Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they aren’t defining it, but sharing how the words are being used by college-age people?

“WSW: An abbreviation for women who have sex with women. This term emphasizes the behavior, rather than the identities of the individuals involved.“

Sure, but that then betrays enormous sexism being used among the college population. Also, typically JHU prides itself on scientific accuracy.

I don’t read it as sexism at all. Women are included with that definition. They are adding NB. No one is being removed.

Maybe it’s just a generational thing and you’re out of touch with modern LGTBQ+ culture/ terminology.

It’s always remarkable how quickly and casually trans activists resort to gross ageism when they cannot defend the indefensible.

You don’t think there are differences in generational language? The terminology is evolving very quickly.

How long ago did you come out?

FWIW, I’m probably older than you.

If the language is evolving such that lesbians are defined as non-men while gay men remain men, it should be okay to point out the glaring sexism in that language evolution regardless of how old people are.

And inasmuch as women can promote sexism, older people can use ageism. Your age doesn’t excuse your ageist language.

It wasn’t ageist language. I said language changes over time. If you aren’t a current college then you probably use older terminology. Slang changes. It’s not ageist to point that out.

Women have two options now - lesbian or WSW.

Seems like you are looking for things to offend you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:

When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.

This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.

The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?

This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.

There is no one in this thread that would debate that there is a harmful epidemic of male violence.

It’s impossible for me to respond to your comments beyond that because I do not understand gender ideology or how natal males become transwomen.

Literally no one in the thousands of comments in this post has been able clearly explain what is gender identity and its relationship to biological sex.

No one has explained the differences between cis males and trans women beyond them making statements about their feelings.

All of my comments are sincere. I genuinely want to know these answers.

I am an atheist and therefore i do not believe in faith-based or supernatural constructs which do not exist in material reality. Gender ideology seems like a type of faith based belief system related to one’s feelings about a hypothetical self which is fully severed from biology. Similar to what Christians call a soul. I know many people have said that it’s entirely separate from biology so I acknowledge that definition may not be correct. Again, please feel free to provide another definition.

So I must bow out of this discussion. I want to thank to people who engaged in sincere discussion as well as our moderator for not deleting my comments. I believe that free and open speech is essential to societal progress and free people.

DP, I posted about this yesterday and have yet to read an explanation as to why having a feeling makes it a reality. I specifically mentioned other conditions such as BIID and anorexia which cause an individual to have feelings or perceptions in opposition to reality. A person with BIID for example may have an intense desire to amputate a leg because their body does not recognize the limb. It literally feels like a foreign object attached to them. How is this any different from gender dysphoria? If doctors will amputate healthy body parts for transgender people why not amputate a health limb for someone suffering from BIID? Why is one considered a mental disorder and the other not? Believing a person really has the opposite sex soul is a spiritual, metaphysical belief not rooted in science.

I am the mental hospital doctor (not psychiatrist) and THIS. I am not a very good writer/speaker and you have summed up my feelings exactly. Thank you.

As a doctor that treats trans patients, what is your suggested treatment for gender dysphoria?

It’s my understanding that most trans people transition and are fine. Aside from transition there is basically people saying, “we know you want to transition but try really hard not to because we don’t want you to do this to your body”.

Sadly, we're not allowed to research what causes individuals to be "trans" because that will promote "eradication." Imagine if we found a successful medical treatment that ameliorated gender dysphoria, making people content in the bodies in which they were born. People wouldn't stand for it because it would essentially eliminate trans people.

There is definitely political/societal pressure to say “this is not a mental disorder, no research necessary, accept and move on.” I don’t agree with this stance at all.

Unfortunately as someone who has spent a lot of time actually looking at the research this is true. Often times studies are poorly designed or not interpreted correctly. For example, many studies do not take into consideration the sexual orientation of the transgender participants. Often times what they are noticing in the brain is due to sexuality not gender identity yet they will make the claim a transgender brain aligns more with the brain of the opposite sex.

This is a very challenging area for researchers to explore and studies have been shut down by activists. Good research and science cannot be obtained if only certain results are allowed.

It’s literally out of control. If you don’t fall in lockstep with the ideology, you are labeled a transphobe or a bigot. I have been called a bigot several times on this thread alone.

There have been many bigoted comments.

And yet, this “bigot” does more for trans people in a day than most of those calling me a bigot will do in their lifetimes. I’m ok with that.

All while considering their transgenderism is mental illness. And wanting to exclude and discriminate against transgender people. No bathrooms, sports, etc.

Gross.

Tell me again what concrete things you have done to help transgender people (other than call people names online)?

I’ll wait.

So you work at a mental health facility and the vast majority of transgender people you see there have been diagnosed with some type of mental illness(es). Given your experience with the facility, it seems like there could be some familiarity bias at play. Maybe there is more of a risk because you aren’t actually qualified to diagnose mental illness and yet you still try to explain it with something…familiar.

I guess you don’t want to answer my question. I can’t say I’m surprised.

I’d answer if it were relevant. I don’t need to lie about my beliefs.

How much time did you spend on mental illness in med school? During residency? You have a MD? DO? PA..NP..DDO?

How many transgender people have you met at work? How many do you know outside of work?

Now this is just getting amusing. You won’t answer my question but expect me to answer several of yours?

No sweat - I already know the answer. You just confirmed it.

She spends an inordinate amount of time talking about trans people. She says we have a mental disorder but it’s 5:30 on a Friday and I check in and she is still posting here.

Speaking of helping trans people out, I let a homeless trans friend live in my house. Also a lot more but I won’t go into it all.

Are you the PP that I posed the question to? If so, this is a bizarre statement.

I am not. We can have mental illnesses together.

So are you saying posting on DCUM at 5:30 on a Friday is a mental illness?
Because if you are, then, well…I guess I’ll have to add another psych med to my current one. Guilty as charged.

I’m saying you’re addicted to this website and talking about trans people.

Again, guilty as charged.

What is it about trans people that make you want to talk about them so much?

They’re trying to remove single-sex spaces whilst being part of a group that commits sexual assaults more often than even cis men? Why aren’t you more engaged? Kind of a big deal as the numbers are rising astronomically.

Citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they aren’t defining it, but sharing how the words are being used by college-age people?

“WSW: An abbreviation for women who have sex with women. This term emphasizes the behavior, rather than the identities of the individuals involved.“

Sure, but that then betrays enormous sexism being used among the college population. Also, typically JHU prides itself on scientific accuracy.

I don’t read it as sexism at all. Women are included with that definition. They are adding NB. No one is being removed.

Maybe it’s just a generational thing and you’re out of touch with modern LGTBQ+ culture/ terminology.

It’s always remarkable how quickly and casually trans activists resort to gross ageism when they cannot defend the indefensible.

You don’t think there are differences in generational language? The terminology is evolving very quickly.

How long ago did you come out?

FWIW, I’m probably older than you.

If the language is evolving such that lesbians are defined as non-men while gay men remain men, it should be okay to point out the glaring sexism in that language evolution regardless of how old people are.

And inasmuch as women can promote sexism, older people can use ageism. Your age doesn’t excuse your ageist language.

It wasn’t ageist language. I said language changes over time. If you aren’t a current college then you probably use older terminology. Slang changes. It’s not ageist to point that out.

Women have two options now - lesbian or WSW.

Seems like you are looking for things to offend you.

So, to be absolutely clear, you support changing language such that lesbians are defined as non-men but gay men are defined as men? You do not think there is any sexism in the JHU definitions? You seem to be dancing around the truth here and also resorting to ageist insults when that’s called out, so I want to be sure I understand you clearly.

Do you think the JHU definitions of lesbians and gay men are just fine? Yes or no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they aren’t defining it, but sharing how the words are being used by college-age people?

“WSW: An abbreviation for women who have sex with women. This term emphasizes the behavior, rather than the identities of the individuals involved.“

Sure, but that then betrays enormous sexism being used among the college population. Also, typically JHU prides itself on scientific accuracy.

I don’t read it as sexism at all. Women are included with that definition. They are adding NB. No one is being removed.

Maybe it’s just a generational thing and you’re out of touch with modern LGTBQ+ culture/ terminology.

It’s always remarkable how quickly and casually trans activists resort to gross ageism when they cannot defend the indefensible.

You don’t think there are differences in generational language? The terminology is evolving very quickly.

How long ago did you come out?

FWIW, I’m probably older than you.

If the language is evolving such that lesbians are defined as non-men while gay men remain men, it should be okay to point out the glaring sexism in that language evolution regardless of how old people are.

And inasmuch as women can promote sexism, older people can use ageism. Your age doesn’t excuse your ageist language.

It wasn’t ageist language. I said language changes over time. If you aren’t a current college then you probably use older terminology. Slang changes. It’s not ageist to point that out.

Women have two options now - lesbian or WSW.

Seems like you are looking for things to offend you.

So, to be absolutely clear, you support changing language such that lesbians are defined as non-men but gay men are defined as men? You do not think there is any sexism in the JHU definitions? You seem to be dancing around the truth here and also resorting to ageist insults when that’s called out, so I want to be sure I understand you clearly.

Do you think the JHU definitions of lesbians and gay men are just fine? Yes or no.

I need more info on how they came up with the terminology.

Seems like they should maybe expand “gay” to also include NB.

I wouldn’t assume any possible inconsistency was intentional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

It does. Didn’t you read it?

[Anonymous]

I’m not a non-man. Can’t believe that even needs to be said. What is this, some weird rib-of-Adam, helpmeet throwback? Never thought I’d see the day when progressives would side with fundamentalist religious folks on the status of women. Non-man is exactly what fundamentalist religious nuts around the world believe women are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

It does. Didn’t you read it?

I did. Can you point out where the current definition uses the word “woman”? The only time they use that word is when they reference the old definition. Maybe I’m missing it.

[Anonymous]

“Non-man” is completely unacceptable. It’s ridiculously misogynistic. I prefer to be referred to as a woman. My feelings should matter, too.

[different PP]

[Anonymous]

A gay man is a man. A gay woman is a woman. The words man and woman are literally in those sentences. Someone that previously identified as a gay woman and later realized nonbinary describes them better may still identify with the word lesbian which is what this definition of lesbian means. If you're a gay woman, you're free to use the term lesbian. You aren't free to tell someone else how they can identify as for their gender or sexual identity. It's absurd that so many people are chiming in on what queer people should be allowed to call themselves. Someone's a genderqueer AFAB person that calls themself a lesbian. Who are you to tell someone else what term they are free to use? Are you the gay police?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A gay man is a man. A gay woman is a woman. The words man and woman are literally in those sentences. Someone that previously identified as a gay woman and later realized nonbinary describes them better may still identify with the word lesbian which is what this definition of lesbian means. If you're a gay woman, you're free to use the term lesbian. You aren't free to tell someone else how they can identify as for their gender or sexual identity. It's absurd that so many people are chiming in on what queer people should be allowed to call themselves. Someone's a genderqueer AFAB person that calls themself a lesbian. Who are you to tell someone else what term they are free to use? Are you the gay police?

Someone is free to call themselves what they want. And other people are free to observe the horrific misogyny in the gap between the two terms. You cannot control language to the favor of men all the time, no matter how much you want to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A gay man is a man. A gay woman is a woman. The words man and woman are literally in those sentences. Someone that previously identified as a gay woman and later realized nonbinary describes them better may still identify with the word lesbian which is what this definition of lesbian means. If you're a gay woman, you're free to use the term lesbian. You aren't free to tell someone else how they can identify as for their gender or sexual identity. It's absurd that so many people are chiming in on what queer people should be allowed to call themselves. Someone's a genderqueer AFAB person that calls themself a lesbian. Who are you to tell someone else what term they are free to use? Are you the gay police?

Someone is free to call themselves what they want. And other people are free to observe the horrific misogyny in the gap between the two terms. You cannot control language to the favor of men all the time, no matter how much you want to do that.

"Gay man" is literally a man that's gay. "Gay woman" is literally a woman that's gay. An AFAB person that used to identify as a woman and a lesbian then changes to nonbinary can continue to identify as a lesbian if she wants. It doesn't stop you from identifying as a gay woman or a lesbian. It's not misogynistic for this person to continue to identify as a lesbian. If you are AFAB and used to identify as a gay woman but now you identify as a trans man, you are a straight man after transition. You are not a lesbian. This is why the term doesn't include men. It includes NB and cis AFAB people. It doesn't include tran man AFAB people. I'm sorry you find this misogynistic and hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a non-man. Can’t believe that even needs to be said. What is this, some weird rib-of-Adam, helpmeet throwback? Never thought I’d see the day when progressives would side with fundamentalist religious folks on the status of women. Non-man is exactly what fundamentalist religious nuts around the world believe women are.

Fundamentalist religious nuts believe people can be non-binary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

It does. Didn’t you read it?

I did. Can you point out where the current definition uses the word “woman”? The only time they use that word is when they reference the old definition. Maybe I’m missing it.

The explanation is part of the definition because the terms are evolving to become MORE inclusive.

Some woman are lesbians. If they decide to break out of traditional gender roles, they can become NB but still consider themselves a lesbian.