Continuation Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Boudicca has previously indicated that she fancies men, so I doubt she's given it much thought really.

This statement is almost beyond ignorant and unpleasant. Disgusting.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by 8enotto

Boudicca90 lives in CA which is tolerant if not welcoming of trans and similar. Those attitudes displayed are safe in that world. Probably common.

As displayed here on the forum we encompass a much wider view from tooth gritting acceptance to full acceptance of diversity.
At that we even pick and choose what won't be accepted.

Also the range of places we all live will determine how openly diversity can be displayed even if it's accepted.

No one could act on how boudicca90 wants in that rant where I am. Not because of me, but society here wouldn't tolerate boys on a girl's team. On a mixed team without question, but that wouldn't give any desired affirmation of what trans types want.
Telling the girls to toughen up when they get trounced by a trans team wouldn't go far.

I see you chose to address just one out of the several points Boudicca90 made. Do you agree or disagree with all of the non-sports-related points she made in that post?

As a generalised point (not aimed at what you wrote here), it's extremely interesting and illuminating to see just how many "sceptics" on here are contorting themselves into expressing views along the lines of "oh yes, obviously I support transgender identity....... but.......", immediately followed by a reactionary rejection of one area of transgender identity.

And IMO it's not wrong to see it as akin to those bygone reactionaries who made claims like "Oh, of course I'm not a racist.....but....." or "Oh, of course I support gay rights..... but....."

(Though of course, and utterly predictably, those following the same pattern wrt transgender rights will a) make enough rationalisations to convince themselves that their views don't fall into this same pattern, and b) pipe up immediately to proclaim loudly that their views don't fall into this pattern )

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by 8enotto

Boudicca, you chose your path in life. And some really tough choices along the way.

Openly gay in a military uniform was one you mentioned. Doesn't take a genius to say that was going against the grain of military society. Then after getting out of that you decided to be trans when being just gay out of the military would have gone unnoticed.

Don't blame the rest of us you want to stand out from the crowd. Not only that but try to make us agree a self admitted male turned trans is now somehow female, or woman.
Our eyes can't see what's in your head. We see what stands in front of us. Figuratively in this case.

Your reality isn't ours. Nobody hates you for that. Still, we aren't going to toss out our reality to appease you.
Do what everyone else is trying to do and make a life for yourself where you can be happy. Don't try to fix the rest of the world to your ideas along the way.

Wow.

"You decided to be trans"?

And "You want to stand out from the crowd"?


You very obviously have no understanding whatsoever about gender dysphoria and transgender identity. And the views you've expressed here are contemptible and shameful.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by cullennz

I agree but think the whole issue with these threads is it comes down to some people not understanding/ignoring/refuse to admit/try to blur/try to change the fact gender and sex are two different things

Yes.

A bit like the disgraceful and uninformed/misunderstood way in which many people used to assume that sex and sexuality were two different things - i.e. that, for example, all males were sexually attracted to females. And that any males who declared that they were sexually attracted to males were either deluded or lying, and that they were candidates for "curing".

But it's hardly as if regular posters within this thread haven't had it patiently explained, probably dozens of times now, that sex and gender are separate things. "Sceptics' forum" LOL.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Wow.



"You decided to be trans"?



And "You want to stand out from the crowd"?





You very obviously have no understanding whatsoever about gender dysphoria and transgender identity. And the views you've expressed here are contemptible and shameful.

So just to make it clear. You agree with Boudicca's post/rant that got half censored?

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Yes.



A bit like the disgraceful and uninformed/misunderstood way in which many people used to assume that sex and sexuality were two different things - i.e. that, for example, all males were sexually attracted to females. And that any males who declared that they were sexually attracted to males were either deluded or lying, and that they were candidates for "curing".



But it's hardly as if regular posters within this thread haven't had it patiently explained, probably dozens of times now, that sex and gender are separate things. "Sceptics' forum" LOL.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Sex and gender are different things.

You seem to keep trying to equate sex to psychological.

It ain't.

Gender, sexuality are.

And I haven't seen anyone on the thread say anyone is lying.

I have seen deluded with Boudicca's rant about being biologically a woman with a dangle

[lionking]

This is on topic as this thread grew out of the (over)reaction to JK Rowling’s book about the cross dressing murderer. I decided to see what the fuss was all about and purchased all Cormoran Strike detective novels.

A few points. They are really good crime novels. Secondly, I’m pleased I’m enriching her. Thirdly, I’m up to the evil novel in question. If you take offence at this, stop reading for good. Books aimed at pre-schoolers are more offensive.

[Matthew Best]

The TV shows are really good too, lionking. I wonder if they've made it to your part of the world?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

The TV shows are really good too, lionking. I wonder if they've made it to your part of the world?

Yes I’ve been watching the TV series too. I read the books first and what was striking (pun intended) was how well the characters in print were depicted on screen. Strike was exactly as I imagined him.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

//I know this is a heated discussion, but hopefully you can respect that this isn't 100% easy to put into words, fair enough? If I say something that sounds off please do me the courtesy of asking for clarification before assuming nefarious intent, okay?//

Not sure what you mean here. I was replying to your statement not assuming nefarious intent.

Quote:

What I mean is that at the most basic level every version of this comes down to "I want to be able to things without having a gender role defined for me." And I think that most basic of starting points gets us to more reasonable; not necessarily correct or valid or true but reasonable, places then it seems at first.

I'm saying if someone starts at:

"I'm what is traditionally thought of as this gender but I do not have this traditional characteristic of the gender" then

"Therefore gender doesn't exist"
"Therefore I'm the other gender"
"Therefore gender is socially created"
"Therefore that traditional characteristic doesn't apply to that gender"
"Therefore that traditional characteristic applies to the other gender"
"Therefore that traditional characteristic is gender neutral"
"Therefore I'm a special sub-category of the traditional gender"

Are all ways that someone would could honestly mentally process that initial thought further.

Again I'm not arguing the factual correctness or moral right or wrong of any specific answer, I'm saying that more of the social problem is categorization and defining the terms then the core, base, real problem really is.

If that makes any sense.

ETA: Added a bit in the first paragraph. Hit post before finishing a thought.

The people (or at least the ones I have seen) who say gender doesn't exist are genuinely saying gender doesn't exist. That it isn't a thing. That all that matters is biological sex. And that there is nothing else.

Some people seem to say that gender does exist but it's a social construct overlaid on top of biological sex. In that sense it isn't something 'real' it's just an idea.

Other people say that gender identity is something 'real' that lives in the brain.

I think there is some overlap between the last two positions because to some extent a gender identity could be an internalisation of a social construct. And there are probably multiple nuanced variations of the above as well. I don't think the list here is exhaustive but I think it distills down 3 distinct positions which cover a broad area of views.

I think there are real differences and real implications for these positions.

I find the first one untenable as it would suggest that all discrimination against women is based on their genitalia and reproductive organs and the like. It would also lead to the conclusion that you cannot be transgender as there is no such thing as gender. There seem to be a number of posters here who come very close to this position if not stating it explicitly.

The second option tends to lead to the position which I think you might hold that since gender is a construct then all we are talking about is whether we comply with the rules and roles society set out for us and our genders. So if a man likes to wear a dress and take care of babies and watch soaps and other stereotypically 'female' things then it doesn't mean he's female he's just a man who likes to do those things. Equally a woman who likes to fix cars and watch sports isn't a man, just a woman who likes to do those things.

The third option goes beyond that and says that it isn't just about how you act and what your interests are but a more deep-seated sense of self identity. You are not a man who likes to do girly things. But a woman. Who happens to have male biology through an accident of nature.

Personally I find the first position to be unsustainable and overly reductionist. We are more than just our equipment and our meat. Our minds and psychology matter to who we are and our sense of self. I don't agree with the idea that a woman is just a biological baby making machine and a man a biological impregnation machine.

From that I reach the conclusion that there is such a thing as gender and that there is a mental element to it. And from that I accept that if there is a mental element to it then it is possible for there to be a disconnect between the physical and mental. That gender dysphoria is a real thing. In that I seem to be in agreement with the vast majority of people who study the topic and in disagreement with a number of TERFs and posters to this thread who seem to argue that gender dysphoria isn't a real thing at all.

If we accept that gender dysphoria is a thing then we are left with two options really. Treat it as a mental illness and try to get the mental to line up with the physical (again it seems some posters here advocate that) or alternatively to accept the gender identity and allow the person to live as the gender they identify as and possibly align the physical with the mental through surgery if that's considered beneficial. Again most experts seem to believe this latter approach is best.

I hope that helps. That's the best I can do in outlining my understanding of what you seem to be struggling with.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

This statement is almost beyond ignorant and unpleasant. Disgusting.

Is it any better than "women just don't train hard enough at sports to win?"

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And IMO it's not wrong to see it as akin to those bygone reactionaries who made claims like "Oh, of course I'm not a racist.....but....." or "Oh, of course I support gay rights..... but....."

(Though of course, and utterly predictably, those following the same pattern wrt transgender rights will a) make enough rationalisations to convince themselves that their views don't fall into this same pattern, and b) pipe up immediately to proclaim loudly that their views don't fall into this pattern )

Of course you want to see it that way. That is utterly predictable. You want to use an analogy which dispenses with the need to argue your position on its own merits. It’s infinitely easier to borrow the merits of a different position.

But if you really want to play that analogy game, you’re essentially arguing that it’s racist to say black people don’t get sunburns as easily as white people, or that they are more likely to have vitamin D deficiency. There are in fact some things for which skin color does matter.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Yep, it's the official party line to replace female representation with representation for males who feel as if they're women.

Well, the transphobes will always have the Tory party.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Well, the transphobes will always have the Tory party.

Even the Tories were fairly progressive on a lot of these things. Don't forget it was the Tories that were looking to update the GRA in the first place. It's just the current lot of Brexiteers, Christians and Swivel-Eyed Loons that seem to have been given prominence of late.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the swing to lunacy also ushered in more anti-trans thinking.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Even the Tories were fairly progressive on a lot of these things. Don't forget it was the Tories that were looking to update the GRA in the first place. It's just the current lot of Brexiteers, Christians and Swivel-Eyed Loons that seem to have been given prominence of late.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the swing to lunacy also ushered in more anti-trans thinking.

I have to admit I'm not too familiar with UK politics, but I am still failing to understand why it's supposed to be shocking that the Labour party, the more liberal party in the country, has a policy of explicit trans inclusion. Supporting LGBT rights is pretty standard for most liberal parties these days.

Surely there's plenty of places where reactionary transphobia is still welcome. There's a whole world of right wing reactionary politics waiting to accept the transphobes with open arms. TERFs are in a tough spot in that they are otherwise quite liberal, but they have their one bigotry that they won't let go.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Dismember

In response to Emily’s Cat and anyone else who finds themselves *less* supportive of trans rights after having discussed the topic at length (including hearing from a transwoman), if you have a moment, check out this video by Magdalen Berns. It’s 11 minutes and 29 seconds and in my opinion, well worth watching in its entirety. I don’t completely agree with every single point but she definitely changed my view of feminism and I no longer support the idea of “intersectional feminism”, as the term is commonly used today.

As to the relevance to this particular thread, the discussion of trans rights and how they intersect (or don’t intersect) with the rights of biological women, there are references scattered throughout. This video is actually a response to a video made by another youtube feminist. Berns deconstructs, virtually line for line, the definition and flawed philosophy of inclusive, “neo” feminism which seems to be heavily focused on trans issues in particular (as well as a smattering of others).

Highlights:
3:29 to 6:38
7:13 to 9:27

1 Reason Everyday Feminism Is Bad For Women

Description:
In this video Magdalen Berns will present a critique of "Everyday Feminism"’s neoliberal re-branding of feminism as a "movement to end all oppression" rather than a movement for women’s liberation.

That was a good (and entertaining) video. She makes some pretty good points in there too. Thanks for the tip!

Originally Posted by theprestige

I can't decide if her Sarcastic Stoner delivery is a feature or a bug.

Neither - she had a brain tumor a couple of years ago which resulted in some lingering side effects. If you look at her videos from about 4 years ago, you can see the difference.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I absolutely am. Genetics say nothing about sex and gender. Being genetically XX doesn't determine if someone is female just like being XY doesn't determine if someone is male. And none of it is binary at all, sex and gender is a spectrum we can find ourselves on at any point.

Gender and sex live in the brain, not what chromosomes we ended up with. It is influenced by a mix of biology, psychology, and social experience. I ended up female, biologically female at that, just as much as Emily's Cat. But sometimes a person's sex, gender, and biology don't line up properly.

I am a biological woman as much as any ciswoman. And I'm not going to give in to the fear and hatred of us by ciswomen any more. I'm done trying to spare their feelings. And I don't give a crap if you or any other person on this board considers me delusional.

I am a biological woman, that is a fact.

This is a completely irrational, anti-science belief. This is the biological equivalent of being a flat-earther.

Sex does NOT live in the brain, and genetics ABSOLUTELY determines sex.

Or are you somehow under the misguided notion that humans are super-duper special and our brains make our realities in a way that is completely different from every other sexually dimorphic creature on the planet? Did god give you this ability to alter reality so it fits with your fantasy?

Boudicca, I know it hurts your fragile heart to hear it, but you ARE biologically male. There isn't any gray area in this one at all, not in actual reality. You can no more change your biological sex than you can change the hair follicles created by your scalp, or change the color of your irises, or change your foot size. It's a part of you - your body IS you, and you are your body. Your brain is a part (an important one, definitely) of your body. But the things your brain thinks about your body don't actually change your body.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

No, hardly anybody in here supports our right to be fully accepted as the sex and gender we are.

This is true, in the sense that hardly anybody in here supports your right to be fully accepted as the species you believe yourself to be either.

You can be whatever gender you feel yourself to be, I have no objection to that. You cannot be whatever sex you errantly believe yourself to be, because sex is not a social construct, it is not a nebulous definition - it is an objective physical reality.

Demanding that society accept you 100% as female, when you are NOT female, is tantamount to demanding that society accept you as 100% fennec fox. It's soo far beyond irrational that the appropriate terms for it can't be used in the spirit of civility that this site embraces.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So...uhhh...what are your plans, then?

I'm guessing barbed-wire wrapped baseball bats and rats nailed to the doors of heretics.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This is true, in the sense that hardly anybody in here supports your right to be fully accepted as the species you believe yourself to be either.

You can be whatever gender you feel yourself to be, I have no objection to that. You cannot be whatever sex you errantly believe yourself to be, because sex is not a social construct, it is not a nebulous definition - it is an objective physical reality.

Demanding that society accept you 100% as female, when you are NOT female, is tantamount to demanding that society accept you as 100% fennec fox. It's soo far beyond irrational that the appropriate terms for it can't be used in the spirit of civility that this site embraces.

Man, it must really cause you great distress that most parts of the civilized world are seeing growing trans acceptance and that the TERFs are increasingly fighting a losing battle.

How long do you really think is left before the transphobes are fully repudiated within liberal circles? A decade? 50 years? Surely not much longer.

Seems to me that transphobes will soon have no political home outside the reactionary right. They'll probably have to dump the feminism if they want to be accepted by their new friends though.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by 8enotto

Your reality isn't ours. Nobody hates you for that. Still, we aren't going to toss out our reality to appease you.

Well said.

I don't want Boudicca to live in fear or anxiety. I don't want Boudicca (or any other transperson) to face discrimination in employment, housing, or basic services. I certainly don't want Boudicca and other transpeople to be injured or physically harmed or harassed. I want her to be able to live her life in safety and as much contentment as she can achieve.

But that cannot come at the cost of abandoning science and objective reality. That way lies madness for all of the billions of people who are NOT Boudicca. And that's simply not a just request to make.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Demanding that society accept you 100% as female, when you are NOT female, is tantamount to demanding that society accept you as 100% fennec fox.

How about a pyrofox?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[JoeMorgue]

So we're just accepting that there is no grey area between "transphobia" and "You're magical special girl-penis doesn't get to go places that a normal male penis doesn't"

[JoeMorgue]

So we're just accepting that there is no grey area between "hateful transphobia" and "Your magical and special girl-penis doesn't get to go places that a normal male penis doesn't?"

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Technically none of this even can be a spectrum, as a spectrum is continuous (and hence uncountable) whereas there will only ever be a finite number of humans.

That is a misunderstanding of what the term spectrum implies in mathematical contexts.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Why are you asking anyone other than Boudicca90 to explain what she meant?

But, entirely separate from what she wrote, my own terminological understanding is that in a trans-identity context, "biology" strictly refers to birth gametes, and uses the terms "male" and "female" (or "intersex" in a very small proportion); and therefore, as a rule, transwomen are biological males (and transmen are biological females).

And the terms "woman" and "man" in a trans-identity context refer to gender identity. So a transwoman is a biological male and a gender-identity woman.

Thanks. This actually also helps me make sense of Puppycow's position. "Biological" is irrelevant when paired with "woman", because "woman" doesn't refer to the biological facts at all.

So it seems like Boudicca is equivocating around the biology of her situation. She's a biological male.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Man, it must really cause you great distress that most parts of the civilized world are seeing growing trans acceptance and that the TERFs are increasingly fighting a losing battle.

How long do you really think is left before the transphobes are fully repudiated within liberal circles? A decade? 50 years? Surely not much longer.

Seems to me that transphobes will soon have no political home outside the reactionary right. They'll probably have to dump the feminism if they want to be accepted by their new friends though.

What's your take on Boudicca's claim to be a biological woman?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by cullennz

I agree but think the whole issue with these threads is it comes down to some people not understanding/ignoring/refuse to admit/try to blur/try to change the fact gender and sex are two different things

I do find this shift interesting though.

In the 00's, there was a lot of focus on teaching everyone that sex and gender are completely different things. There's a high degree of correlation, but they're not the same thing, and can be completely different. Thus, a male can have a feminine gender, and a female can have a masculine gender.

Originally, there was some strong push-back to that concept. It was confusing. Trying to get across that a person could be physically and biologically one sex, while having the mental attributes of the other was... well, odd. It flew in the face of feminist efforts to dismantle gender roles, as well as the effort to discard the naturalistic fallacy that "women are just like this naturally, that's why they aren't in leadership and politics, they just aren't mentally suited for it by evolution".

Eventually though, most people accepted this narrative. Even if they didn't accept it as somehow a "proven fact" (which it isn't), we could roll with it because it seemed to harm nobody, and to help some.

The concept of sex and gender being disparate, albeit correlated, characteristics was finally embraced.

Over the last decade, however, there's been a change in strategy. The new narrative is that gender identity has primacy. That it is gender identity that is paramount, all encompassing, and immutable. Furthermore, the current rhetoric is that gender identity determines sex. The body parts now have nothing to do with sex within this framework, and are mere aberrations and accoutrement. If a person's gender identity is feminine, then their sex, being subordinate to identity, is female.

So now we've come right back around to "gender and sex are the same thing", only now we've thrown out science and biology altogether, and both are defined as completely subjective reflections of a person's internal feeling.

It's like we spent all this time trying to convince people that the Earth is not the center of the solar system, and the stars aren't painted on a dome... to eventually come around to saying that the Sun is the center of the solar system, and the Earth and all of the stars are painted on a dome.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So we're just accepting that there is no grey area between "transphobia" and "You're magical special girl-penis doesn't get to go places that a normal male penis doesn't"

What kind of gray area would there be?

I've long felt that there's gotta be some gray area around homosexuality. It should be possible for someone to support gay rights, and advocate for acceptance of gays in society, and still be personally squicked out by the idea of gay sex. Like, literally homophobic, but not actually the Homophobic Villain Hiding Under Every Gay Couple's Bed.

But can that sort of gray area be tolerated by activists?

What about transphobia? I support transsexuals getting almost everything they want from society. But... I'm attracted to women, and a lot of MtF transsexuals just hit me right in the uncanny valley. Is that transphobic? Okay, sure. Does it make me a Trans-Hating Villain? Activists say yes, I think.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Why are you asking anyone other than Boudicca90 to explain what she meant?

Because Boudicca has previously refused to explain. Additionally, the entire premise doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

But, entirely separate from what she wrote, my own terminological understanding is that in a trans-identity context, "biology" strictly refers to birth gametes, and uses the terms "male" and "female" (or "intersex" in a very small proportion); and therefore, as a rule, transwomen are biological males (and transmen are biological females).

And the terms "woman" and "man" in a trans-identity context refer to gender identity. So a transwoman is a biological male and a gender-identity woman.

Hey, I can agree with you on this one. Boudicca, however, seems to quote strongly disagree with your understanding of mammalian biology, and insists quote stridently that she is a biological female who just happens to have accidentally ended up with a penis and testicles.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Bloody hell.

(And thank god that progressive governments and the world's medical/sociological experts in gender dysphoria & trans-identity don't hold the same views as yours)

Yes. I'm pleased that several governments are taking steps to protect both children and sex as a protected sex from this sort of nonsense.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What's your take on Boudicca's claim to be a biological woman?

I find this brief letter in Scientific American says it better than I ever could.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...y-transphobia/

The whole thing is pretty short and worth a read, but the concluding paragraph is below for brevity:

Quote:

While this is a small overview, the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real. It is time that we acknowledge this. Defining a person’s sex identity using decontextualized “facts” is unscientific and dehumanizing. The trans experience provides essential insights into the science of sex and scientifically demonstrates that uncommon and atypical phenomena are vital for a successful living system.

The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is doing a lot more non-scientific judgement than they like to let on.

[JoeMorgue]

Boudica's mind is stuck at "I'm a woman, therefore I go in woman space" and nothing will shift her from that.

Emily's is at "I don't want penises in my women only space, whether they are attached to men or women."

Round peg, square hole, someone make them fit.

I don't care. I have zero horses in this race. I only care about making other people feel safe and happy and accepted. Give me a solution everyone even 75% accepts and I'll hump it like sex doll.

I can't choose between transphobe and rape enabler.

[8enotto]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Wow.

"You decided to be trans"?

And "You want to stand out from the crowd"?



You very obviously have no understanding whatsoever about gender dysphoria and transgender identity. And the views you've expressed here are contemptible and shameful.

So you disagree trans is a personal decision.

Please LondonJohn tell us what part of gender dysphoria OBLIGATES a person to start hormone treatment and the transition to what they didn't start out as.

Enlighten us. Help us understand this dysphoria.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

This statement is almost beyond ignorant and unpleasant. Disgusting.

Why is it ignorant and unpleasant to defend Boudicca against insinuations of wanting to tear through the cotton ceiling? What is disgusting about acknowledging that Boudicca has expressed that she prefers men... and to infer that she probably hasn't spent much time trying to convince lesbians that they're bigots if they don't want to sleep with her lady-penis?

I seriously think you need to have a bit of thought here, buddy, and get back to me on how this can possibly be perceived as ignorant, unpleasant, and disgusting. Because your response makes no sense whatsoever. It's simply an insulting ad hominem attack related to nothing at all.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by cullennz

So just to make it clear. You agree with Boudicca's post/rant that got half censored?

I'm kind of bummed that I got here after the censoring, to be honest. It certainly generated a lot of response.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by cullennz

You seem to keep trying to equate sex to psychological.

It ain't.

Gender, sexuality are.

Interestingly, there is a fair bit of evidence to suggest that sexual orientation (assuming that's what's meant by sexuality here) is neurological, not psychological. There's a stage of fetal development where the brain receives a hormone bath... and if that is interrupted or otherwise misfires, then once the creature reaches sexual maturity, it adopts the sexual posturing and mating overtures of the opposite sex.

Maybe Louden can elaborate on that, since I've only got the pop-sci version of it, and I'm working from memory.

In my view, this lends extremely strong evidence to sexual orientation being intrinsic and immutable... but somehow I keep seeing this brought up as if it's support for transgender status being immutable. Which I think is strange, since it is clearly conflating gender identity (whatever that means) and sexual orientation - which in turn ends up supporting the argument that if a person is homosexual, then they're not actually homosexual, they're just transgender heterosexuals.

Thus... claims of gay and lesbian erasure and homophobia.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Because your response makes no sense whatsoever.

It comes from a male lawyer who has made up his mind; at some point discussions move from exploring the underlying issue, to simply winning the argument.

[Emily's Cat]

Overall, this was a really good post, AGG. It's nice to see you lay out your perspective in more detail.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

The people (or at least the ones I have seen) who say gender doesn't exist are genuinely saying gender doesn't exist. That it isn't a thing. That all that matters is biological sex. And that there is nothing else.

I'm curious if you have any references for this? I haven't seen this expressed within the context of transgender topics ever. My only exposure to it has been very much limited to anti-feminist perspectives that employ a naturalistic fallacy proclaiming that women shouldn't have equality, because they're just naturally the way society views them. I doubt you subscribe to that perspective, and I don't believe I've ever seen it expressed on ISF. In fact, I don't think I've seen it expressed in well over a decade.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Some people seem to say that gender does exist but it's a social construct overlaid on top of biological sex. In that sense it isn't something 'real' it's just an idea.

Other people say that gender identity is something 'real' that lives in the brain.

I think there is some overlap between the last two positions because to some extent a gender identity could be an internalisation of a social construct. And there are probably multiple nuanced variations of the above as well. I don't think the list here is exhaustive but I think it distills down 3 distinct positions which cover a broad area of views.

I think many people in this thread take position 2.5 on this. Gender is a social construct overlaid on sex... and gender identity is an internal mental concept. Some people have a stronger affinity and attachment to that mental construct of themselves in opposition to the gender expected of them by the rest of society.

Many moons ago, I made the following simplification:
- Sex is what your body is
- Gender is what other people assume your body is (based on secondary and tertiary sexed characteristics and presentation and mannerism)
- Gender Identity is the sex that you want other people to assume your body is

I think that's consistent with view 2.5 - the overlap you mention.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I think there are real differences and real implications for these positions.

I find the first one untenable as it would suggest that all discrimination against women is based on their genitalia and reproductive organs and the like. It would also lead to the conclusion that you cannot be transgender as there is no such thing as gender. There seem to be a number of posters here who come very close to this position if not stating it explicitly.

You've got two conclusions in here, and I don't think they are related as much as you think they are.

I do think that discrimination against women is based on their sex - it's intimately tied to reproductive capacity. Given that there is discrimination against females within every culture and every time period, regardless of the cultural shifts around gender presentation and gender roles, I can't think of any other unifying attribute. If you think that discrimination against females throughout the ages is based on something else, I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on this.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

The second option tends to lead to the position which I think you might hold that since gender is a construct then all we are talking about is whether we comply with the rules and roles society set out for us and our genders. So if a man likes to wear a dress and take care of babies and watch soaps and other stereotypically 'female' things then it doesn't mean he's female he's just a man who likes to do those things. Equally a woman who likes to fix cars and watch sports isn't a man, just a woman who likes to do those things.

That's about 98% of the view I hold.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

The third option goes beyond that and says that it isn't just about how you act and what your interests are but a more deep-seated sense of self identity. You are not a man who likes to do girly things. But a woman. Who happens to have male biology through an accident of nature.

This is the other 2%, although I would definitely frame it differently. It may not be your intention, but your statement "who happens to have a male biology through an accident of nature" implies that at some point in development, that fetus was supposed to be female... but something went wrong and they became male because of a genetic error. I think this is backwards from what we understand of genetics. I think it would be more accurate to say that the chromosomes of the zygote were those of a male, and through some other mechanism, the fetus emerged with a female identity.

I say "mechanism", because I don't know the cause. There might be a developmental trigger involved. But there is also a fair bit of psychiatrics evidence that suggests that in some cases, early trauma can be a contributing element, and that in at least some people, identifying as the opposite gender is a coping mechanism for that trauma.

I simply don't know enough (nor does anyone at this point) to be sure how much is nature and how much is nurture. All I do know is that it does happen, and that the mental state that produces that persistent memory causes enough distress to merit intervention and accommodation for those in whom it expresses strongly enough, and cannot be managed otherwise.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Personally I find the first position to be unsustainable and overly reductionist. We are more than just our equipment and our meat. Our minds and psychology matter to who we are and our sense of self. I don't agree with the idea that a woman is just a biological baby making machine and a man a biological impregnation machine.

Nobody else does either. Well, except maybe for a small hold-out of misogynistic cavemen here and there. But that doesn't mean that discrimination against women isn't intimately related to sex.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

From that I reach the conclusion that there is such a thing as gender and that there is a mental element to it. And from that I accept that if there is a mental element to it then it is possible for there to be a disconnect between the physical and mental. That gender dysphoria is a real thing. In that I seem to be in agreement with the vast majority of people who study the topic and in disagreement with a number of TERFs and posters to this thread who seem to argue that gender dysphoria isn't a real thing at all.

See, here's where I end up feeling like you don't read posts. Not a single poster in this thread has argued or even suggested that gender dysphoria isn't a real thing. We all agree that it is a real thing.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

If we accept that gender dysphoria is a thing then we are left with two options really. Treat it as a mental illness and try to get the mental to line up with the physical (again it seems some posters here advocate that) or alternatively to accept the gender identity and allow the person to live as the gender they identify as and possibly align the physical with the mental through surgery if that's considered beneficial. Again most experts seem to believe this latter approach is best.

I hope that helps. That's the best I can do in outlining my understanding of what you seem to be struggling with.

Personally, I think that both approaches are appropriate. You start with CBT and try to get the mental to align with the physical. This is the least overall harmful, as it doesn't require permanent medicalization, and also doesn't expose the individual to abuse and discrimination. In those cases where such approaches are unsuccessful and the dysphoria persists, then transition is an appropriate next step.

I'll draw a bit of an analogy here. I'm epileptic. When I was first diagnosed, we talked about different treatment options. The potential treatments range from therapies all the way up through actual surgery and invasive treatment. Even within the approach of drug therapies, there are drugs that have almost no side effects at all, and which work for many people, but which are ineffective for about 25% of epileptics. The other side of the drug options has drugs that are highly effective for almost everyone except about 2%, but which have serious side effects including kidney stress and increased risk of stroke and embolism, as well as cognitive effects like restlessness, inability to concentrate, etc. Only the 2% for whom all of those approaches are ineffective do doctors consider invasive medical treatments like surgeries or electrical shock therapies.

I am lucky - the mildest of the drug therapies works very well for me. I'm extremely happy that we started with that approach. Starting with the harsher drugs seems like it would be an irresponsible approach, even if it works for almost everyone. Starting with an approach that assumes invasive medical procedures would be downright negligent malpractice.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Well, the transphobes will always have the Tory party.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Even the Tories were fairly progressive on a lot of these things. Don't forget it was the Tories that were looking to update the GRA in the first place. It's just the current lot of Brexiteers, Christians and Swivel-Eyed Loons that seem to have been given prominence of late.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the swing to lunacy also ushered in more anti-trans thinking.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I have to admit I'm not too familiar with UK politics, but I am still failing to understand why it's supposed to be shocking that the Labour party, the more liberal party in the country, has a policy of explicit trans inclusion. Supporting LGBT rights is pretty standard for most liberal parties these days.

Surely there's plenty of places where reactionary transphobia is still welcome. There's a whole world of right wing reactionary politics waiting to accept the transphobes with open arms. TERFs are in a tough spot in that they are otherwise quite liberal, but they have their one bigotry that they won't let go.

Progress is putting males into female leadership spots and silencing any females that disagree! Yay progress!

Seriously, though. How is it that you both seem so at ease with reducing the number of females being represented? If you really want to increase diversity and inclusiveness, why don't you give up male seats to transpeople? Why is it okay to take them away from females, who are already under-represented?

Would you support allowing biologically white transracial people to take seats allocated to minorities who are under-represented?