Continuation Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I can't believe you wrote that.

It should be "Persons", since it's a plural, not a possessive.

Well...

If I was feeling snarky, I might claim that my personal punctuation is not to be judged by those who don't understand it. It CAN be decorative you know. Sometime's a little flair is required.
Grammar Nazi's should be banned from everything...forever.


But I will neither confirm nor deny if I am in snark mode at this time.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Grammar Nazi's should be banned from everything...forever.

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

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Grammar Nazi's should be banned from everything...forever.

Oi!

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Oi!

Tend to agree with Sherkeu.

Grammar Nazis are extremely annoying.

Just an aside the Atheist.

It is spelled "Oye!"

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by cullennz

It is spelled "Oye!"

Nope.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Evidently 600 philosophers from around the world have shouted down Kathleen Stock:

Outraged academics condemn government for handing anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock an OBE

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/01/0...a-open-letter/






Person's with a penis are male? Imagine that!! They can still be trans no doubt, but this 'females who keep their penises' newspeak is ridiculous.

She is not apologizing. She expected the backlash. She gave many responses on her twitter too numerous to paste here:

https://twitter.com/Docstockk/

Here's one: via twitter: "I could go on (and on). None of this is particularly easy to talk about, but if academics seriously think they can stop discussion of such matters - pertaining to women's safety and autonomy, to children's health, and to democracy itself - they're high on their own supply."

Interesting piece from Kathleen stock on the hypocrisy of 'woke' philosophers.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Interesting piece from Kathleen stock on the hypocrisy of 'woke' philosophers.

She does a great job of pointing out the hypocrisy of the (extreme?) trans-activists. I tried to find a small piece of it to quote but it is all really good. I'm a fan.

Basically she says that most trans women are "male bodied persons", attracted to women, and we should not give full access to all women's spaces just willy nilly. This is evidently highly transphobic. The activists say about binary sex: "it's not binary, it's complicated"... but then also argue that the trans women should be considered fully on the female side of a binary sex model for an all-access -pass. But you cannot speak of this distortion or you get canceled because you are a big meanie who hates the penis-women.

[Louden Wilde]

Originally Posted by Butter!

()

I personally have a great terror of reality-denial. I never found the flat-earther resurgence amusing, for example. I saw the writing on the wall awhile back that the internet was causing people to fracture into their own literal worlds, and I feared and hated it. Now, this sort of refuge in post-fact reality has overwhelmingly been the purview of right-wing extremists and conspiracy fools, and I am in no way comparing ANY aspect of individuals concerned with social justice to their ilk. However, I do get a bit freaked out when reality is boldly denied in any context.

In this context, I am not referring to the statement "transwomen are women," or similar statements. That's just a matter of definitions. I am referring to the statement "biological sex does not exist" or "sex is not binary in humans." Those statements are plainly false, and what's more, they are not necessary for supporting trans people and/or giving them the freedoms they desire. I don't like seeing my "side" take a page out of the weirdos' reality-denying playbook. Sex IS binary in humans, but that in no way prohibits transwomen from being women. Not the way I see it anyway.

First, this was a very well-thought out and articulated post. I also got pulled into these debates because of my similar feelings about reality denial. Unfortunately, I think using the word word woman/women (as in TWAW) contributes to that reality denial. That is, 'woman' has traditionally been 'adult human female', so that once you suggest the definition is based on an internal identity, it's going to get conflated with the more precise/ traditional definition. I frequently see activists saying things like 'transwomen are women in the same way black women or Latina women or disabled women are women'.

As noted by many others, two additional issues with changing the definition are that it takes away the word we do have for adult human females, and (more importantly) it suggests that oppression of women/girls has been not been based on sex.

Originally Posted by Butter!

()
There's a lot of variability in what different trans people and their various supporters think, though. My ex does not think binary sex is a myth at all. She simply believes that her mind (or possibly hormones/chemicals) are such that she should have been born as the other sex.

It certainly is true that there is plenty of heterogeneity in belief, but I think it's clear that the denial crowd has a prominent voice. Shoot- you can get banned on twitter for questioning TWAW

Originally Posted by Butter!

()
She's kind of a spiritual hippie-person too, so there may also be a "soul-like" component to this belief. I find her belief logically consistent, even if others here might not.

It's true that I don't find that belief logically consistent...
What I always wonder when I hear statements like the above is why men with attributes that are more often associated with women can't be men that don't conform to stereotypes (as opposed to calling themselves women).

Originally Posted by Butter!

()
It seems to me that 90%+ of people with hesitations, concerns, or objections are more worried about how self-ID would work as a sole criterion for access to the other sex's social spaces than about transitioning/transitioned people in general. I'm quite certain this is EC's position, for example. She's simply starting to engage with a little more venom at this point, probably because people keep calling her a terf.

That seems to be true for a lot of the feminists I've been reading/following. That and that there does seem to be a significant amount of misogyny in the movement - I think for obvious reasons...

[The Atheist]

This is relevant - not a long story and it won't be obvious until the end why it's relevant, so have a look: https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/c...ght-child-porn

No doubt women who don't want to have a lesbian relationship with this vile human being would be TERFs.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

She does a great job of pointing out the hypocrisy of the (extreme?) trans-activists. I tried to find a small piece of it to quote but it is all really good. I'm a fan.

Check out one of her pre-publication papers upthread, mostly about philosophical attempts to redefine womanhood.

[Butter!]

Originally Posted by Louden Wilde

First, this was a very well-thought out and articulated post. I also got pulled into these debates because of my similar feelings about reality denial. Unfortunately, I think using the word word woman/women (as in TWAW) contributes to that reality denial. That is, 'woman' has traditionally been 'adult human female', so that once you suggest the definition is based on an internal identity, it's going to get conflated with the more precise/ traditional definition. I frequently see activists saying things like 'transwomen are women in the same way black women or Latina women or disabled women are women'.

Well, that's why I keep going back to how I was originally taught to understand this issue. Man/woman = gender, while male/female = sex. I was able to comprehend that, even if "gender" is still a bit of a nebulous concept. I'm willing to simply agree to not understand in that regard.

I do acknowledge that, under this system of thought, the separate conception of "gender" runs the risk of reinforcing traditional sexist stereotypes and roles. I don't like that fact, but I also acknowledge that (to a large degree) those roles are with us regardless. As long as they do not become imperatives - that is, anyone who acts THIS way is a man, period - I think it would be okay. I'd like a world where a man could wear a full-face of makeup and still identify as a man, if he wanted. Or, if he'd prefer to identify as a woman, he can do that too. But he can't identify as a female, because that's biology. There's nothing any of us can do about biology. And there are, unfortunately, a handful of contexts where biology has to be the bottom line. I do not consider bathrooms to be one of them (though I'm well aware other women feel differently). I do consider many contact sports to be among them, though, because I simply can't see ANY way around it.

Anyway, that's what I was taught in a gender-focused sociology course 10 years ago. Apparently, that same position is now viewed as stunning bigotry in many circles.

Quote:

As noted by many others, two additional issues with changing the definition are that it takes away the word we do have for adult human females, and (more importantly) it suggests that oppression of women/girls has been not been based on sex.

Not necessarily, because we'd still have "female" under the old system. But I get what you're saying.

If we draw a distinction between sex and gender, the whole thing works according to its own internal logic, at least. That's why I'm so obsessed with harping on that detail. I don't see it as a detail - I see it as the core.

Quote:

It certainly is true that there is plenty of heterogeneity in belief, but I think it's clear that the denial crowd has a prominent voice. Shoot- you can get banned on twitter for questioning TWAW

I know, and I don't believe that is right. I disagree with censoring anything other than calls for violence or outright defamation, really. (Please note that I DO support the marking of objective misinformation on social media, and do not consider such to be censorship. Lest anyone think I'm dog-whistling here.) But Twitter gets to make their own rules, and so do most workplaces. I don't know where it will all end.

Quote:

It's true that I don't find that belief logically consistent...
What I always wonder when I hear statements like the above is why men with attributes that are more often associated with women can't be men that don't conform to stereotypes (as opposed to calling themselves women).

Sorry if I seem like I'm repeating myself - once again, I have to go back to the gender/sex distinction here. It's logically consistent in the sense that a man can identify as a woman if "woman" is being used to refer to gender, not sex. It follows a logical pattern, whether or not I actually understand the content myself. (As a cis person, I obviously do not understand how identifying with a different gender feels.)

Quote:

That seems to be true for a lot of the feminists I've been reading/following. That and that there does seem to be a significant amount of misogyny in the movement - I think for obvious reasons...

I might have to put on my tinfoil hat for a moment, but yeah - I've actually been wondering for awhile if some bad actors may have glommed onto the trans movement and started deliberately ****-stirring and trying to confuse the dialogue and push covert misogyny under the guise of progressivism. Whether they're redpillers or Russians or what, I don't know. But I think there might be some astroturf somewhere in there causing some of these problems, and the one trans person whom I know fairly well agrees with that suspicion.

Causing "the left" to engage in in-fighting and "eat itself" is a constant goal of subversive POS's on the internet. I don't think anyone could deny that. So why should feminism or trans-activism be immune? I would think they'd be juicy targets.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Butter!

Well, that's why I keep going back to how I was originally taught to understand this issue. Man/woman = gender, while male/female = sex. I was able to comprehend that, even if "gender" is still a bit of a nebulous concept. I'm willing to simply agree to not understand in that regard.

I started out with this view, in good faith. I've since back-tracked on it. Mostly because it leaves me and other adult human females without a term with which to reference ourselves while retaining our humanity.

But also... because "stag" isn't a feeling in the head of an adult male deer, nor is "mare" a feeling in the head of an adult female horse. A "hen" isn't an identity, nor is a "bull".

Other parts of my views are becoming less progressive as well. For example, I've come to think that drag queens are highly offensive. Drag shows are essentially minstrel shows... only instead of "blackface", they're putting on "womanface" and performing the worst and most regressive stereotypes as entertainment.

[Emily's Cat]

And honestly, I cannot determine any rational difference between...

Eddie Izzard the Transvestite: the adult human male who has undergone no hormone treatment or surgery, and who enjoys dressing in women's clothing and wearing makeup

... and ...

Eddie Izzard the Transwoman: the adult human male who has undergone no hormone treatment or surgery, and who enjoys dressing in women's clothing and wearing makeup

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And honestly, I cannot determine any rational difference between...

Eddie Izzard the Transvestite: the adult human male who has undergone no hormone treatment or surgery, and who enjoys dressing in women's clothing and wearing makeup

... and ...

Eddie Izzard the Transwoman: the adult human male who has undergone no hormone treatment or surgery, and who enjoys dressing in women's clothing and wearing makeup

One is a character performed for an audience the other is a lifestyle choice based on sincere personal expression.

Good luck figuring out which is which, though.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And honestly, I cannot determine any rational difference between...

Eddie Izzard the Transvestite: the adult human male who has undergone no hormone treatment or surgery, and who enjoys dressing in women's clothing and wearing makeup

... and ...

Eddie Izzard the Transwoman: the adult human male who has undergone no hormone treatment or surgery, and who enjoys dressing in women's clothing and wearing makeup

One says that males who don't conform to social gender norms and prefer to dress and express themselves in more feminine ways are still men. By extension, it's ok for men not to conform to stereotypes.

The other says that males who don't conform to social gender norms and prefer to dress and express themselves in more feminine ways are not men. By extension, if you want to regard yourself as a man you'd better conform.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Other parts of my views are becoming less progressive as well. For example, I've come to think that drag queens are highly offensive. Drag shows are essentially minstrel shows... only instead of "blackface", they're putting on "womanface" and performing the worst and most regressive stereotypes as entertainment.

This is a shocking comparison, but it's not obvious (to me) why it should be considered inapt.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

This is a shocking comparison, but it's not obvious (to me) why it should be considered inapt. : confused :

The inaptitude is subtle, but has to do with the principle of "punching up".

But first, you have to realize that the inaptitude is based on a stereotype that to be a drag queen one is also gay. Drag is a way for gay men to "punch up" on straight norms and expectations. They're not men punching down on women. They're gay men punching up on straight men and women.

I think.

The rules for the Diversity Privilege Card Game are more complicated than Magic or Yu-Gi-Oh. But I'm pretty sure the game includes a Trap card.

[Rolfe]

I'm torn. I'm a big Hinge and Bracket fan.

But there are most certainly drag acts that are punching down on women, and these seem to be becoming far more common, indeed pretty much the norm.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And honestly, I cannot determine any rational difference between...

Eddie Izzard the Transvestite: the adult human male who has undergone no hormone treatment or surgery, and who enjoys dressing in women's clothing and wearing makeup

... and ...

Eddie Izzard the Transwoman: the adult human male who has undergone no hormone treatment or surgery, and who enjoys dressing in women's clothing and wearing makeup

Maybe a good place to start addressing your reactionary incomprehension might be...... to actually try to seek out Izzard's own understanding of her condition. After all, she's a very articulate and apparently very intelligent person. Or would you prefer to keep labelling her with your own bigoted interpretations?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The rules for the Diversity Privilege Card Game are more complicated than Magic or Yu-Gi-Oh. But I'm pretty sure the game includes a Trap card.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Maybe a good place to start addressing your reactionary incomprehension might be...... to actually try to seek out Izzard's own understanding of her condition.

I've an ongoing and personal relationship w/ Jesus; how dare you doubt my subjective experience thereof?!

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Maybe a good place to start addressing your reactionary incomprehension might be...... to actually try to seek out Izzard's own understanding of her condition. After all, she's a very articulate and apparently very intelligent person. Or would you prefer to keep labelling her with your own bigoted interpretations?

Eddie is brilliant, but doesn't seem all that fussed about the pronouns she/he may prefer. When she is in 'girl mode' it's 'she' and in 'boy mode' a 'he'. He isn't one to commit to one gender entirely, though likely more she than he these days.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Maybe a good place to start addressing your reactionary incomprehension might be...... to actually try to seek out Izzard's own understanding of her condition. After all, she's a very articulate and apparently very intelligent person. Or would you prefer to keep labelling her with your own bigoted interpretations?

Well, Eddie Izzard isn't a member here, but Boudicca is. And her understanding of her condition seems confused, abusive, willfully ignorant, and extremely bigoted.

[d4m10n]

Interesting perspectives here:

https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/st...69662886014978

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[Louden Wilde]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Interesting perspectives here:

https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/st...69662886014978

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Thanks.

Another I recommend is a UK physician who goes by the handle "Watson", but her profile pic is that of Rosalind Franklin (famously overlooked in the hype that Watson & Crick got for the double helix discovery, despite contributing key data):

This is a good thread of hers


"la scapigliata" is similar (UK feminist physician, outspoken on these issues),

Also, Emma Hilton (a UK developmental biologist) is co-author on a new letter in the Irish Journal of Medical Science titled The reality of sex

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Interesting perspectives here:

https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/st...69662886014978

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

For some reason Twitter has started showing me monochrome rectangles in an assortment of colors, instead of tweets cited in other tweets. When I click on the rectangle to go to the original tweet being cited, Twitter gives me an error message.

Does anyone have any idea what's going on there? I've tried searching for an explanation, several times over the past few weeks, but the search results are all talking about other things than what I'm looking for.

---

Anyway, I like the implied dichotomy of "... you know what point he was making. This is petty semantics."

Words mean things. If someone uses a particular word to make an important point, and someone else protests that this mangles the existing meanings of the word... You can't rebut that by saying the word used isn't important and is just a semantic quibble.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by theprestige

For some reason Twitter has started showing me monochrome rectangles in an assortment of colors, instead of tweets cited in other tweets. When I click on the rectangle to go to the original tweet being cited, Twitter gives me an error message.

Does anyone have any idea what's going on there? I've tried searching for an explanation, several times over the past few weeks, but the search results are all talking about other things than what I'm looking for.

That happens to me if a twitter page is loading at the moment my internet goes down. It may be a problem with your wifi signal.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Eddie is brilliant, but doesn't seem all that fussed about the pronouns she/he may prefer. When she is in 'girl mode' it's 'she' and in 'boy mode' a 'he'. He isn't one to commit to one gender entirely, though likely more she than he these days.

Well that's somewhat irrelevant in the context of the original tweet and my respose to it. The original tweet was claiming that there was effectively no difference between a transvestite and a transgender person; and the same tweet also simplistically (and incorrectly) implied that transgender identity was in essence no different from transvestism.

Izzard appears (from an analysis of her own public statements) to have spent a good few decades of adulthood expressing something usually called transvestism (or to be more accurate, fluidity in clothing and personal appearance between that conventionally ascribed to men and women).... but then to have more recently moved from that towards something akin to true gender fluidity (which has connotations well beyond the externalities of clothing and personal appearance).

And whether Izzard's gender fluidity means that sometimes she would like to be considered to be a women, while at other times he would like to be considered as a man..... is her/his own personal internal matter. I would make one general observation about Izzard: she appears to be a thoughtful and rational person, who seems to have a level of quiet dignity about her own gender identity choices (and as part of this, she doesn't seem to want to wade into trans-activism. I'd say that trying to learn - with an open and respectful mind - about Izzard's condition, by relying as much as possible on the primary source (i.e. the public statements of Izzard herself), might serve as a very good way to acquire an education and an insight into trans-identity matters.



Incidentally - but relevantly - the child of a friend of mine is currently working on a PhD at Cambridge uni. The child is female (biologically), was raised as a woman, and was effectively a woman throughout her undergrad studies. I've met them several times, and they appear to me to be exceptionally intelligent, mentally well-balanced, articulate and rational. While completing their undergrad degree, they began to experience levels of discomfort with their assigned gender identity (i.e. "woman"), feeling instead that their lived gender identity was more-or-less indeterminate. They started wearing completely gender-neutral clothing and cut their hair short.

So as things stand right now, my friend's child considers themselves to be neither "man" nor "woman". And they appear to have reached that realisation with a sound mind and without any persuasive factors (e.g. the pull of trans-activists). And they live with their boyfriend in what appears to be a biologically "normal" relationship. I - and my friend, their father - find it extremely hard to believe that all of this was some sort of mental health aberration or illness, or some sort of "fad". So there we are.....

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And whether Izzard's gender fluidity means that sometimes she would like to be considered to be a women, while at other times he would like to be considered as a man..... is her/his own personal internal matter.

This is obviously false; to the extent others will be accused of intolerance and phobia for failing to treat Izzard correctly, this is a matter of public social norms.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Well, Eddie Izzard isn't a member here, but Boudicca is. And her understanding of her condition seems confused, abusive, willfully ignorant, and extremely bigoted.

I will partially agree with what you've written. But

1) the quote to which I was responding was specifically concerning Izzard, and I am struggling to figure out just why Boudicca90 might have (or be required to have, from interlocutors within this thread) any reliable insight into Izzard's own lived condition;

and

2) in any case, there are plenty of reliably-obtained insights, from individual transgender people, and from the expert medical professionals who assist transgender people, which are readily available out there in the wider world outside this thread. And from additive and comparative learning from these multiple sources, it's very easy to obtain a valid understanding of what gender dysphoria and trans-identity are (and, importantly, what they are not). Again, I have no idea quite why you seem to be keen to use the insight of just one person (Boudicca90) to form the basis of your understanding of the condition.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

This is obviously false; to the extent others will be accused of intolerance and phobia for failing to treat Izzard correctly, this is a matter of public social norms.

Uhhhh, that's only a second-order issue.

To use an analogy: a bisexual male has (genuine) sexual desires for both males and females. Sometimes he will desire gay sex with another male; at other times, he may desire hetero sex with a female.

And yes, if certain other people fail to treat this male correctly - and not, for example, to consider him as a "normal" heterosexual who has some sort of mental illness which makes him think he is sometimes sexually attracted to other males - then those other people will rightly be accused of intolerance and phobia.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

So as things stand right now, my friend's child considers themselves to be neither "man" nor "woman". And they appear to have reached that realisation with a sound mind and without any persuasive factors (e.g. the pull of trans-activists). And they live with their boyfriend in what appears to be a biologically "normal" relationship. I - and my friend, their father - find it extremely hard to believe that all of this was some sort of mental health aberration or illness, or some sort of "fad". So there we are.....

Well if you can't trust personal incredulity, what can you trust?

However, that's not important now. You just told a story about two people living together, and then one of them changes their clothes, hairstyle, and pronouns, and they continue to ****.

Connect the dots for me from that story to "The person with the penis gets to watch my daughter take off her clothes before swim class."

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Well that's somewhat irrelevant in the context of the original tweet and my respose to it. The original tweet was claiming that there was effectively no difference between a transvestite and a transgender person; and the same tweet also simplistically (and incorrectly) implied that transgender identity was in essence no different from transvestism.

Izzard appears (from an analysis of her own public statements) to have spent a good few decades of adulthood expressing something usually called transvestism (or to be more accurate, fluidity in clothing and personal appearance between that conventionally ascribed to men and women).... but then to have more recently moved from that towards something akin to true gender fluidity (which has connotations well beyond the externalities of clothing and personal appearance).

And whether Izzard's gender fluidity means that sometimes she would like to be considered to be a women, while at other times he would like to be considered as a man..... is her/his own personal internal matter. I would make one general observation about Izzard: she appears to be a thoughtful and rational person, who seems to have a level of quiet dignity about her own gender identity choices (and as part of this, she doesn't seem to want to wade into trans-activism. I'd say that trying to learn - with an open and respectful mind - about Izzard's condition, by relying as much as possible on the primary source (i.e. the public statements of Izzard herself), might serve as a very good way to acquire an education and an insight into trans-identity matters.

I thought it odd you'd say Emily Cats post was bigoted by not seeing much difference in transvestism and transgender, when the person is ok with their body remaining as male, and perhaps not being a woman full time.

Is being a transvestite (or labeled one) considered undignified? It seems anyone who has an internal desire to dress in feminine women's clothes and "be a woman" (at least for that time period) could now be considered a trans woman and would want that label instead, or perhaps the more appropriate "fluid". The word transvestite has gone nearly out the window, as if they are "less than" the true non-conforming-gender-presenting individuals who deserve respect.

I don't see anything wrong with being either or why one should be in need of more deference and understanding.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Well that's somewhat irrelevant in the context of the original tweet and my respose to it. The original tweet was claiming that there was effectively no difference between a transvestite and a transgender person; and the same tweet also simplistically (and incorrectly) implied that transgender identity was in essence no different from transvestism.

Izzard appears (from an analysis of her own public statements) to have spent a good few decades of adulthood expressing something usually called transvestism (or to be more accurate, fluidity in clothing and personal appearance between that conventionally ascribed to men and women).... but then to have more recently moved from that towards something akin to true gender fluidity (which has connotations well beyond the externalities of clothing and personal appearance).

And whether Izzard's gender fluidity means that sometimes she would like to be considered to be a women, while at other times he would like to be considered as a man..... is her/his own personal internal matter. I would make one general observation about Izzard: she appears to be a thoughtful and rational person, who seems to have a level of quiet dignity about her own gender identity choices (and as part of this, she doesn't seem to want to wade into trans-activism. I'd say that trying to learn - with an open and respectful mind - about Izzard's condition, by relying as much as possible on the primary source (i.e. the public statements of Izzard herself), might serve as a very good way to acquire an education and an insight into trans-identity matters.

The bloke has said publicly he doesn't care what pronouns he gets given so forgive me if I think trying to second guesswhat "gender" people are on any given day is incredibly stupid.

Which I think he would agree with.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Interesting perspectives here:

https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/st...69662886014978

When someone links to a tweet I look at the little message and don't know what to do next unless I get a heads up (like, "video embedded in tweet"). I don't really know who Blaire White or Chase Strangio but are they are disagreeing, right? I'm missing the significance, I'm pretty sure. But a few tweets down there were baby hedgehogs, which are adorable.

That's my takeaway.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I thought it odd you'd say Emily Cats post was bigoted by not seeing much difference in transvestism and transgender, when the person is ok with their body remaining as male, and perhaps not being a woman full time.

Is being a transvestite (or labeled one) considered undignified? It seems anyone who has an internal desire to dress in feminine women's clothes and "be a woman" (at least for that time period) could now be considered a trans woman and would want that label instead, or perhaps the more appropriate "fluid". The word transvestite has gone nearly out the window, as if they are "less than" the true non-conforming-gender-presenting individuals who deserve respect.

I don't see anything wrong with being either or why one should be in need of more deference and understanding.

The way I understand it "transvestite" is now a slur. I think you are supposed to refer to a man who likes to dress as a woman but doesn't claim to be one as a "cross dresser". Someone correct me if I'm wrong though.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I don't really know who Blaire White or Chase Strangio but are they are disagreeing, right?

I'm pretty sure they are disagreeing about what the word "biological" should be taken to mean in the context of discussions about "biological males," etc.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[lionking]

I had an experience today which demonstrates how bureaucratic issues can cause problems for transgender young people, even in a fairly tolerant and liberal democracy like Australia.

My job is to work with apprentices and their employers to get the apprenticeship underway. It's a great pre-retirement job and I love it. Anyway I had the task of getting a hairdressing apprenticeship sign-up completed. The employer sent me an email with the apprentice's details, and pointed out that the legal name was Jazzmin, but the preferred name was Daniel, so I guessed that transgenderism was in play.

So Daniel was 18 years old and was likely undergoing HRT as he was growing a decent beard. But then the problems arose. His ID (Drivers Licence) had his female name, so I explained we had to use this until it was legally changed. He, quite rightly, wanted to record his sex as "Male" (the forms we use only have binary sex choices, and no allowance for different genders). But there are previous training records with Jazzmin as female. And I do not want to put file notes on the record, which anyone with access can read, to explain that Daniel is transgender.

I have pushed this up the line to get some advice. Daniel is going to have enough issues to deal with, without some petty bureaucrat questioning him.

We can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity in Australia, but we also don't make it easy.

As an aside, with Daniel's obvious female appearance and voice (despite the beard) decades of conditioning had me on the verge of referring to him as she many times. Sometimes misgendering isn't a callous disregard for someone's identity, but an innocent mistake.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by lionking

I had an experience today which demonstrates how bureaucratic issues can cause problems for transgender young people, even in a fairly tolerant and liberal democracy like Australia.

My job is to work with apprentices and their employers to get the apprenticeship underway. It's a great pre-retirement job and I love it. Anyway I had the task of getting a hairdressing apprenticeship sign-up completed. The employer sent me an email with the apprentice's details, and pointed out that the legal name was Jazzmin, but the preferred name was Daniel, so I guessed that transgenderism was in play.

So Daniel was 18 years old and was likely undergoing HRT as he was growing a decent beard. But then the problems arose. His ID (Drivers Licence) had his female name, so I explained we had to use this until it was legally changed. He, quite rightly, wanted to record his sex as "Male" (the forms we use only have binary sex choices, and no allowance for different genders). But there are previous training records with Jazzmin as female. And I do not want to put file notes on the record, which anyone with access can read, to explain that Daniel is transgender.

I have pushed this up the line to get some advice. Daniel is going to have enough issues to deal with, without some petty bureaucrat questioning him.

We can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity in Australia, but we also don't make it easy.

As an aside, with Daniel's obvious female appearance and voice (despite the beard) decades of conditioning had me on the verge of referring to him as she many times. Sometimes misgendering isn't a callous disregard for someone's identity, but an innocent mistake.

I'm hoping you didn't expect everyone one else outside your company to have to make the same effort.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by cullennz

I'm hoping you didn't expect everyone one else outside your company to have to make the same effort.

I have absolutely no idea what this means. But don’t bother trying to explain it as it will not add anything.