Links
Portal |  Forum | Core Values | 
MindRomp Forum  

FAQ Janitors Arcade
Go Back   MindRomp Forum > Culture, the Arts and Humanities > Lifestyle and Entertainment

Lifestyle and Entertainment I am not bovvered

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10th September 2018, 04:00 PM   #436952  /  #1
Brother Daniel
bad case of gleeks
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic
Debate over transgenderism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
I have wondered why conservative Christians oppose trans ideology because on the face of it they do have similar beliefs on the natures of men and women. That we are fundamentally different with different ways of thinking, different souls or natures. That sex stereotypes are actually innate. That women are by and large caring, nurturing, feminine, soft, submissive and obsessed with appearance, while men are hard and strong and leaders - etc. Queer theory, which is the philosophical under-pinning behind much of trans ideology, offers an opt out. If you don't feel that you are a walking talking feminine stereotype you have the option of opting out to an alternative gender identity. Apparently this means you will also no longer experience sex discrimination if you are female.
I agree that “trans ideology” does depend on an assumption of innate differences between men and women, but I don’t agree that the nature of the difference (as seen by trans ideology) is best described in terms of the traditional stereotypes as you’ve outlined them. The decades of “to hell with your stereotypes” feminist theory are still accepted (by all but the conservatives). Nor do I agree that the “opting out” is typically (or ever) based on failure to live up to a traditional stereotype. You make it sound awfully frivolous.

Rather, GIVEN the cultural backdrop in which we traditionally sort people into two genders based (to a first approximation) on purely somatic variables (and conveniently ignore the tiny minority who don’t fit the gender binary at all on that basis), we can observe (a) that some people strongly “feel” (for lack of a better word) that they belong to one of the genders in particular (or in some cases to neither), and (b) that among those people, there are a few for whom those strong feelings clash with the traditional (somatic) assignment. Gender dysphoria is a real thing, and it’s a bugger to live with.

“Trans ideology” (AFAICS) would say that we ultimately do less harm by allowing people’s self-identification to determine which gender we assign them to, than by insisting that people always follow the traditional assignment.

There’s also a question of consistency. There have always been people whose somatic variables don’t fit the gender binary, so a traditional somatic-based assignment simply doesn’t always work. There are people with ambiguous genitalia, and there are people whose genitalia are opposite in form to what their chromosomes (XX versus XY etc.) would normally dictate. Do such people get a say in their gender assignment? Or do they have to follow the whims of their parents, or of whatever medical staff was on hand for their birth?

For that matter, consider the case of David Reimer. Born male (according to every relevant somatic variable), his penis was destroyed by a botched circumcision. The docs said: No problem, just raise the kid as a girl. He (yes, I’ll use the masculine pronoun in this case) had an absolutely miserable childhood, feeling all that time that he was really a boy. Eventually he asserted himself and adopted a male identity. Regardless of ideology, most people tend to sympathize with him. But any of the ideologies that stand in opposition to “trans ideology” would (if consistent) say that his “feelings” (and his misery) were irrelevant. A conservative might say that his chosen identity happened to be correct (because of the body he was born with); and a TERF might also say that his chosen identity happened to be correct (for roughly similar reasons) -- but (if consistent) both of these groups would have to say that Reimer’s actual basis for adopting that male identity was completely wrong!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Reconceptualising what it means to be a man or a woman impacts everyone, particularly women. Am I a woman because I am female - that is to say, born with a body that had the potential to gestate humans? Or am I woman because I identify as a woman?
There have always (well, for several millennia anyway) been people who are accepted as women without having been “born with a body that had the potential to gestate humans”. “Trans ideology” implies “reconceptualising” only to the extent that it represents a push toward consistency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Adopting the latter definition would have an impact on the provision of sex specific resources and services, i.e abolish them.
How do you figure that?
__________________
Jiffy: Canadians are considered an invasive pest on New York roads and interstates
borealis: They're pretty tasty stuffed and roasted. All dark meat though.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
borealis (10th September 2018)
Old 10th September 2018, 07:52 PM   #436964  /  #2
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
I agree that “trans ideology” does depend on an assumption of innate differences between men and women, but I don’t agree that the nature of the difference (as seen by trans ideology) is best described in terms of the traditional stereotypes as you’ve outlined them.


https://www.bacp.co.uk/media/4185/ba...p001-aug18.pdf

Educate yourself. (pages 26 and 27)

Quote:
The decades of “to hell with your stereotypes” feminist theory are still accepted (by all but the conservatives).
Yeah, sure ...

Quote:
Nor do I agree that the “opting out” is typically (or ever) based on failure to live up to a traditional stereotype. You make it sound awfully frivolous.
That's not exactly what I said, but yes, queer theory is bonkers.

Quote:
Rather, GIVEN the cultural backdrop in which we traditionally sort people into two genders based (to a first approximation) on purely somatic variables (and conveniently ignore the tiny minority who don’t fit the gender binary at all on that basis),
This is obfuscation. 99+% of the population are unambiguously male or female.

Quote:
we can observe (a) that some people strongly “feel” (for lack of a better word) that they belong to one of the genders in particular (or in some cases to neither), and (b) that among those people, there are a few for whom those strong feelings clash with the traditional (somatic) assignment.
What does this mean? Without reference to stereotypes can you explain how an individual would know they are actually a member of the opposite sex?
Quote:
Gender dysphoria is a real thing, and it’s a bugger to live with.
Absolutely. What about the ones who don't have GD?

Quote:
“Trans ideology” (AFAICS) would say that we ultimately do less harm by allowing people’s self-identification to determine which gender we assign them to, than by insisting that people always follow the traditional assignment.
Surely the least harm overall would be to work toward the abolition of stereotypes, and for men in particular to stop beating other men up for being 'too feminine'?

Quote:
For that matter, consider the case of David Reimer.
I'm aware of the case, he didn't have periods, he had a deep voice and an adams apple, his genitals didn't look like the other girls and apart from his lack of penis physically he was more like males. Hardly a surprise that he didn't feel at home being a girl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
There have always (well, for several millennia anyway) been people who are accepted as women without having been “born with a body that had the potential to gestate humans”. “Trans ideology” implies “reconceptualising” only to the extent that it represents a push toward consistency.
No, they were men who were considered insufficiently masculine and were bumped in to the women box. They weren't really considered women. Women who weren't particularly feminine were never given the opportunity to join the ranks of men. Why do you think that was? Do you think it's progressive to throw men out of the man box for inadequate manning?

Quote:
How do you figure that?
It's obvious If woman stops being a word to describe adult human females and instead becomes a social category made up of males and females, services and resources set aside for women will be accessed by males and females. Not a problem if we have finally achieved equality and women no longer experience sex based discrimination. Oh wait, you don't believe in sex, we just have different combinations of somatic variables

Last edited by Facetious; 10th September 2018 at 08:07 PM.
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 11th September 2018, 01:31 AM   #436979  /  #3
gib
mild mannered janitor
 
gib's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: the thin one out of Laurel & Hardy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
Not a problem if we have finally achieved equality and women no longer experience sex based discrimination.

not really much of a problem anyway though is it
__________________
communicating my inner something since 2017
gib is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
Brother Daniel (11th September 2018)
Old 11th September 2018, 01:53 AM   #436980  /  #4
Brother Daniel
bad case of gleeks
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
https://www.bacp.co.uk/media/4185/ba...p001-aug18.pdf
Educate yourself. (pages 26 and 27)
You appear to be trying to use someone’s description of a stereotype as support for the proposition that they buy into that stereotype. Bizarre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
This is obfuscation. 99+% of the population are unambiguously male or female.
Usually, if I see a two-sentence paragraph where the first sentence is an accusation, I look to the second sentence for some sort of support for the accusation. But alas! There is none to be found here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
What does this mean?
Since you’ve dismissed the first half as “obfuscation” already, I guess we’re at an impasse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Without reference to stereotypes can you explain how an individual would know they are actually a member of the opposite sex?
Are you asking me to describe how it feels to have GD? Presumably, you can read accounts of people who suffer from it, as well as I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Absolutely. What about the ones who don't have GD?
What about them? What sort of point could you possibly be making here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Surely the least harm overall would be to work toward the abolition of stereotypes, and for men in particular to stop beating other men up for being 'too feminine'?
Obviously that’s a good way forward, but the question of how we assign gender remains in play as long as that project remains incomplete (and possibly even afterwards).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
No, they were men who were considered insufficiently masculine and were bumped in to the women box. They weren't really considered women.
Those men weren’t the people I had in mind, primarily. Rather, I was thinking about the people with ambiguous genitalia (more often assigned to the women box than to the men box), as well as the people who look completely female but happen to be male at the chromosomal level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Women who weren't particularly feminine were never given the opportunity to join the ranks of men. Why do you think that was?
Yes, I’m aware of the asymmetry. To your question, I would guess that my answer is probably the same as yours. But again, what point do you imagine yourself to be making, and how does it address anything I’ve said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Do you think it's progressive to throw men out of the man box for inadequate manning?
Of course not, and I have said nothing to justify any speculation that I would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
It's obvious If woman stops being a word to describe adult human females and instead becomes a social category made up of males and females, services and resources set aside for women will be accessed by males and females. Not a problem if we have finally achieved equality and women no longer experience sex based discrimination.
So if services and resources aimed at females, and accessible to millions of females, also become accessible to a small handful of males, that is just as bad as the complete abolition of those services and resources? Weird. Perhaps it would be of some comfort to you to be reminded that transfolk are also victims of rather severe discrimination?

The words “woman” and “man” have always been social categories. (Trans ideology at least has the virtue of recognising this.) We’re just arguing over very small differences in where the boundaries lie.
__________________
Jiffy: Canadians are considered an invasive pest on New York roads and interstates
borealis: They're pretty tasty stuffed and roasted. All dark meat though.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
borealis (11th September 2018)
Old 11th September 2018, 01:11 PM   #437030  /  #5
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
You appear to be trying to use someone’s description of a stereotype as support for the proposition that they buy into that stereotype. Bizarre.
You think it's bizarre that I would understand a paragraph under the header 'definition' to in fact be a definition?

Spoiler
Whether trans or cisgender, intersex or not, many people identify aswomen. However, what this means varies a great deal depending on their other intersecting attributes. It is important not to assume, for example, that being a woman necessarily involves being able to bear children, or having XX sex chromosomes, or breasts. Being a woman in a British cultural context often means adhering to social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned
with appearance.

However, of course, not all women adhere to all these things. For example
some neurodiverse women (on the autistic/aspergic/ADHD spectrums)
may struggle to express emotions, or with social situations. Studies show
that in some contexts femininity is associated with strength and
aggression. As always an intersectional understanding is vital and we
need to be mindful that what is culturally regarded as the epitome of
femininity is white, middle class, youthful, non-disabled, heterosexual,
cisgender, and thin. This strongly shapes all women’s experiences of
womanhood.


The BACP are a professional body of counsellors. This was in a good practice guide to be sent out to all members of the BACP. Shall we just acknowledge the point is mine and move on?


Quote:
Are you asking me to describe how it feels to have GD? Presumably, you can read accounts of people who suffer from it, as well as I can.
Fair enough. Without reference to stereotypes can you explain to me what it feels like to be a man? I don't know what it feels like to be a woman, I only know what it feels like to be me. I have no idea if I woman in the same way as every other woman on the planet.

Quote:
What about them? What sort of point could you possibly be making here?
That there are people without GD but claim that they are in fact members of the opposite sex. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof don't you think? There is no evidence at all that it's possible for humans to change sex, or that men contain something specifically of woman inside them.

Quote:
Yes, I’m aware of the asymmetry. To your question, I would guess that my answer is probably the same as yours. But again, what point do you imagine yourself to be making, and how does it address anything I’ve said?
What point do you imagine you're making when you repeatedly bring up intersex people? That classification according to biological sex isn't watertight? Nobody ever said it was but what is the alternative?


Quote:
So if services and resources aimed at females, and accessible to millions of females, also become accessible to a small handful of males, that is just as bad as the complete abolition of those services and resources? Weird.
You're going to have to explain this one to me. Womens resources and services are created for women because we experience sex discrimination and oppression. That is to say, the oppression and discrimination we experience is purely down to our female bodies, and the way we are treated because of our female bodies. If you do not have a female body, and therefore are not subject to sex based oppression and discrimination, why should you have access to resources set aside for people who have experienced that type of oppression and discrimination? Women's services are over-stretched and under-funded, not all women in need of these services are getting support as it is.


Quote:
Perhaps it would be of some comfort to you to be reminded that transfolk are also victims of rather severe discrimination?
Yes, by men* who also control the bulk of the wealth in the world, and positions of power, access to resources. I could go on. If the world were a cake sliced in to 10, the men would have 9 of those slices. Women would all share the remaining slice, but it's women who are expected to divide that slice in to further smaller pieces to help all victims of male violence. This the essence of patriarchy, what is a man's is his, what is a womans' is his to tell her how to use.


Quote:
The words “woman” and “man” have always been social categories. (Trans ideology at least has the virtue of recognising this.) We’re just arguing over very small differences in where the boundaries lie.
Define your boundaries then. What is a woman? What is a man? Try and avoid subjective dogma if possible.

*NAMALT

Last edited by Facetious; 11th September 2018 at 01:41 PM.
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 11th September 2018, 09:19 PM   #437043  /  #6
Zeluvia
Send Cash or Drugs
 
Zeluvia's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Evil Duckess
The brain decides, the body is moot. People are whatever Gender they THINK/FEEL they are.



https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0524112351.htm


__________________

Zeluvia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 12th September 2018, 01:07 AM   #437063  /  #7
Timewave
Senior Member
 
Timewave's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: IN MY HEAD (MOSTLY)
Well, What do You Know, there are differences between men and women.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...e-same-species

First, let's acknowledge the core differences in biology between males and females. These are evolutionarily, and practically, important and they do matter. Females have babies (gestate and give birth) and lactate, and males do not. Males are, on average, about 10 to 15 percent larger than females and tend to have greater upper body strength. Males’ brains grow for a bit longer and are a bit larger than females. But remember, as long as it is a healthy human brain (anywhere between 1,000 and 2,000 cubic centimeters) size does not relate to function. There are also some skeletal differences between men and women due to childbirth (wider pelvis) and male size/musculature (more rugged developments on male bones). Most of you reading this already know these differences … but do you know about the similarities?

__________________
this ol' world keeps spinning round, it's a wonder tall trees ain't laying down, comes a time.
Timewave is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 12th September 2018, 02:29 PM   #437083  /  #8
Brother Daniel
bad case of gleeks
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
You think it's bizarre that I would understand a paragraph under the header 'definition' to in fact be a definition?
Perhaps ‘bizarre’ is the wrong word, but in this case it’s rather lazy. Typically, when C is presented as a defining characteristic of X, people mean either that every instance of X has the characteristic C, or that anything with the characteristic C is an instance of X (or perhaps both). Here, we have enough qualifiers and hedge statements to make it clear that the stereotypical descriptions in question are not seen as defining characteristics of women or of men, in either sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Shall we just acknowledge the point is mine and move on?
Haha no. But go ahead and pretend that we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Without reference to stereotypes can you explain to me what it feels like to be a man?
If we substitute “man” in place of “woman” in this pair of sentences:
Quote:
I don't know what it feels like to be a woman, I only know what it feels like to be me. I have no idea if I woman in the same way as every other woman on the planet.
…then that answer goes for me as well. But perhaps more importantly, I (again) don’t know what point you’re making by asking the question. Moreover, I don’t know how the suggested constraint (“without reference to stereotypes”) contributes anything useful here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
That there are people without GD but claim that they are in fact members of the opposite sex.
Yes, typically conservative trolls who are trying to stir up more hatred against transfolk. But this does raise an important issue: The idea of gender assignment by self-identification assumes that people are self-identifying in good faith. And to the extent that this is a bad assumption, we do have a problem. It is a pain to have to work at sifting out the trolls (etc.) from the GD cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
What point do you imagine you're making when you repeatedly bring up intersex people? That classification according to biological sex isn't watertight?
Yes, that’s part of it. It follows that that traditional classification has never been entirely about biological sex. Biological sex is merely a first approximation, with some “higher order terms” added (if I may use a mathematical analogy). And no one (AFAIK) is proposing to change the role of biological sex as a first approximation in our gender classification. Also, given that gender self-identification has been allowed to some extent in the case of biologically intersex people, the idea of allowing gender self-identification for (e.g.) GD sufferers isn’t as radical as its opponents would make out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Nobody ever said it was but what is the alternative?
Biological sex as a first approximation, with good-faith self-identification as an overriding case.

And yes, there are problems with this alternative. It’s not perfect. But as I said previously, what you call “trans ideology” would hold that we do less harm, overall, by adopting this system than by insisting as far as we can on categorizing according to biological sex only. Yes, there’s room for debate over whether this thesis is true – but your previous response to this point was merely a smokescreen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
You're going to have to explain this one to me.
You said that women’s resources and services would be “abolished”. I asked “how do you figure that?”. You said “It’s obvious” – and then wrote a whole bunch of words that didn’t even begin to support your proposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Womens resources and services are created for women because we experience sex discrimination and oppression. That is to say, the oppression and discrimination we experience is purely down to our female bodies, and the way we are treated because of our female bodies. If you do not have a female body, and therefore are not subject to sex based oppression and discrimination, why should you have access to resources set aside for people who have experienced that type of oppression and discrimination? Women's services are over-stretched and under-funded, not all women in need of these services are getting support as it is.
If someone appears to have a female body (as is true for many transwomen), they certainly will be subject to “sex based” oppression and discrimination. (The oppressors typically don’t magically see your chromosomes.) So one of your key premises falls apart immediately.

But there are deeper problems here. That women experience discrimination and oppression is a matter of fact, but your claim that it’s “purely down to our female bodies” is a matter of interpretation. I would say rather that women qua women (that social category again) experience discrimination and oppression, full stop. Neither the problem (oppression) nor the mitigating factors (resources/services) are affected appreciably by tiny adjustments to the boundaries of the “women” category – adding a small handful of people in one place and subtracting a small handful in another. The numbers of people added or subtracted are just too small for such an adjustment to make any difference to the vast majority of women.

But as for those very few who are added or subtracted, it makes a difference to them. It’s telling that you didn’t express any concern for the (biologically female) transmen who would then be disqualified from women’s resources, but instead were worried about the unworthy transwomen who would then qualify. Add to that your attempt to spin trans ideology as a patriarchal plot, and your whole argument gives me the impression that you simply hate transfolk. Please tell me I’m wrong about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Define your boundaries then. What is a woman? What is a man? Try and avoid subjective dogma if possible.
You’ll need to tell me what you mean by “subjective dogma” so that I can try to assess whether I can avoid it.
__________________
Jiffy: Canadians are considered an invasive pest on New York roads and interstates
borealis: They're pretty tasty stuffed and roasted. All dark meat though.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 12th September 2018, 10:01 PM   #437100  /  #9
Zeluvia
Send Cash or Drugs
 
Zeluvia's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Evil Duckess
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf


Quote:
Sex differences in the brain are reflected in behavior and in the risk for neuropsychiatric disorders. The fetal brain develops in the male direction due to a direct effect of testosterone on the developing neurons, or in the female direction due to the absence of such a testosterone surge. Because sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place earlier in intrauterine life than sexual differentiation of the brain, these two processes can be influenced independently of each other. Gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender), sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality), pedophilia, sex differences in cognition, and the risks for neuropsychiatric disorders are programmed into our brains during early development. There is no proof that postnatal social environment has any crucial effect on gender identity or sexual orientation. Structural and functional sex differences in brain areas, together with changes in sex hormone levels and their receptors in development and adulthood, are closely related to sex differences in behavior and neuropsychiatric disorders. Knowing that such a relationship exists may help bring about sex-specific therapeutic strategies

Now just add to that little tidbit the existence of Endocrine Disruptors in the environment:


https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/top...rine/index.cfm





And it's pretty clear to me people should be taken at face value for whatever they say they are and not judged about it because it happened in the womb and it's probably the fault of a. overpopulation and b. evil corporations or d. all of the above


Of course all of this will become moot when babies have brain scans the moment they are born to decide their optimal career path and any necessary adjustments to sexuality can be made then.


__________________

Zeluvia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 13th September 2018, 12:46 AM   #437111  /  #10
gib
mild mannered janitor
 
gib's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: the thin one out of Laurel & Hardy
Can somebody sum it up so i can vote.
__________________
communicating my inner something since 2017
gib is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
Majiffy (13th September 2018), Zeluvia (13th September 2018)
Old 13th September 2018, 01:01 AM   #437114  /  #11
Imp
Inanimate bowl of pasta
 
Imp's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Waddle waddle
Go with bro d or he'll just keep banging on about it
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by borealis View Post
We are all occasionally dumbasses.

Except Imp
Imp is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
Majiffy (13th September 2018)
Old 13th September 2018, 01:13 AM   #437117  /  #12
Zeluvia
Send Cash or Drugs
 
Zeluvia's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Evil Duckess
I think it's really unfair the way bro d get his own thread just because nossy is about to get fired for being competent.


__________________

Zeluvia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
Brother Daniel (13th September 2018), Majiffy (13th September 2018)
Old 13th September 2018, 02:39 AM   #437123  /  #13
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
Perhaps ‘bizarre’ is the wrong word, but in this case it’s rather lazy. Typically, when C is presented as a defining characteristic of X, people mean either that every instance of X has the characteristic C, or that anything with the characteristic C is an instance of X (or perhaps both). Here, we have enough qualifiers and hedge statements to make it clear that the stereotypical descriptions in question are not seen as defining characteristics of women or of men, in either sense.
On the other hand, bizarre is a good word to describe a definition which does not actually define the thing it sets out to define. If I accept your interpretation this is where we end up, a definition that is no definition at all. This is why postmodernists can't have nice things.


Quote:
…then that answer goes for me as well. But perhaps more importantly, I (again) don’t know what point you’re making by asking the question. Moreover, I don’t know how the suggested constraint (“without reference to stereotypes”) contributes anything useful here.
Because my original comment which kick started this discussion is that trans ideology, like conservative Christianity, supports and promotes sexist stereotypes. You said ''nuh uh'' (paraphrasing) My asking you to define man and woman without using stereotypes is very relevant to this discussion and I'm going to continue asking you until you provide definitions or admit defeat.

Take this gender map. If you took away the map points that are dependent upon masculine and feminine stereotypes, there wouldn't be a great deal left.

Quote:
Yes, typically conservative trolls who are trying to stir up more hatred against transfolk. But this does raise an important issue: The idea of gender assignment by self-identification assumes that people are self-identifying in good faith. And to the extent that this is a bad assumption, we do have a problem. It is a pain to have to work at sifting out the trolls (etc.) from the GD cases.
Your knowledge base is about 10 years out of date. Not all transgender people have GD, and not all people with GD are trans. Transgender is an umbrella term to describe all sorts of identities and gender expressions. The trans community is a lot bigger than you think it is.

The trans umbrella.
Spoiler




Quote:
Also, given that gender self-identification has been allowed to some extent in the case of biologically intersex people, the idea of allowing gender self-identification for (e.g.) GD sufferers isn’t as radical as its opponents would make out.
It's fairly radical to force a belief system on an entire population, and to replace meaningful categories with meaningless ones.


Quote:
And yes, there are problems with this alternative. It’s not perfect. But as I said previously, what you call “trans ideology” would hold that we do less harm, overall, by adopting this system than by insisting as far as we can on categorizing according to biological sex only. Yes, there’s room for debate over whether this thesis is true – but your previous response to this point was merely a smokescreen.

I'm aware I'm repeating myself but I think it's a point that should be made. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You're suggesting a huge shift and some very big changes to the legal system. Our legal systems shouldn't operate on beliefs but as far as they're able, objective facts. If you believe that sex should be superseded by gender identity then you need to explain why sex is legally no longer relevant.



Quote:
If someone appears to have a female body (as is true for many transwomen), they certainly will be subject to “sex based” oppression and discrimination. (The oppressors typically don’t magically see your chromosomes.) So one of your key premises falls apart immediately.
Earlier you said this

Quote:
Perhaps it would be of some comfort to you to be reminded that transfolk are also victims of rather severe discrimination?
Yep, you got me, all fallen apart ....
Quote:
But there are deeper problems here. That women experience discrimination and oppression is a matter of fact, but your claim that it’s “purely down to our female bodies” is a matter of interpretation.

I would say rather that women qua women (that social category again) experience discrimination and oppression, full stop.
The point you're trying to make here isn't clear to me. How are women being identified in order for us to be subject to discrimination and oppression if it's not down to having female bodies?

Quote:
Neither the problem (oppression) nor the mitigating factors (resources/services) are affected appreciably by tiny adjustments to the boundaries of the “women” category – adding a small handful of people in one place and subtracting a small handful in another. The numbers of people added or subtracted are just too small for such an adjustment to make any difference to the vast majority of women.
How do you think a vulnerable abused women may feel about having to share a room with a stranger of the opposite sex?

Quote:
But as for those very few who are added or subtracted, it makes a difference to them. It’s telling that you didn’t express any concern for the (biologically female) transmen who would then be disqualified from women’s resources, but instead were worried about the unworthy transwomen who would then qualify.
It's telling that you don't express any concern for women who won't be able to use services and facilities if they become mixed sex.

I don't believe transmen should be excluded from services and resources which are for biological females. I don't know a single radical feminist who does, but I do know that liberal feminists, and LGBT+organisations exclude transmen. Make of that what you will.

Quote:
Add to that your attempt to spin trans ideology as a patriarchal plot, and your whole argument gives me the impression that you simply hate transfolk. Please tell me I’m wrong about that.
Pretty sure I was criticising your high handed comment along the lines that women should be the ones to deal with male on male violence as you see when men victimise transwomen. I don't hate you btw.

Quote:
You’ll need to tell me what you mean by “subjective dogma” so that I can try to assess whether I can avoid it.
Forget about the subjective dogma comment, just define man and woman anyway you like.
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 13th September 2018, 09:05 AM   #437153  /  #14
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeluvia View Post
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf


Quote:
Sex differences in the brain are reflected in behavior and in the risk for neuropsychiatric disorders. The fetal brain develops in the male direction due to a direct effect of testosterone on the developing neurons, or in the female direction due to the absence of such a testosterone surge. Because sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place earlier in intrauterine life than sexual differentiation of the brain, these two processes can be influenced independently of each other. Gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender), sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality), pedophilia, sex differences in cognition, and the risks for neuropsychiatric disorders are programmed into our brains during early development. There is no proof that postnatal social environment has any crucial effect on gender identity or sexual orientation. Structural and functional sex differences in brain areas, together with changes in sex hormone levels and their receptors in development and adulthood, are closely related to sex differences in behavior and neuropsychiatric disorders. Knowing that such a relationship exists may help bring about sex-specific therapeutic strategies

Now just add to that little tidbit the existence of Endocrine Disruptors in the environment:


https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/top...rine/index.cfm





And it's pretty clear to me people should be taken at face value for whatever they say they are and not judged about it because it happened in the womb and it's probably the fault of a. overpopulation and b. evil corporations or d. all of the above


Of course all of this will become moot when babies have brain scans the moment they are born to decide their optimal career path and any necessary adjustments to sexuality can be made then.


Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 13th September 2018, 02:32 PM   #437161  /  #15
Imp
Inanimate bowl of pasta
 
Imp's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Waddle waddle
I also have a BlackBerry. Not even a sensible one that runs android.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by borealis View Post
We are all occasionally dumbasses.

Except Imp
Imp is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
Majiffy (13th September 2018), Zeluvia (13th September 2018)
Old 13th September 2018, 10:35 PM   #437175  /  #16
Timewave
Senior Member
 
Timewave's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: IN MY HEAD (MOSTLY)
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions — known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs) — often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD2.
__________________
this ol' world keeps spinning round, it's a wonder tall trees ain't laying down, comes a time.
Timewave is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th September 2018, 12:33 AM   #437181  /  #17
gib
mild mannered janitor
 
gib's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: the thin one out of Laurel & Hardy
Did you even read all the previous posts?
__________________
communicating my inner something since 2017
gib is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th September 2018, 03:18 AM   #437187  /  #18
Timewave
Senior Member
 
Timewave's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: IN MY HEAD (MOSTLY)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gib View Post
Did you even read all the previous posts?
Read Posts?
On MR?
__________________
this ol' world keeps spinning round, it's a wonder tall trees ain't laying down, comes a time.
Timewave is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
Majiffy (14th September 2018)
Old 14th September 2018, 04:53 AM   #437191  /  #19
Majiffy
I'll have you know I'm popular on many web forums
 
Majiffy's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Buffalo, NY
Yeah I try not to
__________________
Herpy derpy jerfy!


ʘᴥʘ
pledged my daily allegiance to Satan and pear-shaped air hockey turntable earth
Vivere diu rebellionus!

Proud propagator of the "fire for warmth" myth
Majiffy is online now   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th September 2018, 06:33 AM   #437193  /  #20
nostrum
too boring to be considered weird
 
nostrum's Avatar
 

your yays are teases got it
__________________
I thought I was in a bad mood but it's been a few years so I think this is who I am now
nostrum is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
Majiffy (14th September 2018)
Old 14th September 2018, 09:27 AM   #437195  /  #21
Majiffy
I'll have you know I'm popular on many web forums
 
Majiffy's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Buffalo, NY
they're onto me
__________________
Herpy derpy jerfy!


ʘᴥʘ
pledged my daily allegiance to Satan and pear-shaped air hockey turntable earth
Vivere diu rebellionus!

Proud propagator of the "fire for warmth" myth
Majiffy is online now   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th September 2018, 02:37 PM   #437198  /  #22
Brother Daniel
bad case of gleeks
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
On the other hand, bizarre is a good word to describe a definition which does not actually define the thing it sets out to define. If I accept your interpretation this is where we end up, a definition that is no definition at all.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Because my original comment which kick started this discussion is that trans ideology, like conservative Christianity, supports and promotes sexist stereotypes. You said ''nuh uh'' (paraphrasing) My asking you to define man and woman without using stereotypes is very relevant to this discussion and I'm going to continue asking you until you provide definitions or admit defeat.
I was questioning the point of the “what does it feel like” questions, not the definition questions. As for the latter, I already gave an outline of the way “man” and “woman” could be defined according to my (probably outdated) understanding of trans ideology: Use biological sex as a first approximation where possible, with good-faith self-identification as an overriding factor. No reference to stereotypes there.

(Of course, I may end up having to admit defeat on this point anyway. Just not for that reason.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Your knowledge base is about 10 years out of date.
Only 10? That’s better than I usually do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Not all transgender people have GD, and not all people with GD are trans. Transgender is an umbrella term to describe all sorts of identities and gender expressions. The trans community is a lot bigger than you think it is.

The trans umbrella. [image snipped]
That’s not terribly helpful, though, in the present context. We were discussing (specifically) people whose gender self-identification differs from their sex (as assigned at birth), which was my understanding of the word “transgender”. If the word “transgender” is much broader than that, as you’re now telling me, then we need another word to refer to what we were discussing. Pointing out that my use of “transgender” was too narrow doesn’t do anything to settle the facts about people who are transgender-in-the-too-narrow-sense-in-which-I-was-using-that-word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
It's fairly radical to force a belief system on an entire population, and to replace meaningful categories with meaningless ones.
Proposing a shift in social convention is not the same thing as “forcing a belief system”. And you haven’t yet tried to argue “meaningless” (unless you’re basing this on a single sloppily-written “best practices” guide?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
What “extraordinary claims” do you think are being made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
You're suggesting a huge shift and some very big changes to the legal system.
Our legal systems evolved in a time when people generally took for granted that everyone knew and agreed on what “man” and “woman” meant, and the difficult edge cases were not on anyone’s radar. I doubt that explicit definitions were ever made. Hashing out the details of those edge cases does not represent a “huge shift”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Our legal systems shouldn't operate on beliefs but as far as they're able, objective facts.
“_____ self-identifies as a _____” is a statement of fact. No?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
If you believe that sex should be superseded by gender identity then you need to explain why sex is legally no longer relevant.
Who is proposing to make sex “no longer relevant”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Earlier you said this
Yes, and…?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
The point you're trying to make here isn't clear to me. How are women being identified in order for us to be subject to discrimination and oppression if it's not down to having female bodies?
In many ways! When you are subject to injustice, I’d suggest that the oppressors almost never check to see whether you lack a Y-chromosome, only infrequently check to see whether you have a vagina, and in some cases don’t even see any part of your body at all. (For an example of the latter case: In many job-hunting contexts, an applicant with a masculine-looking name is more likely to reach the interview stage than an applicant with a feminine-looking name and with an equally good CV.)

You were (apparently) suggesting that the injustices suffered by ciswomen and the injustices suffered by transwomen are of a fundamentally different “kind”, that the former injustices have some sort of magical property that ties them to the ciswomen’s biological female-ness, and that the resources and services aimed at women are inherently tied to that magical property. It seems to me that you’re overcomplicating things. Women suffer injustice, full stop.

If I may get all anecdotal for a moment: Take the pleasant young adultperson-of-ambiguous-gender who served me some cheesecake a few months ago. (I absolutely cannot begin to guess either xir biological sex or xir gender of self-identification.) Suppose xe got beaten up for looking weird. In your (apparent) way of thinking, the fundamental nature of this hypothetical instance of violent oppression depends on whether this victim happens to be biologically male or biologically female. You’d have to find out xir biological sex before you knew what terms to use in condemning the act, and before you knew what sorts of public help xe was worthy to get, even though the perpetrator probably didn’t know or care. This is the kind of near-absurdity that your argument in principle against allowing transwomen access to women’s resources apparently depended on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
How do you think a vulnerable abused women may feel about having to share a room with a stranger of the opposite sex?
It depends. I think there’d be a whole spectrum of possible reactions. But surely they’d be more likely to depend on the roommate’s apparent sex than on the roommate’s actual sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
It's telling that you don't express any concern for women who won't be able to use services and facilities if they become mixed sex.
They’re mixed sex anyway, to the extent that a few biological males have always been able to pass for female.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Pretty sure I was criticising your high handed comment along the lines that women should be the ones to deal with male on male violence as you see when men victimise transwomen.
Pretty sure that isn’t something I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
I don't hate you btw.
Thanks. Likewise.
__________________
Jiffy: Canadians are considered an invasive pest on New York roads and interstates
borealis: They're pretty tasty stuffed and roasted. All dark meat though.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th September 2018, 03:01 PM   #437200  /  #23
OmicronPersei8
Declared candidate for Best Poster 2017 of the fuckin decade
 
OmicronPersei8's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Gib's
Who's winning?
__________________
I am Lrrr, ruler of the planet OmicronPersei8.

Jerome: My mistake.
OmicronPersei8 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 14th September 2018, 03:10 PM   #437201  /  #24
Brother Daniel
bad case of gleeks
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic
dunno, probably Imp
__________________
Jiffy: Canadians are considered an invasive pest on New York roads and interstates
borealis: They're pretty tasty stuffed and roasted. All dark meat though.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
Facetious (14th September 2018), Imp (14th September 2018), Majiffy (14th September 2018), Zeluvia (14th September 2018)
Old 14th September 2018, 06:40 PM   #437217  /  #25
Zeluvia
Send Cash or Drugs
 
Zeluvia's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Evil Duckess
I knew a nun once that was no longer a nun because she was raped by another nun.
__________________

Zeluvia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Reply

  MindRomp Forum > Culture, the Arts and Humanities > Lifestyle and Entertainment

Tags
mangina mangina mangina, she-penis she-penis she-penis

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Thread Killed By
Political Correctness Debate Enso Rompus Room 11 23rd May 2018 04:18 AM
Petition Jon Stewart to host a 2016 debate Gonzo News, Sports & Politics 0 24th August 2015 09:09 AM
How to Get More Women to Join the Debate MSG News, Sports & Politics 48 13th January 2015 09:31 AM
Egypt has its first presidential debate ksen News, Sports & Politics 2 12th May 2012 04:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2011-2018 MindRomp.org