ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Reply
Old 2nd July 2020, 02:19 PM   #681
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,878
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why are any of you even engaging? Have you all completely forgotten the nature of this body of work?
Sometimes I just can't keep my optimism locked down.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 02:22 PM   #682
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,878
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Finally someone with a ******* workable definition!

Good show, Cat.
Thank you! I was pretty pleased with it.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 02:24 PM   #683
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,171
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Not for this part of the discussion thread this started in a different one but it seems this is the universal thread to justify the existence of trans people now.
Who here has argued that they shouldn't exist?

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Good show, Cat.
Seconded.

Sent from my AGM-086B using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd July 2020 at 02:58 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 03:09 PM   #684
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,630
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Who here has argued that they shouldn't exist?
It's a package deal. You can tell me that I have the right to dignity, that no one can discriminate against me, that I can have sex with anyone I want, that I am as much a human as everyone else, that society will support me in my times of needs, and that you'd sooner die than let anyone deny me my rights, but if you don't call me the proper pronoun, it cancels out all the rest.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 04:47 PM   #685
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,171
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Cycling is divided into men's & women's, or did I miss something?
I've no idea, tbh. Seems to me the Tour de France ought to institute a women's competition, along the lines suggested here: https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/...our-de-france/

Each sport has its own governing bodies and rules demarcating competitive classes based on weight, height, sex, etc.

I don't expect a one-size-fits-all solution to be forthcoming here.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 05:22 PM   #686
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,254
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Gender is what sex other people perceive us to be.
Gender identity is what sex we want other people to perceive us to be.
Gender expression or gender presentation are what gender others perceive us to be. As in, 'Sometimes Ali presents as a man, but she's actually just a woman who doesn't wear makeup.' or 'John is trying to present as a man so I'm helping him pick more masculine clothing.'

Gender identity is what one's sense of gender says they are. As in, 'Jake was assigned female as birth, but he identifies as a man'.

Gender can mean gender identity, or are the characteristics that refer to or differentiate masculinity and femininity (or more depending on culture) that depending on context can include biological sex. As these change with time and culture, it isn't surprising this can't be cited in a legalistic list.

As in, 'Gender historically referred to grammatical groups, and nothing stops a culture from creating as many as it finds useful.'
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 05:28 PM   #687
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,830
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I've no idea, tbh.
Like athletics, cycling races are divided into men's & women's. Unfortunately - and as I've commented on in this thread - some parts of cycling are way too liberal and are allowing blokes in dresses (yes, I do mean blokes in dresses, not transgender people) to compete against women.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Seems to me the Tour de France ought to institute a women's competition, along the lines suggested here: https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/...our-de-france/
Sure, they can do that, but they can't be on the road at the same time as the men. They're way too slow.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I don't expect a one-size-fits-all solution to be forthcoming here.
I do - a new, extra class: non-binary. Trans, intersex and who the hell wants can all compete in an entirely new class.

Anything that keeps grown men from suddenly deciding they're female, and then dominating that sport. Or, mainly intersex people with a vaginal opening but male sex organs sweeping all the medals in Olympic middle-distance events. As I alluded to with the case of Michaela (nee Mike) Tyson returning to the ring.

If today's situation was the case 20 years ago, I have no doubt Kaarsten Braasch would have claimed to be a chick.

(Sorry, but I'm much more concerned with sport than bathrooms, although I side firmly with women on both)
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 05:47 PM   #688
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,873
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
My daughter's friend, who transitioned from a boy to girl when he was 16, was bullied to extremes by schoolboys in locker rooms.

This is why the only sensible answer is another whole set of changing rooms.
I was thinking about this. First, thanks for answering the questions about your daughter's friend.

When it comes to schools, I'm not sure we need "another whole set". It seems to me that the number of transgender people in a typical school is either 0 or 1. In that case, "the other set" is a single room.

In the USA, in every case I've heard about, that single room option was presented, but in the ones that made headlines, it was rejected. I agree that it's the only sensible option, but it's not the option the trans rights activists want.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 06:25 PM   #689
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,421
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Gender expression or gender presentation are what gender others perceive us to be. As in, 'Sometimes Ali presents as a man, but she's actually just a woman who doesn't wear makeup.' or 'John is trying to present as a man so I'm helping him pick more masculine clothing.'

Gender identity is what one's sense of gender says they are. As in, 'Jake was assigned female as birth, but he identifies as a man'.

Gender can mean gender identity, or are the characteristics that refer to or differentiate masculinity and femininity (or more depending on culture) that depending on context can include biological sex. As these change with time and culture, it isn't surprising this can't be cited in a legalistic list.

As in, 'Gender historically referred to grammatical groups, and nothing stops a culture from creating as many as it finds useful.'
This is where current things get needlessly complicated or down a ridiculous rabbit hole. Like I've stated before, I have quite a few behavioral characteristics that might be considered feminine, but I've never been anything other than a man. I've never felt less than a man because I would spend the day in the kitchen baking things to cope with depression, and never felt less than a man when I've walked away from dudes blathering on about sports or cars. I've even gone so far as to claim to people that I do a better French Silk pie than Marie Calendars, but I am absolutely a man. I've even created from the ground up a few new cookie recipes while drinking wine and petting my cat that I've circulated to friends, but I'm still a man.

There was never a need I felt to invent some new gender identity or some other signifier to make myself feel special. I simply knew that the stereotypes of 'men do <x>, women do <y>' were just that - stereotypes which might apply in broad cases but weren't 100% accurate across the board.

I mean, FFS, I've been on the planet for more than five decades, and I can still remember when I was really young playing with 'tomboy' girls who were never anything but girls - no more or no less - , they just wanted to climb on rocks with me rather than playing with dolls back at camp. I never thought they were some odd different 'not girl not boy' thing (TIM mode : I've always had a thing for tomgirls and I'm 100% hetereo). More and more things read like people wanting to be a singular unique thing rather than just being 'not a stereotypical <x>'.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 06:45 PM   #690
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,254
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
This is where current things get needlessly complicated or down a ridiculous rabbit hole. Like I've stated before, I have quite a few behavioral characteristics that might be considered feminine, but I've never been anything other than a man. I've never felt less than a man because I would spend the day in the kitchen baking things to cope with depression, and never felt less than a man when I've walked away from dudes blathering on about sports or cars. I've even gone so far as to claim to people that I do a better French Silk pie than Marie Calendars, but I am absolutely a man. I've even created from the ground up a few new cookie recipes while drinking wine and petting my cat that I've circulated to friends, but I'm still a man.

There was never a need I felt to invent some new gender identity or some other signifier to make myself feel special. I simply knew that the stereotypes of 'men do <x>, women do <y>' were just that - stereotypes which might apply in broad cases but weren't 100% accurate across the board.

I mean, FFS, I've been on the planet for more than five decades, and I can still remember when I was really young playing with 'tomboy' girls who were never anything but girls - no more or no less - , they just wanted to climb on rocks with me rather than playing with dolls back at camp. I never thought they were some odd different 'not girl not boy' thing (TIM mode : I've always had a thing for tomgirls and I'm 100% hetereo). More and more things read like people wanting to be a singular unique thing rather than just being 'not a stereotypical <x>'.
Congratulations on being cis-gender, but that doesn't actually change how those words get used, nor on the utility of them for people who are not cis-gender or study, or even just interact with, people who are not.

That something isn't important to you doesn't mean it's all 'needless'. The deeper into understanding the issue, wait, no, the deeper into understanding any issue the more complicated things get. The more specific terms gain utility. I know it can get confusing because so many people here can't even get past the basic terms, but this is a discussion on a specific issue where those terms are going to have use.

They're descriptive of phenomena, some social/cultural, some biological, some psychological. It doesn't have to be simple and reality is under no obligation to make sense to any of us.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 07:32 PM   #691
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,421
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Congratulations on being cis-gender, but that doesn't actually change how those words get used, nor on the utility of them for people who are not cis-gender or study, or even just interact with, people who are not.

That something isn't important to you doesn't mean it's all 'needless'. The deeper into understanding the issue, wait, no, the deeper into understanding any issue the more complicated things get. The more specific terms gain utility. I know it can get confusing because so many people here can't even get past the basic terms, but this is a discussion on a specific issue where those terms are going to have use.

They're descriptive of phenomena, some social/cultural, some biological, some psychological. It doesn't have to be simple and reality is under no obligation to make sense to any of us.
Well then what exactly is the point of the different terms then? What external utility do they convey? If I'm at a bar and I'm flirting with a woman who tells me "I'm a lesbian", well then I know I have to treat her differently. I can still think she's cool and trade shots with her, but we won't be banging (sadly representative of my life these days).

But take someone with an intact penis. They say "I'm a woman". Well, what do I do with that? Okay, of you want me to call you Shiela not Steve, I'm down with that. If you're more into Danielle Steele than Tom Clancy I'm the last person in the world to fault you. But why the need to come up with some new classification to make you special?

Sexual/gender stereotypes in our culture are total ********. I'm 100% on board with that idea. But saying 'since I don't align with <stereotypeX>, therefore I'm my own special thing' just comes off to me as people wanting to be some unique thing that's never existed before. Yeah our society has done a **** job of accepting people who are different, but that doesn't mean you're something new, just that we've been horrible at accepting differences in the past.

And don't mistake me. Last year I ran across a transwoman who fit the anti- stereotype to an absolute T: guy clothes, guy haircut, and 5 o'colock shadow, but you had to say 'she'. I could never bring myself to use the word 'she' so I just didn't do pronouns at all and used the proper name. I couldn't agree with how this person viewed themselves, but rather than being a dick about it I just side stepped it and used personal names because I didn't want to grind on someone I didn't agree with.

So to swing it back to the gender thing, I actually applaud people who want to break down gender norms in our society (the child nurturing dude, the football playing gal). I honestly believe that gender expectations in our society are the cause of a lot of ********. But I have a real hard time accepting that someone who doesn't fit with the stereotype of either <x> or <y> magically creates a third category of <z>.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 07:33 PM   #692
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,830
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In the USA, in every case I've heard about, that single room option was presented, but in the ones that made headlines, it was rejected. I agree that it's the only sensible option, but it's not the option the trans rights activists want.
Someone should point that we can't always get what we want, so go with the most satisfactory answer for everyone.

Disagreeing with that option says it's about putting trans first, instead of equal but separate.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 08:01 PM   #693
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,254
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
Well then what exactly is the point of the different terms then? What external utility do they convey? If I'm at a bar and I'm flirting with a woman who tells me "I'm a lesbian", well then I know I have to treat her differently. I can still think she's cool and trade shots with her, but we won't be banging (sadly representative of my life these days).

But take someone with an intact penis. They say "I'm a woman". Well, what do I do with that? Okay, of you want me to call you Shiela not Steve, I'm down with that. If you're more into Danielle Steele than Tom Clancy I'm the last person in the world to fault you. But why the need to come up with some new classification to make you special?

Sexual/gender stereotypes in our culture are total ********. I'm 100% on board with that idea. But saying 'since I don't align with <stereotypeX>, therefore I'm my own special thing' just comes off to me as people wanting to be some unique thing that's never existed before. Yeah our society has done a **** job of accepting people who are different, but that doesn't mean you're something new, just that we've been horrible at accepting differences in the past.

And don't mistake me. Last year I ran across a transwoman who fit the anti- stereotype to an absolute T: guy clothes, guy haircut, and 5 o'colock shadow, but you had to say 'she'. I could never bring myself to use the word 'she' so I just didn't do pronouns at all and used the proper name. I couldn't agree with how this person viewed themselves, but rather than being a dick about it I just side stepped it and used personal names because I didn't want to grind on someone I didn't agree with.

So to swing it back to the gender thing, I actually applaud people who want to break down gender norms in our society (the child nurturing dude, the football playing gal). I honestly believe that gender expectations in our society are the cause of a lot of ********. But I have a real hard time accepting that someone who doesn't fit with the stereotype of either <x> or <y> magically creates a third category of <z>.

Which term specifically do you think isn't useful?

Because you can actually use the differences in the terms to answer your questions. Gender identity and gender expression being different because they describe different things actually resolves why they're useful. People who are trans gender don't conclude they are trans gender because they like sewing. Their gender identity is what their sense of gender tells them they are. If yours matches your sex, no conflict, you likely don't know what it's like to feel any other way to even know you feel the way you do.

If your gender identity doesn't match your gender expression, then you're just not conforming to your culture's idea of masculinity or femininity (or other for other cultures) for others to easily match you there. There can, and are, social consequences for not matching gender roles, which is another largely cultural aspect of gender. It is complex, and context is key. Which is why 'what do I do with that' is only properly answer by 'in what context'?

In your flirting bar example, what? If you don't want to sleep with a trans woman she's not a woman? It's just a woman you don't want to sleep with/hit on. Unless you're truly prolific, there have to be many traits in women that exclude them from your desire to flirt with them without confusing you. And how did you even see the penis in your example? Just, wut?

You're still operating under the assumption that they all spring from the same source and are the same phenomena. Being interrelated doesn't mean it's all the same. Gender identity can be (maybe, probably, research ongoing) be effected by gender roles and cultural gender expectations but more and more indications are an internal, not external, source for it. Gender identity is strongly influenced by sex, but that doesn't mean it's completely tied to it (height and shoulder width also are, but no one bats an eye at a tall, broad shouldered woman unless that's their thing). Gender expression is an external, social, presentation.

The point of having different terms is they describe different things. I can't restate this enough. Gender identity is determined by personal, internal, factors. Gender expression is culturally bound and determined by cultural, external factors. Gender roles are culturally bound and determined by external factors. Gender has many facets and factors, some internal, some cultural, and context is needed to make it mean much more.

Do you have ADHD? If not, do you think ADHD is just a created category to be special? Why not? Depression? Strong focus? There are so many different, not even problems, just differences inside our personal perceptions that can't easily be described to others who don't feel them, which absolutely are things, that selecting being trans gender out and calling it 'special' seems like, well, a special pleading.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 08:32 PM   #694
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,421
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Which term specifically do you think isn't useful?

Because you can actually use the differences in the terms to answer your questions. Gender identity and gender expression being different because they describe different things actually resolves why they're useful. People who are trans gender don't conclude they are trans gender because they like sewing. Their gender identity is what their sense of gender tells them they are. If yours matches your sex, no conflict, you likely don't know what it's like to feel any other way to even know you feel the way you do.

If your gender identity doesn't match your gender expression, then you're just not conforming to your culture's idea of masculinity or femininity (or other for other cultures) for others to easily match you there. There can, and are, social consequences for not matching gender roles, which is another largely cultural aspect of gender. It is complex, and context is key. Which is why 'what do I do with that' is only properly answer by 'in what context'?

In your flirting bar example, what? If you don't want to sleep with a trans woman she's not a woman? It's just a woman you don't want to sleep with/hit on. Unless you're truly prolific, there have to be many traits in women that exclude them from your desire to flirt with them without confusing you. And how did you even see the penis in your example? Just, wut?

You're still operating under the assumption that they all spring from the same source and are the same phenomena. Being interrelated doesn't mean it's all the same. Gender identity can be (maybe, probably, research ongoing) be effected by gender roles and cultural gender expectations but more and more indications are an internal, not external, source for it. Gender identity is strongly influenced by sex, but that doesn't mean it's completely tied to it (height and shoulder width also are, but no one bats an eye at a tall, broad shouldered woman unless that's their thing). Gender expression is an external, social, presentation.

The point of having different terms is they describe different things. I can't restate this enough. Gender identity is determined by personal, internal, factors. Gender expression is culturally bound and determined by cultural, external factors. Gender roles are culturally bound and determined by external factors. Gender has many facets and factors, some internal, some cultural, and context is needed to make it mean much more.

Do you have ADHD? If not, do you think ADHD is just a created category to be special? Why not? Depression? Strong focus? There are so many different, not even problems, just differences inside our personal perceptions that can't easily be described to others who don't feel them, which absolutely are things, that selecting being trans gender out and calling it 'special' seems like, well, a special pleading.
But to tie all this back to the OP, what does all of this mean in terms of segregation based on sex not gender? To put cards on the table, what if I salute an intact-penis-person for wanting to live life in the way we'd traditionally see a woman as doing, but not want to go so far as to say that <person> should be allowed on a woman's football team? It's all well and good to say we should break down gender expectations, but when the subject turns to sexual expectations? Too often these days it seems like the arguments turn to Motte and Bailey techniques. "women don't have to be confined by your narrow view of things" becomes "lesbians are bigots if they don't want to service my LadyCock" in too many cases. Not all for a long way to be sure, but it's an equivocation which really ought to be dealt with.

I mean, what is the difference between gender identity and gender expression? At a practical level - how should the external world treat (the generic) you based on those? I can't stress enough how much I hate societies gender expectations, but I struggle to understand some of the stuff that gets thrown up in conversations like these. I want to treat you (generic) as a person. You insist "I'm not an <n>, I'm an <L> - fine - at a practical level, what does that actually mean?

Ironically it's this perverse sort of binary. Someone saying "I don't accept you saying you're an <x>" doesn't also mean "therefore it's cool if Bubba drags you behind his truck for a while." And people saying "it's cool if you want to <x>, but that still doesn't mean you're a <y> are bigots who are queuing up behind Bubba's truck.

I get that you're not making the specific condemnations mentioned above but they're fairly commonplace in today's hyper polarized state.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 08:42 PM   #695
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,873
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Someone should point that we can't always get what we want, so go with the most satisfactory answer for everyone.

Disagreeing with that option says it's about putting trans first, instead of equal but separate.
Recently, they've been getting what they want.

I've brought up the Palatine, Illinois girls several times in recent years. That was the case where the girls went to the school board to press their case for keeping the trans-girl out of the locker room, and where one of the girls said, "Can she put the towel over her eyes?"

Palatine was in the news a couple of weeks ago. The school board modified the policy. When that case was going on, it was agreed that the trans-girl would change behind a curtain and always wrap a towel about her waist if she needed to be outside the curtain. It was that part of the policy that led to the "eyes" question. Now, those restrictions are dropped. Transgirls will have full and equal access to the girls' locker room. No towels or curtains required.

I saw several news stories on the subject. All hailed the progress toward equality.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:00 AM   #696
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,630
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Congratulations on being cis-gender, but that doesn't actually change how those words get used
As we've seen in this thread, we don't seem to know how they're used at all.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:53 AM   #697
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,566
Can people just stop saying "It's complicated" over and over while making zero attempt to uncomplicate it?

That's not an answer to anything being discussed.

More and more I'm starting to really get the vibe that intentionally having some part of your "identity" being something other people just don't get is the point.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; Yesterday at 05:55 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:07 AM   #698
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,332
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
(TIM mode : I've always had a thing for tomgirls and I'm 100% hetereo)
What's a tomgirl? A tomboy is a girl, so...

And what's Tim got to do with it?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:57 AM   #699
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,254
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
But to tie all this back to the OP, what does all of this mean in terms of segregation based on sex not gender? To put cards on the table, what if I salute an intact-penis-person for wanting to live life in the way we'd traditionally see a woman as doing, but not want to go so far as to say that <person> should be allowed on a woman's football team?
If you want absolution that one's opinion on sports rules won't be disagreed with and called stupid, let me tell you the story of the designated hitter rule...

Seriously, if you want to know how gender should interact with all aspects of society that's a complicated and contentious topic without even considering trans gender issues and expecting it to have simple, straight forward answers is bonkers. Most trans gender people couldn't care less about sports ball except when it's used as a cudgel to deny the validity of their gender identity 'because they can't play sports'. Which is a thing bigots absolutely do, which doesn't mean that having that conclusion makes one a bigot. More on 'but people on that side make some bad arguments' below. People with bad joints also can't play sports.

There are so many aspects of the sports thing that could be explored, but one thing that is useful to actually go into is that context can change how one should/can interact with anyone including trans gender people. Self-id is how say public bathrooms work. There really isn't another practical way for them to work, and people suggesting anything else are dismissing the practical realities. Most all trans gender people agree with most everyone else on the 'gatekeeping' level there. Now with sports there is less of an agreement, but many (I'd say the plurality) think that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sports until some time (a couple of years usually) of doctor monitored HRT. This isn't much more burdensome than steroid monitoring. Because of the way hormone therapy works for trans women, at that point they have less muscle building hormones than most cis women and can be at considerable disadvantage. (Here is where people angrily demand citations they will neither read, nor understand, and then dismiss anyway.) The point is that in one context, bathrooms, treating trans women as women just means letting them say they're in the right bathroom. In another context, competitive sports, other measures including possibly barring, beyond simply gender identity of trans gender people could be appropriate. But using the context of the latter to deny their gender identity doesn't become reasonable, and using the latter context to insist on the same standard for the former is just moronically unworkable. Expecting that all the contexts of interactions be the same just, well, that's not how it works. That's not how anything works.

(Also if one's concerns are the viability and enjoy-ability of competitive sports in general is anyone's real concern, oh Odin, trans women shouldn't be on the first page of your list of concerns with things like the interference with nations, performance enhancing substances, corporate interference, data analytics, and the HUGE looming one, epigenetic activation.)

Quote:
It's all well and good to say we should break down gender expectations, but when the subject turns to sexual expectations? Too often these days it seems like the arguments turn to Motte and Bailey techniques. "women don't have to be confined by your narrow view of things" becomes "lesbians are bigots if they don't want to service my LadyCock" in too many cases. Not all for a long way to be sure, but it's an equivocation which really ought to be dealt with.
Have you ever heard of 'Gold Star' lesbians? They are lesbians who look down on and otherwise disparage other women who are sexually attracted to women if they've ever been with a man. They react to news that a friend they thought to be a lesbian is actually bisexual with things like 'eww'. They often even actively look for partners who have never been with men, and have dumped people for being bisexual. (Straight people do that too by the way.) They sometimes argue that bisexual women just are bowing to the patriarchy, or have internalized misogyny. They even have argued that bisexual women don't really exist, or exist in much smaller numbers, and that most/all bisexual women just want to have their own needlessly complicated special label to stand out. Does that sound familiar to you? People should be absolutely allowed complete agency over who they would be in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with, but that doesn't mean we can't recognize some standards are much more silly than others, or much more likely to spring from bigotry than others. You wouldn't be surprised to know that there is a very large overlap between the 'Gold Star' lesbians and misandrists.

Now that you know that, what does that say about what we should do with lesbian rights? What does that say for the arguments for lesbian rights? I would say not a damn thing. That some trans gender people make silly and harmful arguments and DO label some who are not bigots as bigoted doesn't actually change the other arguments. Claims are supposed to be judged on their own merits. Them wrongly claiming people should just be down to take some lady-d or you're a bigot doesn't mean that there aren't actually other bigots making other bad arguments on the exact opposite side (there is no such thing as some lady-d).

Yeah, things are complicated and hard. Not exactly different from most other things especially human psychology AND sociology, and that isn't a concept that should need endlessly explaining to skeptics. How would you view the argument that because pareidolia can be complex and there is a lot of underlying biology and psychology that could be gone into on it, the simpler explanation that gob put that image of white jebus on the toast is better?

Quote:
I mean, what is the difference between gender identity and gender expression? At a practical level - how should the external world treat (the generic) you based on those? I can't stress enough how much I hate societies gender expectations, but I struggle to understand some of the stuff that gets thrown up in conversations like these. I want to treat you (generic) as a person. You insist "I'm not an <n>, I'm an <L> - fine - at a practical level, what does that actually mean?
Do you not understand how many different 'practical levels' there are? Again, knowing that even removing trans gender issues from the topic entirely leaves a massively complex web of interrelated issues and problems, how would the added complexity make a simple and clean answer available?

'How should I treat men and women in all possible contexts' isn't meaningfully answerable apart from 'generally well'.

In your specific case hating gender roles and expectations, then the answer is almost certainly going to be like you treat everyone else. Use the name and pronouns that you'd find reasonable to use with everyone else. If you wouldn't respect someone's name being 'Attack Helicopter AX001' if they are cis gender, then I guess you don't have to respect a trans gender name of the same. (Although I doubt that is the case because you're having no trouble referring to me by a screen name based on my affinity for justice and my lucky number.)

Quote:
Ironically it's this perverse sort of binary. Someone saying "I don't accept you saying you're an <x>" doesn't also mean "therefore it's cool if Bubba drags you behind his truck for a while." And people saying "it's cool if you want to <x>, but that still doesn't mean you're a <y> are bigots who are queuing up behind Bubba's truck.

I get that you're not making the specific condemnations mentioned above but they're fairly commonplace in today's hyper polarized state.
Yeah, see above. Sucks being lumped together with people advocating silly things right? Well, don't lump the claims of bigotry for not wanting to take the lady-d with claims of bigotry for trying to defund a children's charity for their work which has been proven to drastically reduce trans gender teen and child death, for example.

Also, don't use extreme examples of violence and bigotry to handwave lesser examples. Different magnitudes don't actually dismiss each other. If I have to choose between a slap in the face and a shiv in the kidney, I'll argue for the slap in the face all day but I can still recognize them both as violence.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
As we've seen in this thread, we don't seem to know how they're used at all.
This thread is populated by a very non-representative sample, many of whom like you are deliberately obtuse on the subject, so the use of the words here by old people isn't the descriptivist argument you think you're making.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Can people just stop saying "It's complicated" over and over while making zero attempt to uncomplicate it?

That's not an answer to anything being discussed.

More and more I'm starting to really get the vibe that intentionally having some part of your "identity" being something other people just don't get is the point.
And I want people to move beyond just saying, 'But biological sex!', but I doubt that's going to happen.

People have gone to great pains to uncomplicate it, which sadly takes the oh-so-unfair effort of reading and understanding citations, but broad and vague questions of 'how do we treat people?' aren't actionable in the way you demand they be. Want better answers? Ask better questions than, 'how do we treat women?'

It is complicated. You want to understand, put the effort in. Stomp your feet and demand it be simple all you want, that doesn't change anything.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:31 AM   #700
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,566
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
And I want people to move beyond just saying, 'But biological sex!', but I doubt that's going to happen.
I haven't once just made a blanket referral to "biological sex" without actually explaining the context in which I was using in it and the point I was trying to make. The fact that you sit there and just hit the "Transgender Argument 101 Canned Argument #4 Button" says that you just looks for keywords in arguments you have premade retorts to.

Do you have an actual point to make or are you just going to shout Tumblr approved slogans at me until you just call me a transphobe and declare yourself the winner?
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:19 PM   #701
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,630
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
This thread is populated by a very non-representative sample, many of whom like you are deliberately obtuse on the subject
Yes, of course. No one who is not deliberately obtuse could possibly ever disagree with you. It couldn't possibly be that the definitions provided are weak or downright useless. It couldn't be on you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:26 PM   #702
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,171
Not in reply to any particular post, but for the sake of clarification what exactly do "cis men" and "trans men" have in common which put them all in the same category? Is it the way we're perceived by other people? Secondary sexual characteristics? A personal subjective sense of masculinty? All of the above? Some of the above? None of the above?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; Yesterday at 02:34 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:42 PM   #703
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,421
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What's a tomgirl? A tomboy is a girl, so...

And what's Tim got to do with it?
I plead late night typos. (no tom* s or tims were harmed in the making of this post)
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:45 PM   #704
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,830
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Not in reply to any particular post, but for the sake of clarification what exactly do "cis men" and "trans men" have in common which put them all in the same category?
Short hair.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:19 PM   #705
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,171
Well now that makes me just about as manly as anyone can get.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; Yesterday at 04:50 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:31 PM   #706
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,254
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I haven't once just made a blanket referral to "biological sex" without actually explaining the context in which I was using in it and the point I was trying to make. The fact that you sit there and just hit the "Transgender Argument 101 Canned Argument #4 Button" says that you just looks for keywords in arguments you have premade retorts to.

Do you have an actual point to make or are you just going to shout Tumblr approved slogans at me until you just call me a transphobe and declare yourself the winner?
Oh man, I better get a refund on my Tumblr membership fees seeing as they provided me with a 'canned argument' for keywords you didn't use.

Yeah, if you cut out ALL the entire rest of the post and assume that you are the only person in the conversation even though this forum isn't the only place this is being discussed, this isn't the only thread even on this forum this is being discussed, you aren't the only other poster in this thread, and you weren't even the only person I quoted in that post, then yes, I made no points.

Your persecution complex is silly and if you want to try addressing what I said, go for it. Cutting out one sentence and removing the context of the entire post isn't it. If you actually want answers, try thinking about what you're saying. Declaring yourself the victim of non-existent false accusations of bigotry is in 'not even wrong' territory.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yes, of course. No one who is not deliberately obtuse could possibly ever disagree with you. It couldn't possibly be that the definitions provided are weak or downright useless. It couldn't be on you.
Literally completely wrong. Being deliberately obtuse wasn't supported by the posters here disagreeing with me. There are at least two posters whose conclusions I strongly disagree with but have shown the ability and willingness to actually absorb the terminology and arguments. Being populated with several people like you who are determinedly obtuse was cited as a reason the usage of the terms here isn't a good sample of the usage of the terms. And it is.

The definitions are not only very useful, they are not on me. They're part of the vocabulary that has been built up over many years of informal discussion and formal research, and recognized by being the standard definitions used by organizations and research guidelines from places like John Hopkins, Cornell, and the APA. That you and others pitch a fit over the utility of the definitions that professional psychologists use and endorse after consulting with use linguists is just another reason that this discussion here is stuck at the remedial level forever. The experts know more than you, and they aren't even just stipulated definitions for the purpose of papers.

So if you'd like to make an argument over why they lack utility despite my using them to explain things in the last few posts and the literal experts disagreeing, have at it.

However, your assessment right now means nothing; I've seen your rationalizations.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:08 PM   #707
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,630
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Being populated with several people like you who are determinedly obtuse was cited as a reason the usage of the terms here isn't a good sample of the usage of the terms. And it is.
That doesn't make any difference. You have not provided a distinction between the two groups you have just listed. In fact I suspect, that you have created the second group out of thin air as a means to rhetorically give yourself justification for calling the first group obtuse.

Quote:
The definitions are not only very useful, they are not on me.
None of that changes the fact that they are not useful for the reasons posted here. That you refuse to accept that makes you obtuse, not me. Do you seriously believe that providing a definition automatically means people should accept it? I'm very willing to accept definitions for the sake of argument but they have to make sense.

Quote:
So if you'd like to make an argument over why they lack utility despite my using them to explain things in the last few posts and the literal experts disagreeing, have at it.
You want me to make an argument for a lack of something? Have you learned nothing of your time here? How about you explain in what way they are useful, since you're the one claiming that they are?

Quote:
However, your assessment right now means nothing; I've seen your rationalizations.
Ad hominem. This just proves that your request for an argument earlier in the post was a lie. You have no intention to even consider anything I have to say, which supports my analysis above.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; Yesterday at 05:18 PM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:15 PM   #708
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,254
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That doesn't make any difference. You have not provided a distinction between the two groups you have just listed. In fact I suspect, that you have created the second group out of thin air as a means to rhetorically give yourself justification for calling the first group obtuse.
Nope, but you'll believe it anyway because it makes your rationalizations easier. And yes it makes a difference.


Quote:
None of that changes the fact that they are not useful for the reasons posted here. That you refuse to accept that makes you obtuse, not me. Do you seriously believe that providing a definition automatically means people should accept it? I'm very willing to accept definitions for the sake of argument but they have to make sense.
You're not willing in the least. You've made no argument. You've just made assertions. I showed how the definitions have utility by using them. You saying 'NOPE!' doesn't matter. It's just you being deliberately obtuse, again, and acting like that is evidence of, well, anything.


Quote:
You want me to make an argument for a lack of something? Have you learned nothing of your time here? How about you explain in what way they are useful, since you're the one claiming that they are?
I showed how they had utility. You claim they don't. You have no argument for this other than 'nope'. You could make the argument they don't because the previous listed ones have the same or better utility, but you won't, both because they don't but because you're still confident you don't have to support, well, anything.


Quote:
Ad hominem. This just proves that your request for an argument earlier in the post was a lie. You have no intention to even consider anything I have to say, which supports my analysis above.
Citing your failure of reasoning on the same subject as reasons to dismiss your assertions on the subject isn't an ad hom. I have no intention of giving your assertions weight because of that. If you want to make an argument, that will stand or fall on it's own merits.

But again, you won't.

Thanks for showing what doesn't have utility though; engaging you on this topic. Have fun.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:27 AM   #709
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,630
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Nope, but you'll believe it anyway because it makes your rationalizations easier.
There's no rationalisation involved. You have not established a difference between the two. The distinction you've tried to make is that some accept your definition but disagree with it, and that I do not accept your definition. It apparently has not crossed your mind that the reason I do not accept your definition is that I _have_ considered it and found that I disagree with it. In other words, it's the exact same thing. You've just arbitrarily and unilaterally decided that my disagreement is not justified and other posters' are.

That is what I took issue with.

Quote:
You're not willing in the least.
Stop lying. I've tried over and over for many years to get you to participate in conversations honestly and to make cogent arguments, and at every turn you foil me by continuing your games and personalisations. You don't get to tell me that I'm not making significant efforts to get somewhere with you until you get rid of that beam in your eye. Stick to the damned topic rather than trying to find excuses why your arguments are weak.

Quote:
You've made no argument. You've just made assertions.
I have made arguments. And the one most relevant now is that I find the definitions provided in this thread to be vague and unhelpful, and I've also appealed for an actual definition that makes sense. I'm not sure how you expect me to be more detailed about that.

Quote:
I showed how they had utility. You claim they don't. You have no argument for this other than 'nope'.
No, you have claimed that they have utility because they're in use, but you've not managed to explain that utility. It's interesting that you mistake your claims for demonstrations and my arguments for claims.

Quote:
Citing your failure of reasoning on the same subject as reasons to dismiss your assertions on the subject isn't an ad hom.
Who do you think you're fooling here? You continually engage me just to tell me that making an actual argument is pointless because it won't convince me. Well, that's not a failure of mine. It's an excuse of yours based on an assessment of my supposed future actions. It's an ad hominem because it has nothing to do with the discussion, but rather with me.

As I said, you think your declarations and claims are arguments, and that other people's arguments are claims.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; Today at 02:28 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.