Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.

While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.

How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.

Why not ask “What is a man?”

Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.

Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?

transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.

But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.

So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?

Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.

There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?

Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.

Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?

I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.

I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?

No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?

No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.

So it’s not about women’s rights for you?

Of course. Are you unable to look at an issue from multiple dimensions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like my comments were deleted. Why was that?

My agenda is women’s sex-based rights. Sex (biology) and gender (cultural norms and stereotypes) are not the same thing. Scientific reality and evolutionary biology shows is that there are sex based differences between males and females. Males will always have vastly superior physical dominance. This is a result of evolutionary biology. Therefore females need the ability to have sex-segregated spaces.

Gender are cultural norms, attitudes, and stereotypes which are related to sexual differences. Men provide for the family and females tend to the home. Gender norms are often limited and regressive, but not necessarily so. Society should work to remove gender stereotypes which are limiting. Women should be free provide for the family or be hunters. Men should be able to care for the home or wear dresses.

it is impossible for me to confirm or deny if I am “anti trans” because no one in nearly 80 pages of discussion has been able to define gender identity. Is it having gender dysphoria? Clearly not, people have said. Is it not believing in not following harmful and regressive gender stereotypes? Clearly not, people have said. If you want to call me anti trans for asking these questions, so be it.

Lies. People have explained it multiple times.

You are anti-trans AND anti-woman.

Ok. Define it now. We’re waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.

While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.

How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.

Why not ask “What is a man?”

Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.

Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?

transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.

But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.

So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?

Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.

There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?

Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.

Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?

I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.

I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?

No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?

No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.

You are exaggerating what you believe trans activists have achieved. Very few transwomen are housed in women's prison in the US. Biden just proposed to allow schools to block transgender athletes. You are mimicking JK Rowling's agenda but not one applicable to the US.

Some people are actually attempting to force people to adhere to various religious doctrines. But, even if they weren't, I'd think that a clear cut effort to limit the rights of women would be worth at least a mention by self-proclaimed women's rights proponents. Instead, you it seems you prefer to ignore it.

Where are these people trying to force people to adhere to their religious doctrines through legislation? It appears that you are trying to make the case that evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or Muslims who limit the role of females within their own religion is the same thing as when the government denies females the ability have segregated spaces in public spaces.

I don't believe that I mentioned the word "legislation" at all. But, what legislation has denied females the ability to have segregated public spaces? Compare that to the legislation that has taken away trans rights. For that matter, consider legislation that has no relation to transgender people at all that has taken away women's rights?

Every post you make is more revealing of your true agenda and nothing suggests that women's rights are actually a priority.

We have already discussed the legislation in Washington which forces the spa to accept males and the the legislation in CA and NJ which prevents prisons from being sex-segregated for females only.

The spa in Washington was the result of a judge's ruling upholding a decision by the Washington State Human Rights Commission. That was not legislated. New Jersey's placement of transgender females was not legislated either, but a decision by the Department of Corrections that has been reversed. Only California legislated the right for prisoners to request to be housed according to their gender identity. Even that is not automatic.

So, you have been able to identify one item of legislation. Congrats.

Now, consider the number of laws restricting abortion or otherwise limiting women's access to healthcare?

Consider the onslaught of anti-trans legislation that the trans community is facing?

Are we really witnessing a display of trans power? Can anyone rationally believe that?

If your concern is women's rights, should trans people really be your biggest concern?

I thought this thread was discussing homophobia and the original thread about LBGTQ issues. So you want us to talk about abortion and other non-LBTGQ women’s topics here instead of the abortion threads? Usually that is grounds for deletion or being told to take it to the other thread.

The topics are linked. Posters in this thread have said that their anti-trans positions are motivated by concerns about women's rights. But even the most rudimentary analysis shows that trans people have had very little impact on women's rights. Yes, a spa here, a webpage there, and California prisons have some arguably negative impact. But, all of that pales in comparison to the harmful effects of anti-women legislation being passed by, in many cases, the same legislators who are also passing anti-trans legislation. If your concern is about women's rights is focused on the molehill of transgender women while you ignore the mountain of anti-women legislation, I am skeptical that women's rights are your real concern.

How interesting that you, presumably a cis male, feel that your opinion about about the various dimensions of sex based oppression of women, supersede an actual woman’s opinions on this topic.

I'm a woman and he basically summed up my feelings on the topic. So he's supporting women, IMO. Sorry you feel differently, that's how it goes. He's allowed an opinion, and I don't see how he feels his opinions supersede yours. He just disagrees and discusses, like we all are. He hasn't silenced you, although he could, so I'm not sure why you're pretending his posts have more weight. If you want to, you could register and put your credentials in your bio if you want to give your posts more weight and credibility. I mean, that's basically the only thing that sets Jeff apart-we know which posts are his. He's not going to delete unless you break the rules, so it's not like he shuts down conversation. If his opinions have any more importance than your opinions, its because you give it to him. He's just a guy having a discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I made the “original” “What is a Woman?” plug a few pages ago. I watched the documentary and was blown away by the lack of critical thinking the so-called experts in this field have engaged in. The interviewees were medical doctors (including a transwoman surgeon and pediatrician), therapists, professors of gender studies and a person who transitioned who had tremendous complications. You can attack Matt Walsh all you want, but as I said, he simply provides these experts a platform to make their case. The questions he asked were fair and he was respectful and polite. People can bicker back and forth and regurgitate the same arguments - no one is changing anyone’s mind on this thread. I believe Walsh’s documentary does an excellent job exposing how little thought has gone into modern gender ideology. The visceral reaction to even the most basic of questions tells me that its proponents cannot answer the questions nor do they want anyone asking them thus you are a transphobe or bigot.

Are you a right-wing anti-abortion religious fanatic?

You would’ve been a great interviewee for What is A Woman. About as smart and wired the same way emotionally.

Is that a "yes" or a "no". I'm just trying to clarify given the allegation above that the opponents of transgender rights are all right-wing religious anti-abortion activists.

I am not this poster but I’m neither right-wing nor religious nor anti abortion.

Do you vote R?

DP - I am pro choice, not religious, and vote either D or R depending on the candidate. I actually voted for Jo Jorgensen in the last election because I didn’t like either candidate.

Can you tell me what this has to do with anything being discussed on this thread?

If you think that oppressing women is acceptable or not.

I think that oppressing females is not acceptable. The word woman no longer has a tangible meaning so I can’t answer your question.

Should the religious right be able to tell women (and others) what they can and cannot do with their own body/life?

I firmly believe they shouldn’t mess with a females reproductive rights. The rest I don’t care about. Unless someone tries to pass a law that says females belong in the kitchen, then call me. But I suspect that isn’t going to happen.

You do realize that is already happening, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I made the “original” “What is a Woman?” plug a few pages ago. I watched the documentary and was blown away by the lack of critical thinking the so-called experts in this field have engaged in. The interviewees were medical doctors (including a transwoman surgeon and pediatrician), therapists, professors of gender studies and a person who transitioned who had tremendous complications. You can attack Matt Walsh all you want, but as I said, he simply provides these experts a platform to make their case. The questions he asked were fair and he was respectful and polite. People can bicker back and forth and regurgitate the same arguments - no one is changing anyone’s mind on this thread. I believe Walsh’s documentary does an excellent job exposing how little thought has gone into modern gender ideology. The visceral reaction to even the most basic of questions tells me that its proponents cannot answer the questions nor do they want anyone asking them thus you are a transphobe or bigot.

Are you a right-wing anti-abortion religious fanatic?

You would’ve been a great interviewee for What is A Woman. About as smart and wired the same way emotionally.

Is that a "yes" or a "no". I'm just trying to clarify given the allegation above that the opponents of transgender rights are all right-wing religious anti-abortion activists.

I am not this poster but I’m neither right-wing nor religious nor anti abortion.

Do you vote R?

DP - I am pro choice, not religious, and vote either D or R depending on the candidate. I actually voted for Jo Jorgensen in the last election because I didn’t like either candidate.

Can you tell me what this has to do with anything being discussed on this thread?

If you think that oppressing women is acceptable or not.

I think that oppressing females is not acceptable. The word woman no longer has a tangible meaning so I can’t answer your question.

Should the religious right be able to tell women (and others) what they can and cannot do with their own body/life?

I firmly believe they shouldn’t mess with a females reproductive rights. The rest I don’t care about. Unless someone tries to pass a law that says females belong in the kitchen, then call me. But I suspect that isn’t going to happen.

You do realize that is already happening, right?

I don’t see your point. You asked me if they have a right to do something. I answered what I don’t believe they have a right to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.

While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.

How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.

Why not ask “What is a man?”

Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.

Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?

transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.

But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.

So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?

Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.

There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?

Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.

Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?

I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.

I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?

No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?

No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.

You are exaggerating what you believe trans activists have achieved. Very few transwomen are housed in women's prison in the US. Biden just proposed to allow schools to block transgender athletes. You are mimicking JK Rowling's agenda but not one applicable to the US.

Some people are actually attempting to force people to adhere to various religious doctrines. But, even if they weren't, I'd think that a clear cut effort to limit the rights of women would be worth at least a mention by self-proclaimed women's rights proponents. Instead, you it seems you prefer to ignore it.

Where are these people trying to force people to adhere to their religious doctrines through legislation? It appears that you are trying to make the case that evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or Muslims who limit the role of females within their own religion is the same thing as when the government denies females the ability have segregated spaces in public spaces.

I don't believe that I mentioned the word "legislation" at all. But, what legislation has denied females the ability to have segregated public spaces? Compare that to the legislation that has taken away trans rights. For that matter, consider legislation that has no relation to transgender people at all that has taken away women's rights?

Every post you make is more revealing of your true agenda and nothing suggests that women's rights are actually a priority.

We have already discussed the legislation in Washington which forces the spa to accept males and the the legislation in CA and NJ which prevents prisons from being sex-segregated for females only.

The spa in Washington was the result of a judge's ruling upholding a decision by the Washington State Human Rights Commission. That was not legislated. New Jersey's placement of transgender females was not legislated either, but a decision by the Department of Corrections that has been reversed. Only California legislated the right for prisoners to request to be housed according to their gender identity. Even that is not automatic.

So, you have been able to identify one item of legislation. Congrats.

Now, consider the number of laws restricting abortion or otherwise limiting women's access to healthcare?

Consider the onslaught of anti-trans legislation that the trans community is facing?

Are we really witnessing a display of trans power? Can anyone rationally believe that?

If your concern is women's rights, should trans people really be your biggest concern?

I thought this thread was discussing homophobia and the original thread about LBGTQ issues. So you want us to talk about abortion and other non-LBTGQ women’s topics here instead of the abortion threads? Usually that is grounds for deletion or being told to take it to the other thread.

The topics are linked. Posters in this thread have said that their anti-trans positions are motivated by concerns about women's rights. But even the most rudimentary analysis shows that trans people have had very little impact on women's rights. Yes, a spa here, a webpage there, and California prisons have some arguably negative impact. But, all of that pales in comparison to the harmful effects of anti-women legislation being passed by, in many cases, the same legislators who are also passing anti-trans legislation. If your concern is about women's rights is focused on the molehill of transgender women while you ignore the mountain of anti-women legislation, I am skeptical that women's rights are your real concern.

I’m a different PP. I do not support bathroom bans or bans on youth care, though I firmly believe the science for medicalized youth gender transition is appallingly weak and profit-driven, and will be regarded in the same category as youth lobotomies in about twenty years. However, in the event I am wrong, I do not think the state should intervene with a ban. I do think malpractice caps should be removed.

I am strongly pro-choice. I actually don’t think I can support a ban on trans healthcare for youth (even if I believe the care is exploitative) while also being pro-choice. That seems very inconsistent to me.

In general, I have no idea why pro-trans rights people minimize the desired elimination of single-sex spaces the way they do in these discussions. Honestly I think that this debate would be a lot more honest and not as contentious if pro-trans people just straight-up said, yes, we want to eliminate the ability for people to create sex-based (not gender-based) spaces and we think that’s a societal good for this and that reason. There are potential reasons that could be discussed. But instead it’s this constant gaslighting: oh, you’re just scared of penises; oh, it’s just a few people; oh, why do women even care if they win a race anyhow, they shouldn’t be so competitive; oh, because Republican politicians are so bad generally, you shouldn’t be concerned with policies that lead to removal of same-sex spaces. It’s ridiculous and I think one of the reasons this has become such a politically weighted issue is because of that lack of honesty and the feeling that the general population has that they’re being gaslit on this issue by trans rights advocates. There is a reason the Walsh documentary is as popular as it is: he used the Jon Stewart mechanism of just letting people talk, and they come across as simply dishonest or at best utterly confused as a result. (For what it’s worth, I thought the sexism in the documentary was appalling.) Nobody likes feeling like they’re are being gaslit, and that’s what’s going on here.

I have no idea why you linked the Southern Baptist ban, but it seems largely irrelevant to me. The eventual destruction of single-sex spaces is more likely to impact my day-to-day life than what some already-crazy fundamentalists do. If anything the Southern Baptists seem to entirely agree with JHU that women are at best considered “non-men.” You seem to be treating this SB thing as some sort of gotcha and I genuinely don’t understand that. Frankly I view the SB position as entirely consistent with JHU’s position on the role and identity of women.

Appreciate the interesting discussion. It’s definitely made me think.

^^ Absolutely the bolded. The gaslighting really pisses me off.

Also, I’m a Black democrat-voting women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

Yes, I think this is correct in terms of why non-binaryism has so much appeal for youth today. And, it's actually what a lot of us who are so-called "anti-transgenderism" are advocating for. People should be free to be their authentic selves. Boys should be free to wear glitter makeup, cry and express emotions, and enjoy broadway showtunes. The idea that boys shouldn't do these things is a gender stereotype, unrelated to biology, but related to the fact that historically these things are done by females. Boys can wear glitter and enjoy showtunes without having to change their biological hormone levels or have surgery.

So then it sounds like you do support some transgenderism?

In a way, sure.

The term transgenderism is typically used to describe a belief system founded on the unscientific idea that a person’s sex is subjective, changeable, and/or defined by one’s inner thoughts and feelings. However, to me transgendered refers to a person who engages in behaviors which have been historically 'gendered' to the opposite sex.

I am a biological woman (female) with a very feminine appearance. Sometimes, I take out the trash or fire up the grill while my (male) husband watches the kids. We are each performing an activity that is historically has been 'gendered' with the opposite sex. These are transgendered activities. That doesn't mean that I am a partially male or my husband is partially female.

Your definition is off. It's not that "sex" is changeable - it's the "gender identity" that doesn't correspond to the sex assigned at birth.

Also, it doesn't mean the "opposite" gender identity, just non-compliant with norms.

OK. How does gender identity correspond or not correspond to biological sex?

Good timing for Pride Month.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/996319297/gender-identity-pronouns-expression-guide-lgbtq
"Sex refers to a person's biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex.

Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary.

Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others.

For most people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth, the American Psychological Association notes. For transgender people, gender identity differs in varying degrees from the sex assigned at birth."

Definitions

[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:So if it isn’t a mental health issue, it’s considered cosmetic and therefor should not be covered by insurance

Circumcision is covered, so is breast reconstruction, so is a million other things but we cover it. Why aren’t you outraged about that?

Breast reconstruction isn’t covered for women who mistakenly believed they were trans as teens and had mastectomies.

Way to miss the point. Reconstructions aren’t medically necessary for women who had cancer either. We cover them because we know how important it is for a woman to feel like a woman.

Because there is an obvious biological component to being a woman that induces certain feelings that no biological man could ever experience or imagine.

Was that your experience as a transgender woman?

Are you saying a trans woman knows what it feels like to menstruate? To go through post pardum depression? To have a miscarriage? To have hot flashes? Please explain.

I’m saying you have no idea what it’s like to be a transgender woman.

And FYI those experiences do not define women.

And what feelings exactly do trans women have that make them women? I get that this is an incendiary question but isn’t it a logical one?

Do you ask all women that question?

There are no universal “feelings” for being a woman.

That’s because being a woman is defined by chromosomes and biology- not “feelings.”

You’re referring to sex.

Here you go:

No sweetheart I’m not. Sex, chromosomes and biology define a woman, which is simply an adult human female. There is no such thing as gender, except in the realm of languages

Are all of the bigots this ignorant?

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1
“Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.”

Definition

[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:So if it isn’t a mental health issue, it’s considered cosmetic and therefor should not be covered by insurance

Circumcision is covered, so is breast reconstruction, so is a million other things but we cover it. Why aren’t you outraged about that?

Breast reconstruction isn’t covered for women who mistakenly believed they were trans as teens and had mastectomies.

Way to miss the point. Reconstructions aren’t medically necessary for women who had cancer either. We cover them because we know how important it is for a woman to feel like a woman.

Because there is an obvious biological component to being a woman that induces certain feelings that no biological man could ever experience or imagine.

Was that your experience as a transgender woman?

Are you saying a trans woman knows what it feels like to menstruate? To go through post pardum depression? To have a miscarriage? To have hot flashes? Please explain.

I’m saying you have no idea what it’s like to be a transgender woman.

And FYI those experiences do not define women.

And what feelings exactly do trans women have that make them women? I get that this is an incendiary question but isn’t it a logical one?

Do you ask all women that question?

There are no universal “feelings” for being a woman.

That’s because being a woman is defined by chromosomes and biology- not “feelings.”

You’re referring to sex.

Here you go:

No sweetheart I’m not. Sex, chromosomes and biology define a woman, which is simply an adult human female. There is no such thing as gender, except in the realm of languages

Are all of the bigots this ignorant?

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1
“Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.”

Definition

Personally I’m more interested in the definition of “woman.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

Your comment about child bearing and a loose link to gender roles diminishes the importance of both male physical dominance and the influence of millennia of social and political dominance of males on gender roles.

You correctly point out that women who can’t give birth is still a woman. She is a women with a disability, abnormal condition, or illness. She is still a product of millennia of evolution which has caused her to have breasts and larger hips than males. She still has xx chromosomes. She still will not have muscle mass or bone density or lung capacity of a male. No male has ever had the capability to bear children. He is designed to produce sperm. He is the product of millions of years of evolution which gave him more powerful shoulders and slimmer hips than women. This is a reality of evolutionary biology.

Yes, but this is neither here nor there. You are stuck on sex while we are discussing gender. I think we agree that gender roles grew out of biological sex. I think we all agree that gender concepts are mutable. What was true in the past is not true now and probably not what will be true in the future when it comes to gender. The change in gender concepts is not solely due to biology, but drastically impacted by social development. Thanks to social change, we men are not out hunting sabertooth tigers and mammoths and the females here are not stuck in caves raising children that are unlikely to reach their first birthdays.

We are back to the fundamental disagreement over whether sex and gender are inextricably connected or whether they are separate. If you insist that the connection cannot be severed, there is really nothing to discuss. You are, in effect, denying the existence of an entire group of people whose existence I uphold. That is within your right, but that leaves nothing for us to talk about.

I agree with your statement that there is nothing to discuss with respect to indivisibility of gender and sex. However, your parting shot about people with whom you disagree on this subject could also be flipped to read “if you insist that man can become woman of his own volition (whether he legitimately feels this way or not), then you are denying the existence of an entire group of people who’s existence I uphold, namely women.”

Accepting the separation of sex and gender no more denies the existence of women than it denies the existence of men. I accept that there are individuals who were assigned the sex of male at birth but later discovered their gender is female. Similarly, there are those assigned female at birth who discovered their gender is male. Neither those assigned female at birth or those assigned male at birth whose genders match their assigned sex have ceased to exist.

Yeah, you lose me on the “cease to exist” language. Seems like a rhetorical trick to make you feel you have the high ground. If someone calls me something I don’t think I am (whether rightly or not) I do not cease to exist nor does the individual with whom I may differ with on transgenderism. Everyone needs to take a deep breath here.

Well, I think you are focusing too much on semantics. A poster claimed that by recognizing a separation between sex and gender I was denying the existence of women. Is that not another way of sayin that, in my mind, women have ceased to exist? Regardless, I am rejecting that notion. I obviously don't deny that there are those assigned female at birth and those assigned male at birth whose genders match. I am one of those and don't deny myself.

The point I was making earlier is that if we treat who we call “man” and “woman” as dependent upon a subjective reading of the definition of gender, then any man (read: assigned male at birth) can become a woman and claim for themselves the experience of women (from workplace discrimination, Title IX in sports, sports in general, all the way to pregnancy and childbirth) - which essentially erases women if there is no biological distinction. These to me are just some of the many reasons why modern gender theory is a bad idea and does not ring true. I do not doubt that an extremely small portion of the population struggles with their identity, I just don’t think it makes them what they biologically are not.

I can't speak for other women, obviously, but I don't base my gender identity entirely in biology. I am by no means very feminine, but most of what it means to me to be a woman has little to do with my body parts.

As far as I am concerned, call yourself whatever you feel like - doesn’t bother me. However, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is medical, society needs to have definitions for those who are biologically distinct - ie, those who are of the kind who give birth (women) and those who do not (men). If you want to call your self trans “x” then go for it. Society needs objective definitions to refer to people regardless of how they feel.

Well, of course there is trans-friendly language that does exactly that such as "pregnant people" and "people who menstruate". But, that causes mass head explosions.

"Women" sounds so much less offensive than "people who menstruate". This sort of language seems to reduce those of us formerly known as women to our reproductive capacity.

Wouldn't it be used in reference to menstruation/reproduction?

And no one has said you can't use the word "woman" anymore. Faux concern.

Nope. For millennia, the terms men and women have referred to biological sex, aka males and females. However, recently gender activists have attempted to change the definition of men and women to refer not to biological males and females, but gender identity, which is a belief based on their feelings.

So you are being disingenuous. While no one has said that you can’t say woman, what they are saying is that the meaning of the word woman has changed from a reference to observable human characteristics of a sexually dimorphic species, to a reference to individuals personal feelings and beliefs.

Not only that, these feelings and beliefs apparently cannot be explained or quantified. Up to this point no one has been able to explain what identifying as a woman actually means.

The feeling that you have a certain set of expectations/roles as defined by society. Maybe you don't actually conform to most or all of those, but those are the expectations/roles that you feel that you and others have for yourself.

I feel like a woman when people make sexist comments.

I feel like a woman when Republicans try to tell me what I can and can't do to my body.

I feel like a woman when people judge me on my gender conforming/nonconforming decisions.

My definition of woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I made the “original” “What is a Woman?” plug a few pages ago. I watched the documentary and was blown away by the lack of critical thinking the so-called experts in this field have engaged in. The interviewees were medical doctors (including a transwoman surgeon and pediatrician), therapists, professors of gender studies and a person who transitioned who had tremendous complications. You can attack Matt Walsh all you want, but as I said, he simply provides these experts a platform to make their case. The questions he asked were fair and he was respectful and polite. People can bicker back and forth and regurgitate the same arguments - no one is changing anyone’s mind on this thread. I believe Walsh’s documentary does an excellent job exposing how little thought has gone into modern gender ideology. The visceral reaction to even the most basic of questions tells me that its proponents cannot answer the questions nor do they want anyone asking them thus you are a transphobe or bigot.

Are you a right-wing anti-abortion religious fanatic?

You would’ve been a great interviewee for What is A Woman. About as smart and wired the same way emotionally.

Is that a "yes" or a "no". I'm just trying to clarify given the allegation above that the opponents of transgender rights are all right-wing religious anti-abortion activists.

I am not this poster but I’m neither right-wing nor religious nor anti abortion.

Do you vote R?

DP - I am pro choice, not religious, and vote either D or R depending on the candidate. I actually voted for Jo Jorgensen in the last election because I didn’t like either candidate.

Can you tell me what this has to do with anything being discussed on this thread?

If you think that oppressing women is acceptable or not.

I think that oppressing females is not acceptable. The word woman no longer has a tangible meaning so I can’t answer your question.

Should the religious right be able to tell women (and others) what they can and cannot do with their own body/life?

I firmly believe they shouldn’t mess with a females reproductive rights. The rest I don’t care about. Unless someone tries to pass a law that says females belong in the kitchen, then call me. But I suspect that isn’t going to happen.

You do realize that is already happening, right?

I don’t see your point. You asked me if they have a right to do something. I answered what I don’t believe they have a right to do.

Should we “call you”?

Sounds like you don’t GAF that it’s happening right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.

While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.

How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.

Why not ask “What is a man?”

Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.

Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?

transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.

But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.

So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?

Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.

There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?

Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.

Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?

I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.

I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?

No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?

No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.

So it’s not about women’s rights for you?

Of course. Are you unable to look at an issue from multiple dimensions?

I’m able to tease out the important issues.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.

While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.

How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.

Why not ask “What is a man?”

Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.

Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?

transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.

But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.

So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?

Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.

There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?

Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.

Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?

I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.

I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?

No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?

No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.

You are exaggerating what you believe trans activists have achieved. Very few transwomen are housed in women's prison in the US. Biden just proposed to allow schools to block transgender athletes. You are mimicking JK Rowling's agenda but not one applicable to the US.

Some people are actually attempting to force people to adhere to various religious doctrines. But, even if they weren't, I'd think that a clear cut effort to limit the rights of women would be worth at least a mention by self-proclaimed women's rights proponents. Instead, you it seems you prefer to ignore it.

Where are these people trying to force people to adhere to their religious doctrines through legislation? It appears that you are trying to make the case that evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or Muslims who limit the role of females within their own religion is the same thing as when the government denies females the ability have segregated spaces in public spaces.

I don't believe that I mentioned the word "legislation" at all. But, what legislation has denied females the ability to have segregated public spaces? Compare that to the legislation that has taken away trans rights. For that matter, consider legislation that has no relation to transgender people at all that has taken away women's rights?

Every post you make is more revealing of your true agenda and nothing suggests that women's rights are actually a priority.

We have already discussed the legislation in Washington which forces the spa to accept males and the the legislation in CA and NJ which prevents prisons from being sex-segregated for females only.

The spa in Washington was the result of a judge's ruling upholding a decision by the Washington State Human Rights Commission. That was not legislated. New Jersey's placement of transgender females was not legislated either, but a decision by the Department of Corrections that has been reversed. Only California legislated the right for prisoners to request to be housed according to their gender identity. Even that is not automatic.

So, you have been able to identify one item of legislation. Congrats.

Now, consider the number of laws restricting abortion or otherwise limiting women's access to healthcare?

Consider the onslaught of anti-trans legislation that the trans community is facing?

Are we really witnessing a display of trans power? Can anyone rationally believe that?

If your concern is women's rights, should trans people really be your biggest concern?

I thought this thread was discussing homophobia and the original thread about LBGTQ issues. So you want us to talk about abortion and other non-LBTGQ women’s topics here instead of the abortion threads? Usually that is grounds for deletion or being told to take it to the other thread.

The topics are linked. Posters in this thread have said that their anti-trans positions are motivated by concerns about women's rights. But even the most rudimentary analysis shows that trans people have had very little impact on women's rights. Yes, a spa here, a webpage there, and California prisons have some arguably negative impact. But, all of that pales in comparison to the harmful effects of anti-women legislation being passed by, in many cases, the same legislators who are also passing anti-trans legislation. If your concern is about women's rights is focused on the molehill of transgender women while you ignore the mountain of anti-women legislation, I am skeptical that women's rights are your real concern.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

Your comment about child bearing and a loose link to gender roles diminishes the importance of both male physical dominance and the influence of millennia of social and political dominance of males on gender roles.

You correctly point out that women who can’t give birth is still a woman. She is a women with a disability, abnormal condition, or illness. She is still a product of millennia of evolution which has caused her to have breasts and larger hips than males. She still has xx chromosomes. She still will not have muscle mass or bone density or lung capacity of a male. No male has ever had the capability to bear children. He is designed to produce sperm. He is the product of millions of years of evolution which gave him more powerful shoulders and slimmer hips than women. This is a reality of evolutionary biology.

Yes, but this is neither here nor there. You are stuck on sex while we are discussing gender. I think we agree that gender roles grew out of biological sex. I think we all agree that gender concepts are mutable. What was true in the past is not true now and probably not what will be true in the future when it comes to gender. The change in gender concepts is not solely due to biology, but drastically impacted by social development. Thanks to social change, we men are not out hunting sabertooth tigers and mammoths and the females here are not stuck in caves raising children that are unlikely to reach their first birthdays.

We are back to the fundamental disagreement over whether sex and gender are inextricably connected or whether they are separate. If you insist that the connection cannot be severed, there is really nothing to discuss. You are, in effect, denying the existence of an entire group of people whose existence I uphold. That is within your right, but that leaves nothing for us to talk about.

I agree with your statement that there is nothing to discuss with respect to indivisibility of gender and sex. However, your parting shot about people with whom you disagree on this subject could also be flipped to read “if you insist that man can become woman of his own volition (whether he legitimately feels this way or not), then you are denying the existence of an entire group of people who’s existence I uphold, namely women.”

Accepting the separation of sex and gender no more denies the existence of women than it denies the existence of men. I accept that there are individuals who were assigned the sex of male at birth but later discovered their gender is female. Similarly, there are those assigned female at birth who discovered their gender is male. Neither those assigned female at birth or those assigned male at birth whose genders match their assigned sex have ceased to exist.

Yeah, you lose me on the “cease to exist” language. Seems like a rhetorical trick to make you feel you have the high ground. If someone calls me something I don’t think I am (whether rightly or not) I do not cease to exist nor does the individual with whom I may differ with on transgenderism. Everyone needs to take a deep breath here.

Well, I think you are focusing too much on semantics. A poster claimed that by recognizing a separation between sex and gender I was denying the existence of women. Is that not another way of sayin that, in my mind, women have ceased to exist? Regardless, I am rejecting that notion. I obviously don't deny that there are those assigned female at birth and those assigned male at birth whose genders match. I am one of those and don't deny myself.

The point I was making earlier is that if we treat who we call “man” and “woman” as dependent upon a subjective reading of the definition of gender, then any man (read: assigned male at birth) can become a woman and claim for themselves the experience of women (from workplace discrimination, Title IX in sports, sports in general, all the way to pregnancy and childbirth) - which essentially erases women if there is no biological distinction. These to me are just some of the many reasons why modern gender theory is a bad idea and does not ring true. I do not doubt that an extremely small portion of the population struggles with their identity, I just don’t think it makes them what they biologically are not.

I can't speak for other women, obviously, but I don't base my gender identity entirely in biology. I am by no means very feminine, but most of what it means to me to be a woman has little to do with my body parts.

As far as I am concerned, call yourself whatever you feel like - doesn’t bother me. However, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is medical, society needs to have definitions for those who are biologically distinct - ie, those who are of the kind who give birth (women) and those who do not (men). If you want to call your self trans “x” then go for it. Society needs objective definitions to refer to people regardless of how they feel.

Well, of course there is trans-friendly language that does exactly that such as "pregnant people" and "people who menstruate". But, that causes mass head explosions.

"Women" sounds so much less offensive than "people who menstruate". This sort of language seems to reduce those of us formerly known as women to our reproductive capacity.

Wouldn't it be used in reference to menstruation/reproduction?

And no one has said you can't use the word "woman" anymore. Faux concern.

Nope. For millennia, the terms men and women have referred to biological sex, aka males and females. However, recently gender activists have attempted to change the definition of men and women to refer not to biological males and females, but gender identity, which is a belief based on their feelings.

So you are being disingenuous. While no one has said that you can’t say woman, what they are saying is that the meaning of the word woman has changed from a reference to observable human characteristics of a sexually dimorphic species, to a reference to individuals personal feelings and beliefs.

Not only that, these feelings and beliefs apparently cannot be explained or quantified. Up to this point no one has been able to explain what identifying as a woman actually means.

The feeling that you have a certain set of expectations/roles as defined by society. Maybe you don't actually conform to most or all of those, but those are the expectations/roles that you feel that you and others have for yourself.

I feel like a woman when people make sexist comments.

I feel like a woman when Republicans try to tell me what I can and can't do to my body.

I feel like a woman when people judge me on my gender conforming/nonconforming decisions.

My definition of woman

I don’t mean your definition. I mean the actual definition. Like the other definitions you highlighted - for lesbian? That is a published definition. Where is the definition for woman?

[Anonymous]

Adult human female. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or make them sad, but physical safety is paramount to me. Truly sad that my definition feels exclusionary and makes people feel badly. But their feelings don’t trump women’s safety.