Ellen Page announced new identity as Elliott Page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread made me go to Amazon to buy Robert Galbraith's "Troubled Blood".

One can enjoy the works of JK Rowling and still support the trans community. Did I just blow your mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the wide-eyed responses here are just wild. If you can read at an 8th grade level or name all the Kardashians, you sure as hell have the mental capacity to comprehend gender identity.

To pretend otherwise is just willful ignorance.

The people on this thread asking questions are not people who give a fig about the Kardashians.

The truth is most of this gender stuff makes little sense. You are born with a biological sex. It is based on your chromosomes. What does it mean to be a man or a woman beyond that? What does it mean to say you know you are a different gender than what your chromosomes indicate? Separate from biological sex most ways we define gender are a bunch of made up bullshit that varies from culture to culture. People who pretend this is cut and dried are full of it.

The way I see it is that everything else in nature is a spectrum and we are now realizing that gender and sexuality are also on a spectrum.

Gender expression is on a spectrum. Sex is binary in human beings.

That's generally true, but not always. There are many variations. There are people born with three chromosomes -XXY. There was a TED Talk by a woman who presents as a woman and was born with a vagina, but she has XY chromosomes. If people exist outside of the binary, then by definition, there is not a binary.

Those are disorders of sexual development - genetic mutations. Some people are born missing limbs. That doesn’t change the fact that human beings have two arms and two legs. That is not a spectrum.

Exactly. As for “assigned at birth,” this makes it sound like doctors arbitrarily pick someone’s gender. No, they don’t assign a “gender” at all. They observe the newborn’s biological sex and record it. The push for this new language denies science & facts. We can be respectful of all types of people without doing that.

Regarding the “deadname” article— that stance is ridiculous. Continuing to call someone by a name they don’t prefer is rude. But mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes should be a non-issue. People change their names for all sorts of reasons— marriage, divorce, adoption, Prince, etc. I’ve never heard any of these other groups get upset about the mere mention of their former name.

I was the one explaining "assigned at birth" last night and I want you to back up a little bit. No one is "blaming" doctors or even parents for assuming gender. I did it with my own kids and - so far - I'm right. What I'm trying to explain is that trans folks have told us that the verbiage we used to use - "a man trapped in a woman's body", "he used to be a she", etc - don't fit with their experience. In other words, a trans man will say he was always trans, even if he presented as female as a kid because everyone assumed that was true. Instead, he was assigned female and realized as he got older that that wasn't correct.

There are probably people who know more about this than me, but I think some of this is probably rooted in verbiage around gay people as well. Homophobes were up our ass about being gay as being a choice we could simply un-make, and that caused us a lot of grief over a couple of decades. Hence, the "born this way" argument (see Lady Gaga, et al.). I think this translated to the trans community a bit in that ensuring the language that is used follows the experiences that people have.

Again: being assigned a gender at birth is fine, but some people realize that gender doesn't fit. They don't think they've "changed" but that the gender that was assigned due to genitals doesn't match their lived experience. So this is the verbiage that the trans community uses that best fits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. As for “assigned at birth,” this makes it sound like doctors arbitrarily pick someone’s gender. No, they don’t assign a “gender” at all. They observe the newborn’s biological sex and record it. The push for this new language denies science & facts. We can be respectful of all types of people without doing that.

Regarding the “deadname” article— that stance is ridiculous. Continuing to call someone by a name they don’t prefer is rude. But mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes should be a non-issue. People change their names for all sorts of reasons— marriage, divorce, adoption, Prince, etc. I’ve never heard any of these other groups get upset about the mere mention of their former name.

You're being deliberately disingenuous. You say they don't assign a "gender" but rather "observe a newborn's biological sex and record it." Why didn't you use the word gender in the second sentence as well? You know that gender and sex are not the same thing as demonstrated in your own language choices.

And for your commentary on the deadname article, again, you're being dismissive just to be smug. No one is getting upset "about the mere mention of their former name." It's not simply about "mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes." It's about continuing to use a former name as a way to not recognize and diminish the significance of the person's transition and new name.

You understand all the "new language" as you call it but because you have problems with the people using it you cloak your bigotry in a sanctimonious criticism of the nuances of the language.

No, that article stated that there is NEVER a reason for a news agency to publish a trans person’s former name— at all. Not even once. Did you read the article?
And no one is “assigning” gender because it is a social construct. There is no official document about someone’s gender, at birth or otherwise. The birth certificate states biological sex. So do forms asking for “male” or “female.” They are asking about biological sex. Gender is different, right?

[Anonymous]

Also, it’s really problematic when anyone who questions or pushes back on these new terms, etc is called a bigot. I am respectful of everyone. I will call people whatever they ask to be called. I don’t hate trans people or wish them ill will at all. That doesn’t mean I can’t have questions or point out things that don’t make sense.

Calling everyone who doesn’t blindly agree with you a bigot is just a way to shut people down and divide people. It’s controlling and counterproductive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. As for “assigned at birth,” this makes it sound like doctors arbitrarily pick someone’s gender. No, they don’t assign a “gender” at all. They observe the newborn’s biological sex and record it. The push for this new language denies science & facts. We can be respectful of all types of people without doing that.

Regarding the “deadname” article— that stance is ridiculous. Continuing to call someone by a name they don’t prefer is rude. But mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes should be a non-issue. People change their names for all sorts of reasons— marriage, divorce, adoption, Prince, etc. I’ve never heard any of these other groups get upset about the mere mention of their former name.

You're being deliberately disingenuous. You say they don't assign a "gender" but rather "observe a newborn's biological sex and record it." Why didn't you use the word gender in the second sentence as well? You know that gender and sex are not the same thing as demonstrated in your own language choices.

And for your commentary on the deadname article, again, you're being dismissive just to be smug. No one is getting upset "about the mere mention of their former name." It's not simply about "mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes." It's about continuing to use a former name as a way to not recognize and diminish the significance of the person's transition and new name.

You understand all the "new language" as you call it but because you have problems with the people using it you cloak your bigotry in a sanctimonious criticism of the nuances of the language.

No, that article stated that there is NEVER a reason for a news agency to publish a trans person’s former name— at all. Not even once. Did you read the article?
And no one is “assigning” gender because it is a social construct. There is no official document about someone’s gender, at birth or otherwise. The birth certificate states biological sex. So do forms asking for “male” or “female.” They are asking about biological sex. Gender is different, right?

Here’s the quote:
“ “Reminder: there is NEVER a reason to publish someone’s deadname,” the Transgender Journalist Association said in a statement on Twitter”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, it’s really problematic when anyone who questions or pushes back on these new terms, etc is called a bigot. I am respectful of everyone. I will call people whatever they ask to be called. I don’t hate trans people or wish them ill will at all. That doesn’t mean I can’t have questions or point out things that don’t make sense.

Calling everyone who doesn’t blindly agree with you a bigot is just a way to shut people down and divide people. It’s controlling and counterproductive.

Can you point to anyone on this thread being called a "bigot?" Or any use of the term "bigot" before your post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. As for “assigned at birth,” this makes it sound like doctors arbitrarily pick someone’s gender. No, they don’t assign a “gender” at all. They observe the newborn’s biological sex and record it. The push for this new language denies science & facts. We can be respectful of all types of people without doing that.

Regarding the “deadname” article— that stance is ridiculous. Continuing to call someone by a name they don’t prefer is rude. But mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes should be a non-issue. People change their names for all sorts of reasons— marriage, divorce, adoption, Prince, etc. I’ve never heard any of these other groups get upset about the mere mention of their former name.

You're being deliberately disingenuous. You say they don't assign a "gender" but rather "observe a newborn's biological sex and record it." Why didn't you use the word gender in the second sentence as well? You know that gender and sex are not the same thing as demonstrated in your own language choices.

And for your commentary on the deadname article, again, you're being dismissive just to be smug. No one is getting upset "about the mere mention of their former name." It's not simply about "mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes." It's about continuing to use a former name as a way to not recognize and diminish the significance of the person's transition and new name.

You understand all the "new language" as you call it but because you have problems with the people using it you cloak your bigotry in a sanctimonious criticism of the nuances of the language.

No, that article stated that there is NEVER a reason for a news agency to publish a trans person’s former name— at all. Not even once. Did you read the article?
And no one is “assigning” gender because it is a social construct. There is no official document about someone’s gender, at birth or otherwise. The birth certificate states biological sex. So do forms asking for “male” or “female.” They are asking about biological sex. Gender is different, right?

Here’s the quote:
“ “Reminder: there is NEVER a reason to publish someone’s deadname,” the Transgender Journalist Association said in a statement on Twitter”

GLAAD disagrees - they say that, because he was previously known to the public as "Ellen Page," it's ok to refer to him as "Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen Page," until people generally have learned his name.

https://www.thewrap.com/transgender-deadnaming-elliot-page-lgbtq-organizations/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, it’s really problematic when anyone who questions or pushes back on these new terms, etc is called a bigot. I am respectful of everyone. I will call people whatever they ask to be called. I don’t hate trans people or wish them ill will at all. That doesn’t mean I can’t have questions or point out things that don’t make sense.

Calling everyone who doesn’t blindly agree with you a bigot is just a way to shut people down and divide people. It’s controlling and counterproductive.

Can you point to anyone on this thread being called a "bigot?" Or any use of the term "bigot" before your post?

Not the PP, but this was slightly upthread:

You're being deliberately disingenuous. You say they don't assign a "gender" but rather "observe a newborn's biological sex and record it." Why didn't you use the word gender in the second sentence as well? You know that gender and sex are not the same thing as demonstrated in your own language choices.

And for your commentary on the deadname article, again, you're being dismissive just to be smug. No one is getting upset "about the mere mention of their former name." It's not simply about "mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes." It's about continuing to use a former name as a way to not recognize and diminish the significance of the person's transition and new name.

You understand all the "new language" as you call it but because you have problems with the people using it you cloak your bigotry in a sanctimonious criticism of the nuances of the language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, it’s really problematic when anyone who questions or pushes back on these new terms, etc is called a bigot. I am respectful of everyone. I will call people whatever they ask to be called. I don’t hate trans people or wish them ill will at all. That doesn’t mean I can’t have questions or point out things that don’t make sense.

Calling everyone who doesn’t blindly agree with you a bigot is just a way to shut people down and divide people. It’s controlling and counterproductive.

I don't see anyone being called a bigot just because they ask questions, as long as they're doing so respectfully. There are people who are "asking questions" as an attack, in a demeaning way, and those people don't get to use "innocent curiosity" as a shield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, it’s really problematic when anyone who questions or pushes back on these new terms, etc is called a bigot. I am respectful of everyone. I will call people whatever they ask to be called. I don’t hate trans people or wish them ill will at all. That doesn’t mean I can’t have questions or point out things that don’t make sense.

Calling everyone who doesn’t blindly agree with you a bigot is just a way to shut people down and divide people. It’s controlling and counterproductive.

I don't see anyone being called a bigot just because they ask questions, as long as they're doing so respectfully. There are people who are "asking questions" as an attack, in a demeaning way, and those people don't get to use "innocent curiosity" as a shield.

We can take things in inaccurately when uncomfortable. No one called anyone a bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, it’s really problematic when anyone who questions or pushes back on these new terms, etc is called a bigot. I am respectful of everyone. I will call people whatever they ask to be called. I don’t hate trans people or wish them ill will at all. That doesn’t mean I can’t have questions or point out things that don’t make sense.

Calling everyone who doesn’t blindly agree with you a bigot is just a way to shut people down and divide people. It’s controlling and counterproductive.

I don't see anyone being called a bigot just because they ask questions, as long as they're doing so respectfully. There are people who are "asking questions" as an attack, in a demeaning way, and those people don't get to use "innocent curiosity" as a shield.

We can take things in inaccurately when uncomfortable. No one called anyone a bigot.

That is inaccurate. See above.

[Anonymous]

So do all you women who took your husband's name have a deadname?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the wide-eyed responses here are just wild. If you can read at an 8th grade level or name all the Kardashians, you sure as hell have the mental capacity to comprehend gender identity.

To pretend otherwise is just willful ignorance.

The people on this thread asking questions are not people who give a fig about the Kardashians.

The truth is most of this gender stuff makes little sense. You are born with a biological sex. It is based on your chromosomes. What does it mean to be a man or a woman beyond that? What does it mean to say you know you are a different gender than what your chromosomes indicate? Separate from biological sex most ways we define gender are a bunch of made up bullshit that varies from culture to culture. People who pretend this is cut and dried are full of it.

The way I see it is that everything else in nature is a spectrum and we are now realizing that gender and sexuality are also on a spectrum.

Gender and sexuality are on a spectrum. ITA! But, biology isn’t. Biology is objective. I would like to know why the phrase “sex assigned at birth” is used instead of “biological sex.”

I just find it difficult to pretend biology doesn’t exist. Biology makes you physically a man or a woman...for the vast majority of people (recognizing the small percentage of biological abnormalities).

A think I agree with a PP who thinks the idea of gender shouldn’t exist. You are biologically what you are (man or woman), but you live as you feel, whether that be masculine, feminine, or a fun mix of both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the wide-eyed responses here are just wild. If you can read at an 8th grade level or name all the Kardashians, you sure as hell have the mental capacity to comprehend gender identity.

To pretend otherwise is just willful ignorance.

The people on this thread asking questions are not people who give a fig about the Kardashians.

The truth is most of this gender stuff makes little sense. You are born with a biological sex. It is based on your chromosomes. What does it mean to be a man or a woman beyond that? What does it mean to say you know you are a different gender than what your chromosomes indicate? Separate from biological sex most ways we define gender are a bunch of made up bullshit that varies from culture to culture. People who pretend this is cut and dried are full of it.

The way I see it is that everything else in nature is a spectrum and we are now realizing that gender and sexuality are also on a spectrum.

Gender and sexuality are on a spectrum. ITA! But, biology isn’t. Biology is objective. I would like to know why the phrase “sex assigned at birth” is used instead of “biological sex.”

I just find it difficult to pretend biology doesn’t exist. Biology makes you physically a man or a woman...for the vast majority of people (recognizing the small percentage of biological abnormalities).

A think I agree with a PP who thinks the idea of gender shouldn’t exist. You are biologically what you are (man or woman), but you live as you feel, whether that be masculine, feminine, or a fun mix of both.

I agree. Gender is a social construct that isn’t really real. I’ll call someone whatever name they want, use whatever pronouns they want, will fight discrimination, etc, but deep inside I know the only thing that makes me a woman is the way I was socialized due to my biology. In some circles this makes me TERF scum or something, but it’s the only thing that really makes sense.

[Anonymous]

I don't think we've lived in an emperor's new clothes world as starkly as today. It's come to the point where we aren't even able to differentiate between the genuinely transsexual (which I accept as people who are fully convinced in their minds that somehow they are the gender opposite their factual biology) and the increasing numbers of those who seek out a transgender label for self promotional, self victimization reasons rather than sincerity, which seems to be the case for many of these young women.

There's a clueless detachment involved here that does suggest an intellectual rottenness at its core, which is likely tied to the modern progressive left's celebration of oppression and victimization, attributing status and power to the deserving victim and even the emergence of an hierarchy of victimization. It's not surprising that to see people try to enhance their status in this world by seeking new, appropriately oppressed, identities. The more oppressed your identity is, the higher your status is. Of course, it's riddled with hypocrisy, as we see with a privileged hollywood actor claiming a greater sphere of oppressedness than, say, a poor white straight male living in a dying mill town town.

I do wonder how it will all play out.