Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
But male is a sex, not a gender. How can that be?
You’ve done this before and I’m not sure why you think this is a gotcha question. Most people use male and female (not the only options but definitely the most common possibilities) to refer to both sex and gender. If you’re saying male and female are only for sex, which words do you prefer people use to describe someone’s gender?
I thought the preferred term was transman or transwoman, no?
No one prefers transman or transwoman. Trans man and trans woman are terms people use though. Just like you don't youse Whitewoman or Blackwoman or Prettywoman or Skinnywoman.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
Some of us have other things to do then monitor this thread 24/7, although I understand it's your job.
Yes, I am frustrated about biological males in women's sports, locker rooms, and prisons and but even more by being silenced by males when I express these views.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
But male is a sex, not a gender. How can that be?
You’ve done this before and I’m not sure why you think this is a gotcha question. Most people use male and female (not the only options but definitely the most common possibilities) to refer to both sex and gender. If you’re saying male and female are only for sex, which words do you prefer people use to describe someone’s gender?
I thought the preferred term was transman or transwoman, no?
No one prefers transman or transwoman. Trans man and trans woman are terms people use though. Just like you don't youse Whitewoman or Blackwoman or Prettywoman or Skinnywoman.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion to be had with science-deniers. You are free to believe in unscientific gender nonsense. The rest of us believe in science.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you into this discussion. Feel free not to participate.
Well some of us scientists are trying to explain that calling a transwoman male is not misgendering. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. If you are saying that you will continue disputing the facts during this discussion, then this is indeed an echo chamber and there really isn’t any productive discussion to be had.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
But male is a sex, not a gender. How can that be?
You’ve done this before and I’m not sure why you think this is a gotcha question. Most people use male and female (not the only options but definitely the most common possibilities) to refer to both sex and gender. If you’re saying male and female are only for sex, which words do you prefer people use to describe someone’s gender?
I thought the preferred term was transman or transwoman, no?
No one prefers transman or transwoman. Trans man and trans woman are terms people use though. Just like you don't youse Whitewoman or Blackwoman or Prettywoman or Skinnywoman.
So what is the preferred term?
Same thing with two words. Transgender man not transgenderman. Trans woman not transwoman.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
But male is a sex, not a gender. How can that be?
You’ve done this before and I’m not sure why you think this is a gotcha question. Most people use male and female (not the only options but definitely the most common possibilities) to refer to both sex and gender. If you’re saying male and female are only for sex, which words do you prefer people use to describe someone’s gender?
When you understand science and believe factual information, it is a huge gotcha. There is no explaining it away.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion to be had with science-deniers. You are free to believe in unscientific gender nonsense. The rest of us believe in science.
It's amazing that after reading this "believe in science" post, I'm not sure if its agreeing with Jeff that calling a transwoman male is misgendering or disagreeing.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion to be had with science-deniers. You are free to believe in unscientific gender nonsense. The rest of us believe in science.
It's amazing that after reading this "believe in science" post, I'm not sure if its agreeing with Jeff that calling a transwoman male is misgendering or disagreeing.
Woman=gender
Male=sex
If calling a transwoman a male is misgendering, then what do you call a human with XY chromosomes and the corresponding external genitalia? Do we need to invent a new word?
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion to be had with science-deniers. You are free to believe in unscientific gender nonsense. The rest of us believe in science.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you into this discussion. Feel free not to participate.
Well some of us scientists are trying to explain that calling a transwoman male is not misgendering. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. If you are saying that you will continue disputing the facts during this discussion, then this is indeed an echo chamber and there really isn’t any productive discussion to be had.
This is the trouble with bring a STEM major to a humanities fight. "Male" is routinely used to signify both sex and gender. For instance, see this guide by NPR that says:
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.
Notice that "male" is used for both sex and gender.
If you want to discuss sex, it would be more appropriate to say "biological male" or, better yet, "assigned male at birth". But referring to transgender women as "males" is clearly misgendering. However, do you even care about that? Aren't you – as a scientist and whatnot – in favor of misgendering?
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
But male is a sex, not a gender. How can that be?
You’ve done this before and I’m not sure why you think this is a gotcha question. Most people use male and female (not the only options but definitely the most common possibilities) to refer to both sex and gender. If you’re saying male and female are only for sex, which words do you prefer people use to describe someone’s gender?
I thought the preferred term was transman or transwoman, no?
No one prefers transman or transwoman. Trans man and trans woman are terms people use though. Just like you don't youse Whitewoman or Blackwoman or Prettywoman or Skinnywoman.
So what is the preferred term?
Same thing with two words. Transgender man not transgenderman. Trans woman not transwoman.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion to be had with science-deniers. You are free to believe in unscientific gender nonsense. The rest of us believe in science.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you into this discussion. Feel free not to participate.
Well some of us scientists are trying to explain that calling a transwoman male is not misgendering. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. If you are saying that you will continue disputing the facts during this discussion, then this is indeed an echo chamber and there really isn’t any productive discussion to be had.
This is the trouble with bring a STEM major to a humanities fight. "Male" is routinely used to signify both sex and gender. For instance, see this guide by NPR that says:
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.
Notice that "male" is used for both sex and gender.
If you want to discuss sex, it would be more appropriate to say "biological male" or, better yet, "assigned male at birth". But referring to transgender women as "males" is clearly misgendering. However, do you even care about that? Aren't you – as a scientist and whatnot – in favor of misgendering?
Biological sex is not assigned at birth, it is observed. More made up nonsense ideological terms.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion to be had with science-deniers. You are free to believe in unscientific gender nonsense. The rest of us believe in science.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you into this discussion. Feel free not to participate.
Well some of us scientists are trying to explain that calling a transwoman male is not misgendering. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. If you are saying that you will continue disputing the facts during this discussion, then this is indeed an echo chamber and there really isn’t any productive discussion to be had.
This is the trouble with bring a STEM major to a humanities fight. "Male" is routinely used to signify both sex and gender. For instance, see this guide by NPR that says:
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.
Notice that "male" is used for both sex and gender.
If you want to discuss sex, it would be more appropriate to say "biological male" or, better yet, "assigned male at birth". But referring to transgender women as "males" is clearly misgendering. However, do you even care about that? Aren't you – as a scientist and whatnot – in favor of misgendering?
Biological sex is not assigned at birth, it is observed. More made up nonsense ideological terms.
I am not sure there is any meaningful different between "assigned" and "observed" in this instance. So, fine, have it your way.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion to be had with science-deniers. You are free to believe in unscientific gender nonsense. The rest of us believe in science.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you into this discussion. Feel free not to participate.
Well some of us scientists are trying to explain that calling a transwoman male is not misgendering. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. If you are saying that you will continue disputing the facts during this discussion, then this is indeed an echo chamber and there really isn’t any productive discussion to be had.
This is the trouble with bring a STEM major to a humanities fight. "Male" is routinely used to signify both sex and gender. For instance, see this guide by NPR that says:
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.
Notice that "male" is used for both sex and gender.
If you want to discuss sex, it would be more appropriate to say "biological male" or, better yet, "assigned male at birth". But referring to transgender women as "males" is clearly misgendering. However, do you even care about that? Aren't you – as a scientist and whatnot – in favor of misgendering?
A guide from NPR? We’re talking about established science here. Show me an accepted scientific/medical textbook and then we can talk.
I am not in favor of misgendering - and I’m not sure what gave you that idea. I am in favor of calling a person with XY chromosomes and the corresponding external genitalia (at birth) a male.
If you want to argue that sex and gender are different, why would you use male to both describe gender and sex? And have to invent yet another word when we already have a perfectly acceptable one?
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
These two sentences contradict each other:
"Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex."
Indeed, you yourself claim to have adopted gender norms that are tied to biological males. That is consistent with the first sentence, but not the second.
No they're not. Here is an example to spell it out for you.
Gender Norm: Men (males) work and earn money. Women (females) stay home and care for the house.
This gender norm is NOT "severed" from biological sex. It exists only because of biological sex and evolutionary biology. There is no other reason. "Severing" gender norms from sex means they would cease to exist.
I agree with you on this. Personally I think we should do away with gender completely. Have male and female categories, and if you are female and want to dress like a guy have at it. Male in dresses - wonderful. You don’t need a special name. Just be yourself.
^I’m in this camp, too. Just because you like Barbie’s, the color pink, and dresses doesn’t make you a woman. You are what you are biologically (male or female), and you simply like these things…..or you don’t like those things.
Agreed. Gender should be abolished. Biological sex is what defines us as women.
So you’re gender neutral?
Why are you so insistent on assigning everyone a label?
Just pointing out the striking similarities between PP’s comments and transgenderism.
Cis - when did this become acceptable? I do not use this term and find it offensive.
I find it offensive as well. Nor do I have a gender identity.
LOL. Do you have pronouns?
I have a biological sex. Female. That's it. Adult human females are called women and referred to as she/her. I'm not sure what is funny about not subscribing to supernatural faith based systems. I don't mock people like you who believe in unscientific made up religious nonsense. You should consider showing the same courtesy.
Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations. As a biological female, to you reject all characteristics associated with being a woman (or any other gender for that matter)? This would be an interesting existence.
Like 99.999% of biological females, I reject some traditions, norms, roles, and expectations associated with being a woman and embrace others. I also embrace some male norms, roles and expectations like 99.999% of biological females while rejecting others.
But let's be precise with language. Gender is a social construct that includes traditions, norms, roles, and expectations rooted in biological sex. There is no gender without biological sex. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Sexual characteristics are physical characteristics which are identifiable as part of one's physical, sexed body.
All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female. I have no gender identity, nor do I accept gender identity as valid when it is unobservable and largely consists of harmful sex stereotypes. Gender ideology is just yet another system of male supremacy that harms women.
Interesting. You write that "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender". Then, you also write, "All of my lived experiences and attitudes about I see myself as a woman are rooted in my sex as a biological female.". In other words, your "personal sense" of gender has been influenced by your "lived experiences" as a biological woman. This raises to obvious questions: 1) why do you assume that everyone else's "personal sense" of their gender is similar to yours? and, 2) aren't you saying that you do in fact have a gender identity, though it is one influenced by your lived experience (which is probably true of everyone for what it is worth)?
A further contradiction is your insistence that your view of yourself is rooted in your biological sex as a woman while admitting to embracing "some male norms". In other words, there are gender norms that have been linked to biological males that you have adopted while not being a biological male. That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists.
I googled gender identity to get that definition. Feel free to propose another. But based on how you and everyone else describes gender identity, no, I don't have one. I do have a self esteem and self perception and self awareness which is based on my biological sex. If people want to hold unscientific beliefs that I don't agree with like gender identity or Jesus's salvation, they have a right to do so. But they don't have a right to make be believe in it.
"That suggests that gender norms are mutable, not strictly tied to biological sex, and that individual's have some amount of freedom as to which to adhere. I'm pretty sure that puts you in pretty strong agreement with trans rights activists."
I have no problem acknowledging points of common ground with those I disagree. But let's be clear. Gender norms are mutable and individuals should have complete freedom to adhere or not. However, they not able to severed from biological sex. Gender norms cannot be severed from biological sex, it is literally what defines them. If they want to make the case that gender should be abolished, I agree with that as well.
This reminds me of when my son was little and he got upset that I called him literate after he learned to read. He thought I was name calling, but he just didn't like the way the word sounded. Cisgender isn't a bad name, nor is saying you have a gender identity. It's like saying you're bipedal.
I’m another one who doesn’t like cis, and I wish to not be called that.
I personally object to being called a Homo sapien. I'm a real man and not interested in any of this homo stuff.
A more relevant analogy would be “I personally object to being called a suppressive person, I’m not interested in any of this Scientology stuff” or “I personally object to being called a sinner, I’m not interested in any of this Christianity stuff”
Cis doesn't have negative connotations such those examples so I don't think those are good analogies. For example, cisatlantic is the same side of the Atlantic. Transatlantic is the other side of the Atlantic. There is no implication that one side is better or worse than the other.
But you folks are certainly in good company with that staunch feminist Jordan Peterson:
Lol why do you think we care about Jordan Peterson? Do we post quotes from outrageous trans rights activists to compare your positions to theirs? No, and if we did they would be deleted by you in a heartbeat. I can only imagine how long a wild quote about being female from Grace Lavery or Andrea Long Chu would stay up.
Actually, you folks go well beyond mere quotes and routinely judge all trans people by the most extreme examples. But, your post is quite revealing. I would be glad to disassociate myself from extreme views. You on the other hand, are quite happy to share the same position as Peterson.
You're joking right. Not identifying as "cis", a term which is based on an unscientific belief system which only gained common usage in 2015, is not an extremist viewpoint. Nor have any of the females in this thread threatened violence like Peterson (a male, surprise surprise).
But please, do explain which extremist trans rights views you would disassociate from. No where on this thread has any trans activist been able to step away from extreme viewpoints. I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Very early in this thread I questioned why trans women would want to be accepted at the all-women spa in Washington state. I thought that they would make other spa customers uncomfortable and be made to feel uncomfortable themselves. While I understood the desire of trans people to exert their rights, I think they, like everyone, should pick their battles and that one was not a good choice. I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I also acknowledged the concern of employees and other customers that cis perverts would exploit this as an opportunity to access the spa. One other trans supporter also expressed doubts that going after the spa was a good idea.
Beyond that, frankly I don't pay much attention to trans activists so I don't know what type of extreme things they say or do. I mostly hear about them from anti-trans people. But, for instance, I have no problem criticizing the trans women who bared her breasts at the White House.
Alright. Regarding the Washington Spa case, your point was the trans woman "made a bad choice". While you 'acknowledged' the concerns of staff regarding their safety, you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa massage business that excludes biological males or penis havers. Or did I misunderstand that?
You are speaking from a position of immense privilege to not "know what extreme things they say or do". When females like myself make statements on social media such as "It's not fair for biological women to compete in volleyball against biological men" or "Can a 13 year old really consent to puberty blockers?" we face threatening extreme, misogynistic violence, usually by people who claim to be trans women. We see violent threats demonizing us as TERFs (a slur) and talking in vivid detail about the physical harm they wish to inflict on us. Some people are physically attacked in public for these views as well. 99% of these threats are directed at females (TERFs), not the biological males who are the ones who actually commit heinous acts of physical violence against trans people.
Of course, not all trans people make violent threats and plenty of gender critical men do, just as your Jordan Peterson example perfectly illustrates. But, I NEVER see women making violent threats against transpeople. Of course, you have the luxury of not knowing about all these extremist violent threats. You, a male, have the right the critique the white house flasher. But if I critique males who injure females while playing volleyball, I am a TERF bigot.
Holy moving the goalposts Batman!
You say, "you failed to acknowledge that women have a right to run or patronize a nude spa". The court ruled that no such right exists so I am not sure what right you want me to acknowledge.
"You are speaking from a position of immense privilege" -- Yes, definitely. Privilege with which I was born and inherited and did nothing to earn. But don't you also have significant privilege? Both of us should count our blessings. We are not struggling with our gender identity, alienated within our own bodies, fearful of being cast out from our families, at risk of having our rights impinged by the government, and in danger of violence from bigots. I'm sorry that you have received threats. I receive regular threats to my and my family's safety simply for running this site. Enough that I've had to involve the FBI. So, I can sympathize with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the world is full of crazy people.
Precisely. For years women running nude massage businesses could elect to only massage women. Now they can’t and that is what yourself and trans-activists are fighting for. A woman who massages nude women MUST acknowledge males as women and massage them too. If she chooses not to, then she is denying “that trans people exist” (your phrasing) and is a bigot who hates trans people. This is really the sentiment at the heart of this debate.
I am sorry to hear that you receive threats for running this website but it’s unclear to me how that is related to extremism in the trans rights debate. I think we can agree that it is always wrong when people threaten violence.
Wow, you are a real piece of work. First, you asked for an example of "trans rights views you would disassociate from" and I gave the example of the spa. Then you moved the goalposts and criticized me for not acknowledging a right that a court has ruled does not exist. Now, you claim that I not only wanted the spa decision, but I have all kinds of bad feelings for people who oppose it. Hello, I sided with the spa. Does that mean that I think that I don't think "trans people exist" and that I am a bigot who hates trans people?
Please don't continue to participate in this discussion if you can't do so with a bit more rationality. There are serious posters here with whom I would rather have a discussion and not devote time to loonies.
Let’s be clear about how the conversation about extremism started. You compared women’s statements that they don’t identify as cis to a male activist threatening violence.
I just pointed out that your views regarding the term “cis” are aligned with those of Jordan Peterson. Sorry if facts bother you.
Instead of taking your opinion at face value, should we point out the fact that your views align with violent trans extremists?
That's not arguing in good faith.
You’re the one not arguing in good faith. You asked if a spa should be allowed to refuse service to trans people. He asked allowed by who and you didn’t respond.
What’s obvious here is that you would like political change and the ability to ban trans people from spas and bathooms etc but you’re frustrated with your impotency and so you’re arguing and venting about it on the internet.
DP - I asked Jeff a direct question a few pages back and he never answered.
Which question did you ask me?
I asked you if calling a transwoman male was now considered misgendering.
Yes, that is misgendering.
Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion to be had with science-deniers. You are free to believe in unscientific gender nonsense. The rest of us believe in science.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you into this discussion. Feel free not to participate.
Well some of us scientists are trying to explain that calling a transwoman male is not misgendering. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. If you are saying that you will continue disputing the facts during this discussion, then this is indeed an echo chamber and there really isn’t any productive discussion to be had.
This is the trouble with bring a STEM major to a humanities fight. "Male" is routinely used to signify both sex and gender. For instance, see this guide by NPR that says:
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.
Notice that "male" is used for both sex and gender.
If you want to discuss sex, it would be more appropriate to say "biological male" or, better yet, "assigned male at birth". But referring to transgender women as "males" is clearly misgendering. However, do you even care about that? Aren't you – as a scientist and whatnot – in favor of misgendering?
I'm not this poster, but I'll respond. Gender is made up and unscientific and usually based on harmful and regressive sex stereotypes. So I don't particularly care about misgendering.
You and others are either confusing, mis-using, or appropriating the terms male and female. These are scientific terms. Example: Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
Forum Index
»
Website Feedback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}