports. I know they can test for testosterone levels or something, but I don't think we are advanced enough to honestly make it a fair contest. The reality is the trans women should be made to go through years of HRT and\or blockers and prove that their testosterone levels are equal to cis gender women. But as I understand it, some in the Trans community are against that.

It's not just about "test", it's bone density, muscle mass, ligament growth/strength, microfiber muscles that respond to stimuli (reaction times), lung capacity, etc etc.

All of that there since birth and even more so from 12 on up. There's a reason transmen are not dominating any male sports. XX and XY are physiologically different competitively beyond a "test" test.

It's a takeover a women's spaces, and these are just the current pawns in that great culture war.

 

[GymWolf]

Again I'll ask, outside of a punchline or as a rhetorical exercise, how often do you think this actually happens?




. . .some of you are literally reliving the moral panics of the past. Amazing to watch it happen in real time.

Seems to happen often if you follow modern society.

And every time it happen in sports for example, and female athletes get hurt because of the clear physical difference it become a negative thing, not just a neutral thing that someone can ignore.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

It's not just about "test", it's bone density, muscle mass, ligament growth/strength, microfiber muscles that respond to stimuli (reaction times), etc etc.

All of that there since birth and even more so from 12 on up. There's a reason transmen are not dominating any male sports. XX and XY are physiologically different competitively beyond a "test" test.

It's a takeover a women's spaces, and these are just the current pawns in that great culture war.

Yup.

It doesn't even have to get the complex.

Men are naturally taller, have bigger wingspans, have bigger hands etc... And since most sports have a focus on size, that's already a natural advantage for people born men as they will probably be half a foot taller and have bigger arms and hands to block vs. women. Even though the avg man is probably 5'10 or 5'11(?), the typical pro league or competitive male player is going to be over 6 ft.

For women, aside from womens basketball players, what's the avg height and weight? Way lower than guys.

 

[GymWolf]

i said "kinda" its about their defamation law, if you tarnish someone's honor u can be sued even if u are right.

a quick resume on the video

I don't know how much the rest of you know about Japanese culture (I'm an expert), but honor and shame are huge parts of it.

 

[John Bilbo]

Words matter, but come on bro. You know darn well the same word can have multiple meanings based on the circumstance, region of the country, country you live in, etc. Lets not get all high and mighty and act like the Trans people are making us screw up the human language.

It is not the word per se that matters, but the phenomenon the word describes. That is why it is important to have both a man and a woman as a separate words describing separate "phenomenons" distinct from each other.

A word for woman separate from man is relevant atleast in the way of science, medicine, army, sports, school, lavatories, crime, violence, rape, reproduction, consumption of beer and bras.

The meaning of words have been constantly changing for 1,000s of years already. And for good reason. As societies evolve, so does our language. It's a must that words change definition as time goes on. It's one of our best attributes as humans on this Earth.

I believe the physical world -- including humans -- we are describing with words have not changed much physically even in thousands of years so even if words change the phenomenons the words are describing have not changed very much.

--

Sometimes it is a situation between life and death to know the difference between a window and a door, even if they both are just holes in a wall.

 

[Moneal]

Yup.

It doesn't even have to get the complex.

Men are naturally taller, have bigger wingspans, have bigger hands etc... And since most sports have a focus on size, that's already a natural advantage for people born men as they will probably be half a foot taller and have bigger arms and hands to block vs. women. Even though the avg man is probably 5'10 or 5'11(?), the typical pro league or competitive male player is going to be over 6 ft.

For women, aside from womens basketball players, what's the avg height and weight? Way lower than guys.

There has been only 1 wnba player over 7ft in its 25 years. Last season alone there were 28 7ft NBA players. Currently the average height of wnba players is 6ft, while the average for the nba is 6ft 6in.

The average height for men in US is 5ft 9. Women 5ft 4. Weight for men 197. Women 170.

 

[benno]

I've been on the internet for decades. The "I guess I just care more. . ." line has never worked.

irrelevant.

. . .and your point wasn't dismissed; if you were actually engaging in this thread in good faith you would see I addressed it TWICE already, including in that gigantic block of text you seemingly missed in the response you last quoted.

You asked about moral panic. I replied and gave a reason of why people are concerned. You passed it off as a none-event with your view that it doesn't reach your benchmark bar of how many children should be hurt. The hurt feelings of your buddies take priority.

As for your block of text I didn't reply to. I'll do that now for you..

marriage in the United States used to be culturally (and statutorily) defined as being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples were not included under this definition of marriage until very recently, and the moral panic around this (even same sex partnering in general) had been around for decades before. What was the inherent "truth" of this cultural definition? What was the resultant harm of extending the definition of "married couple" to same-sex couples that critiques were sure was to come if same-sex couples were allowed to marry?

The resultant harm of this is that it didn't just stop at marriage. Now we have transgender children doing lap dances in gay bars. That we have registered sex offenders openly singing "we're coming for your children" , that we now have teachers giving hormone drugs to kids and not telling parents, that we have pride events where the LGBT community can openly announce to the world "how we're all alike" but then come out wearing bondage gear and do simulated sex shows in front of children on passing floats. And all the while people like you clap for it.

 

[Moneal]

Sometimes it is a situation between life and death to know the difference between a window and a door, even if they both are just holes in a wall.

Knowing if someone is a biological man or woman can also be life or death in certain situations. Men and women can have similar symptoms to very different medical conditions. Without the biological information the wrong diagnosis can be extremely dangerous and potentially deadly.

 

[mckmas8808]

It's not just about "test", it's bone density, muscle mass, ligament growth/strength, microfiber muscles that respond to stimuli (reaction times), lung capacity, etc etc.

All of that there since birth and even more so from 12 on up. There's a reason transmen are not dominating any male sports. XX and XY are physiologically different competitively beyond a "test" test.

It's a takeover a women's spaces, and these are just the current pawns in that great culture war.

Agreed. The bolded is something that can't be dismissed. And it needs to have it's fair share within this total conversation. Without it, we aren't being honest with ourselves. And dishonestly gets us collectively nowhere.

 

[mckmas8808]

Knowing if someone is a biological man or woman can also be life or death in certain situations. Men and women can have similar symptoms to very different medical conditions. Without the biological information the wrong diagnosis can be extremely dangerous and potentially deadly.

Which is why keeping the word "trans" before the descriptor of the person is important. And in these "life and death" situations, yes it's even more important to know that a Trans man, was born a girl (with or without the surgery). But we can acknowledge though, that 99.9% of the time, we don't live our lives within these life or death situations. They are the super outliers. We don't need to make those situations the feel like the "norm".

 

[John Bilbo]

Which is why keeping the word "trans" before the descriptor of the person is important. And in these "life and death" situations, yes it's even more important to know that a Trans man, was born a girl (with or without the surgery). But we can acknowledge though, that 99.9% of the time, we don't live our lives within these life or death situations. They are the super outliers. We don't need to make those situations the feel like the "norm".

That's not good enough when regarding the law. The descriptions have to be airtight or the law is botched.

 

[benno]

Which is why keeping the word "trans" before the descriptor of the person is important. And in these "life and death" situations, yes it's even more important to know that a Trans man, was born a girl (with or without the surgery). But we can acknowledge though, that 99.9% of the time, we don't live our lives within these life or death situations. They are the super outliers. We don't need to make those situations the feel like the "norm".

so if "trans woman" actually means man and "trans man" actually means woman, then why don't we just carry on calling them what they actually are instead of continuing with this charade?

 

[Boglin]

so if "trans woman" actually means man and "trans man" actually means woman, then why don't we just carry on calling them what they actually are instead of continuing with this charade?

You gotta be inclusive my guy, and that means playing pretend. Everyone should play! Everyone will play...

 

[ANDS]

You asked about moral panic. I replied and gave a reason of why people are concerned. You passed it off as a none-event with your view that it doesn't reach your benchmark bar of how many children should be hurt. The hurt feelings of your buddies take priority.

Completely made up out of whole cloth. I mean you're not even following your own posts at this point. Go back and read the post/s that started this instead of imagining the post as you think they exists. I already addressed your "concern" (which you have now ignored multiple times).

The resultant harm of this is that it didn't just stop at marriage. Now we have transgender children doing lap dances in gay bars. That we have registered sex offenders openly singing "we're coming for your children" , that we now have teachers giving hormone drugs to kids and not telling parents, that we have pride events where the LGBT community can openly announce to the world "how we're all alike" but then come out wearing bondage gear and do simulated sex shows in front of children on passing floats. And all the while people like you clap for it.

This is probably the greatest post I've ever read on this forum. Hell, maybe in the entire internet.

 

[John Bilbo]

You gotta be inclusive my guy, and that means playing pretend. Everyone should play! Everyone will play...

 

[mckmas8808]

so if "trans woman" actually means man and "trans man" actually means woman, then why don't we just carry on calling them what they actually are instead of continuing with this charade?

Because it doesn't mean "man" or "woman". But this understanding will take a divorcing of the ways we were taught growing up. It's not just about being "inclusive". Many first world govts are either going through this process or gone through this process with same-sex marriage. They viewed marriage equality as a "charade". What was only once for "a man and a woman" has now changed and been opened up. For many decades, there were people fighting this change because they said it's not what "marriage" is.

Actually there's lots of things that were once considered a "charade" when the 1st set of people in that society of that time were hit with the realization that times were changing. It can be a hard pill to swallow, especially if you keep fighting against it really hard.

 

[InterMusketeer]

I think the majority of trans people would agree that there's a difference between women and trans women. They aren't all trying to one-sidedly decided the relevancy in that. Like in all groups, they have a fringe part of their community that's loud that may lead you to a difference conclusion about them. But understand that the internet isn't a real place. On social media, algorithms are controlling what you see on your feed. You aren't getting the true impression of most groups, if you are only seeing "their" side on Twitter only.

I agree with you. The people who aren't trying to censor Rowling and have no issue with people discussing her arguments are the ones who should be on the forefront of the community. Not those who attempt to remove any criticism or questioning by labeling it "transphobia."

Earlier in this thread you had this discussion:

I really feel like most of this conflict comes down to erasing any artifacts of trans people's dead selves and never putting them in a situation that could out them.

So yeah the bolded is truly the only place we can go where it makes the most sense. Getting there is the hardest part. I think we maybe 3 or 4 generations away from those days. And most of us will be dead by then lol.

You're being inconsistent with your arguing. Either we're able to bring up someone's past and basic facts, or we're not. Remember that this change you seem to be in favor of would have huge ramifications for society. You'd be infringing people's rights to avoid hurting feelings.

I doubt many of the people posting in this thread want to hurt trans people's feelings, but it might happen inadvertently, for example when discussing larger topics. Rowling's statements therefor are not transphobic, and being unwilling to cover a game faintly connected to her is nonsense.

 

[John Bilbo]

Because it doesn't mean "man" or "woman". But this understanding will take a divorcing of the ways we were taught growing up. It's not just about being "inclusive". Many first world govts are either going through this process or gone through this process with same-sex marriage. They viewed marriage equality as a "charade". What was only once for "a man and a woman" has now changed and been opened up. For many decades, there were people fighting this change because they said it's not what "marriage" is.

Actually there's lots of things that were once considered a "charade" when the 1st set of people in that society of that time were hit with the realization that times were changing. It can be a hard pill to swallow, especially if you keep fighting against it really hard.

Culture is like the climate: it is always changing.

 

[mckmas8808]

I agree with you. The people who aren't trying to censor Rowling and have no issue with people discussing her arguments are the ones who should be on the forefront of the community. Not those who attempt to remove any criticism or questioning by labeling it "transphobia."

Earlier in this thread you had this discussion:





You're being inconsistent with your arguing. Either we're able to bring up someone's past and basic facts, or we're not. Remember that this change you seem to be in favor of would have huge ramifications for society. You'd be infringing people's rights to avoid hurting feelings.

I doubt many of the people posting in this thread want to hurt trans people's feelings, but it might happen inadvertently, for example when discussing larger topics. Rowling's statements therefor are not transphobic, and being unwilling to cover a game faintly connected to her is nonsense.

I don't think that's inconsistent though. Like what's the context of bringing someone's past up in the first place? If you started an office job and met one of the people on your team and they were introduced as "she" and her name was Shelly, would Shelly at that point or any point need to tell you that she was born as a boy? To me the answer is no.

So what change are you speaking of that would infringe of people's right to avoid hurting people's feelings?

 

[Boglin]

Because it doesn't mean "man" or "woman". But this understanding will take a divorcing of the ways we were taught growing up. It's not just about being "inclusive". Many first world govts are either going through this process or gone through this process with same-sex marriage. They viewed marriage equality as a "charade". What was only once for "a man and a woman" has now changed and been opened up. For many decades, there were people fighting this change because they said it's not what "marriage" is.

Actually there's lots of things that were once considered a "charade" when the 1st set of people in that society of that time were hit with the realization that times were changing. It can be a hard pill to swallow, especially if you keep fighting against it really hard.

I don't like the comparison to marriage. Marriage is an agreement between two people, and sanctioned by some higher authority. That's a social construct through and through.

People here are arguing what it means to be a man or a woman and there are many who feel it is biological sex that defines it, but there is another group of people taking issue with the linguistics. The second group knows there is a biological difference between a trans person and a cis person but they want to ignore it and compel others to ignore it as well.
The argument being made is not about some social institution that is giving real world benefits and privileges to some and excluding others like the ban on gay marriage was doing. It's completely different.

Calling a trans-woman a woman will not change the reality that they are physically a man, and no process of culture evolution will change that. We need a technology breakthrough to get over that hurdle. We can and should certainly grow accustomed to letting trans live their life as fairly as possible but why do we need to muddy our definitions to do that?

I'm trying to see things from your perspective but I'm having difficulty finding any like situation. Even some early government issues where "man" really meant "white man" wouldn't be similar. A black man and a white man are both still men. That's a fact. It was society built BS that said differently in spite of reality.

A trans man is not a man. That's also a fact but now people are trying to build some more societal BS in spite of reality.
If you disagree, it's only a semantic issue because you think the word should be inclusive of more than cis-gendered people.

 

[StormCell]

I don't think that's inconsistent though. Like what's the context of bringing someone's past up in the first place? If you started an office job and met one of the people on your team and they were introduced as "she" and her name was Shelly, would Shelly at that point or any point need to tell you that she was born as a boy? To me the answer is no.

So what change are you speaking of that would infringe of people's right to avoid hurting people's feelings?

That's simple, mckmas. The last time you saw Shelly, she was your classmate Bob. It also occurred to you upon Shelly joining your team that you still have that game you borrowed that has Bob written on the inside cover. It shouldn't be a crime to talk about Bob just because she goes by Shelly now.

And as I argued before, you're going to suffer a much bigger trespass as a trans person the moment you successfully sell yourself as a cis female and your significant other realizes you are not. In which case, I think that ought to be illegal to lie to someone like that.

 

[InterMusketeer]

I don't think that's inconsistent though.

It is. On the one hand you're saying most trans people acknowledge the biological differences between the sexes and that it's just a loud minority on twitter who disagree, but earlier you argued we should move beyond that type of thinking and erase trans people's pasts. Those two don't mix. Either you're allowing people to acknowledge the past and the truth, or you're not. Which one is it?

Like what's the context of bringing someone's past up in the first place? If you started an office job and met one of the people on your team and they were introduced as "she" and her name was Shelly, would Shelly at that point or any point need to tell you that she was born as a boy? To me the answer is no.

So what change are you speaking of that would infringe of people's right to avoid hurting people's feelings?

No one's talking about small interactions like that. I don't know why you're even bringing them up.

From the start I've specifically mentioned we should be able to bring those differences up when it's relevant. For example when talking about politics or society, and how transgenderism can affect them. Y'know, like Rowling did in her articles. Many other examples have been posted in this thread of when the difference between females and trans women is relevant, even when the person in question doesn't think so.

 

[Ogbert]

And it needs to have it's fair share within this total conversation.

There is no conversation to be had.

It's absolute flaming dogshit and should be mocked and derided by all sensible souls.

Gender is a useless category. It's as interesting as whether or not someone is a meat eater or vegetarian. Who cares what someone's tastes are?

We delineate our society on sex, not gender. Men have absolutely no business in women's sport.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't like the comparison to marriage. Marriage is an agreement between two people, and sanctioned by some higher authority. That's a social construct through and through.

People here are arguing what it means to be a man or a woman and there are many who feel it is biological sex that defines it, but there is another group of people taking issue with the linguistics. The second group knows there is a biological difference between a trans person and a cis person but they want to ignore it and compel others to ignore it as well.
The argument being made is not about some social institution that is giving real world benefits and privileges to some and excluding others like the ban on gay marriage was doing. It's completely different.

Calling a trans-woman a woman will not change the reality that they are physically a man, and no process of culture evolution will change that. We need a technology breakthrough to get over that hurdle. We can and should certainly grow accustomed to letting trans live their life as fairly as possible but why do we need to muddy our definitions to do that?

I'm trying to see things from your perspective but I'm having difficulty finding any like situation. Even some early government issues where "man" really meant "white man" wouldn't be similar. A black man and a white man are both still men. That's a fact. It was society built BS that said differently in spite of reality.

A trans man is not a man. That's also a fact but now people are trying to build some more societal BS in spite of reality.
If you disagree, it's only a semantic issue because you think the word should be inclusive of more than cis-gendered people.

To any people that want to do the bolded, I don't agree with them at all. And this is where it's also frustrating that we as a society can't have a real conversation about these matters.

But to the 2nd bolded, this is where me and you differ. To me and many others, there's a difference between sex and gender. There have been studies that have shown this. And I think as technology improves, it'll be easier to showcase to a wide range of people "why" this person's brain wiring doesn't match the gender they were assigned with based off their sexual organs they had at birth. But like you said, a technology breakthrough will be needed to really move the needle on that.

That's simple, mckmas. The last time you saw Shelly, she was your classmate Bob. It also occurred to you upon Shelly joining your team that you still have that game you borrowed that has Bob written on the inside cover. It shouldn't be a crime to talk about Bob just because she goes by Shelly now.

And as I argued before, you're going to suffer a much bigger trespass as a trans person the moment you successfully sell yourself as a cis female and your significant other realizes you are not. In which case, I think that ought to be illegal to lie to someone like that.

But what if I never knew Shelly as Bob? In my example, that's what I'm talking about. And I agree any trans women trying to sell themselves as cis female or any trans male trying to sell themselves as cis male would suffer. And in my opinion rightly so, because you'd be living a lie.

It is. On the one hand you're saying most trans people acknowledge the biological differences between the sexes and that it's just a loud minority on twitter who disagree, but earlier you argued we should move beyond that type of thinking and erase trans people's pasts. Those two don't mix. Either you're allowing people to acknowledge the past and the truth, or you're not. Which one is it?


No one's talking about small interactions like that. I don't know why you're even bringing them up.

From the start I've specifically mentioned we should be able to bring those differences up when it's relevant. For example when talking about politics or society, and how transgenderism can affect them. Y'know, like Rowling did in her articles. Many other examples have been posted in this thread of when the difference between females and trans women is relevant, even when the person in question doesn't think so.

Okay got you. I see the misunderstanding I had with your post. With the bolded, I believe both can be true at the same time depending on the situation. And I wasn't saying I'm for "erasing" trans people's past. I actually think it's kinda dumb for trans people to want to change the birth certificate. I mean, that's odd. People who named was spelled wrong on their birth certificate, have to get their name legally changed to the proper spelling (from what I understand). You can't just erase the spelling of the name on the birth certificate. Again that's my understanding.

What I was attempting to get at is what do we call a trans woman, when we are just speaking to each other normally. That's what I was referring to. To me if you are having a casual conversation and there were 5 people in your office in the lunch room, you'd say "look there's 5 women in there in line waiting for some pizza". You wouldn't say, "there's 4 women and a trans women in line waiting for some pizza." To me that doesn't mean we are erasing that trans woman's past. Because who wants to walk around saying "trans" before everything every time we are talking about a trans person? I was speaking on small interactions, not government legal documents.

 

[StormCell]

What I was attempting to get at is what do we call a trans woman, when we are just speaking to each other normally. That's what I was referring to. To me if you are having a casual conversation and there were 5 people in your office in the lunch room, you'd say "look there's 5 women in there in line waiting for some pizza". You wouldn't say, "there's 4 women and a trans women in line waiting for some pizza." To me that doesn't mean we are erasing that trans woman's past. Because who wants to walk around saying "trans" before everything every time we are talking about a trans person? I was speaking on small interactions, not government legal documents.

And this is where I diverge from the newest generation. I think you simply call them as you see them. If it looks like it might be a woman, call it a 'she.' If it looks more like a man, call him a 'he.' If you're going through the drive-thru, and it sounds like a dude, do you not call him 'sir'? Sometimes you get it wrong, but that has never been cause for an uproar before.

I reject the assertion of desired pronouns. I cannot be expected to remember everyone's preferred pronouns when I'm just doing good to keep up with names.

 

[93xfan]

I think it'll be proven out by the majority of human civilization by the year 2200 that not only is sexual orientation not binary, but neither is gender (again.....I'm not talking about "sex"). Gender too will be understood to be viewed on a scale. I believe that 90%-95% of people by that time will still identify as the gender that they were born as. But that most in societies in the majority of 1st world nations will recognize that this "scale" of gender exist.

At the moment (as a human race) we have too much ingrained beliefs to let our emotions detach from what we were taught, so the culture war at this day in age continues. And the pushback to the inevitable is happening. To me, if you look at human history this is normal. This conversation is normal. The majority in this thread (on both sides) are playing the roles that we are supposed to play. It ALWAYS happens like this in 1st world nations. But as time goes on, in most cases, we evolve our understanding on these matters.

*****Please understand as a black male in America, I've had to understand the history of how we were viewed in general by the colonists back in 1619. Not only in "the new world", but also in Europe. Alot of those conventional wisdoms about our lack of intelligence has been proven wrong over the centuries (even though we still have to fight against it on a smaller scale today.) Women had to go through a similar change of perception too. It took centuries to fully see that change, but it happened.*****



I didn't say she's a bigot. I said she made transphobic statements. In my brain, a person can say something transphobic and not be a bigot. In the same way someone can say a racist statement, but not be a racist. Or someone can tell a lie to their mom, but not be a lair. And I've already listed what I found to be transphobic in this thread to be fair. It's okay if some people don't think they're transphobic. Some people agree with me, others disagree. At some point people should realize that there's two sides of a coin on an issue like this.



What's illegal exactly. I'm lost on what you're saying here.

I can appreciate the part in red.

But what makes you certain that pushing puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries on our youth is the solution?

I’m not saying there isn’t an issue to address, by the way. Just that those harmful ways are not the answer

 

[Ogbert]

But what if I never knew Shelly as Bob?

If no one ever told you that the earth was round, how would you ever know?

Would that make the earth flat? We could say the earth was flat and call it a cultural norm. Who cares if it's true?

 

[InterMusketeer]

Okay got you. I see the misunderstanding I had with your post. With the bolded, I believe both can be true at the same time depending on the situation. And I wasn't saying I'm for "erasing" trans people's past. I actually think it's kinda dumb for trans people to want to change the birth certificate. I mean, that's odd. People who named was spelled wrong on their birth certificate, have to get their name legally changed to the proper spelling (from what I understand). You can't just erase the spelling of the name on the birth certificate. Again that's my understanding.

I think a decent chunk of the trans community could find your statement here quite transphobic. Being able to change the sex on your passport or ID has been one of the biggest wishes of the community for a long time. Where I live it can be done easily.

What I was attempting to get at is what do we call a trans woman, when we are just speaking to each other normally. That's what I was referring to. To me if you are having a casual conversation and there were 5 people in your office in the lunch room, you'd say "look there's 5 women in there in line waiting for some pizza". You wouldn't say, "there's 4 women and a trans women in line waiting for some pizza." To me that doesn't mean we are erasing that trans woman's past. Because who wants to walk around saying "trans" before everything every time we are talking about a trans person? I was speaking on small interactions, not government legal documents.

Purposefully bringing up someone's being trans when it's irrelevant is just being a jerk. Obviously. But you're not being a jerk if you refuse a trans woman from your women's soccer team. Or from a women's dorm. Or any of the other examples given in this thread. All of this is labeled transphobia though.

 

[StormCell]

If no one ever told you that the earth was round, how would you ever know?

Would that make the earth flat? We could say the earth was flat and call it a cultural norm. Who cares if it's true?

All I know for objective fact is that the sun, the moon, and the stars rotate around us. Nothing could be simpler than that.

 

[DeepEnigma]

All I know for objective fact is that the sun, the moon, and the stars rotate around us. Nothing could be simpler than that.

I mean, we can see it with our own eyes

 

[mckmas8808]

And this is where I diverge from the newest generation. I think you simply call them as you see them. If it looks like it might be a woman, call it a 'she.' If it looks more like a man, call him a 'he.' If you're going through the drive-thru, and it sounds like a dude, do you not call him 'sir'? Sometimes you get it wrong, but that has never been cause for an uproar before.

I reject the assertion of desired pronouns. I cannot be expected to remember everyone's preferred pronouns when I'm just doing good to keep up with names.

Oh yeah, I was assuming that the trans person looked like the gender they transitioned to. Like who isn't going to call this person a woman?

I think a decent chunk of the trans community could find your statement here quite transphobic. Being able to change the sex on your passport or ID has been one of the biggest wishes of the community for a long time. Where I live it can be done easily.

No changing your gender on the passport or ID is different and makes 100% sense to me. I was only talking about the birth certificate. Everything else is free game.

 

[Boglin]

To any people that want to do the bolded, I don't agree with them at all. And this is where it's also frustrating that we as a society can't have a real conversation about these matters.

But to the 2nd bolded, this is where me and you differ. To me and many others, there's a difference between sex and gender. There have been studies that have shown this. And I think as technology improves, it'll be easier to showcase to a wide range of people "why" this person's brain wiring doesn't match the gender they were assigned with based off their sexual organs they had at birth. But like you said, a technology breakthrough will be needed to really move the needle on that.

I should have made the first portion you bolded more clear because I only meant they want to ignore the difference between trans and non-trans people in everyday language. I know the people who truly believe there is no difference between male and female even physically are fringe.

We absolutely do not differ with my meaning here, because you do not think that calling trans-woman a woman will transform their biology to no longer being that of a male. I actually believe everything you just wrote about a person's brain wiring sometimes being in conflict with their body, but I believe it without appropriating the words man and woman. We already have words for people whose minds are of a different gender than the sex they were born into: "trans" or "transgendered".
Where we differ on this issue is semantically, like I said before.

I think you'd find most people will agree that there are varying degrees of masculinity and femininity within the male and female populations, and it would certainly be nice if there were some test to prove that it's not always a choice*, but it instead is biologically determined.
That doesn't mean a person has to consider males who happen to have extremely feminine wired brains to be actual women or vice versa.

Despite there being other words available, some people specifically want the words man and woman to represent places on a masculinity-femininity scale rather than as representations of biological sex. I assume it's being done purposefully to manipulate language for the sake of inclusion. Why else would people get so bent out of shape by other people using the more common meanings of man and woman?

*I say not always a choice because I think there are a minority of instances of sexual conditioning and/or fetishising that have influenced some people.