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?
Man and woman. That’s what we’re being told to use. Male has a very specific scientific meaning. According to trans activists, man does not. You say you’re a man, you’re a man. If you are trying to say that you cannot call a transwoman male, then there is some literal suspension of disbelief going on here. You are actively trying to rewrite science.
Is Yale School of Medicine scientific enough for you?
You do know, presumably, as a scientist, that one word can have multiple meanings (homographs). I bet that you, as a scientist, have run into words like mole, which has different meanings in medicine, chemistry, and zoology. Some words can even be different parts of speech, like male (noun or adjective), depending on how it’s used. Additionally, some words can have a technical definition when used in a scientific setting, and a less strict, commonly accepted meaning when used in casual conversation among nonscientists. I would think that as a scientist, you’d be used to people using words that you know also have a scientific meaning in a nonscientific conversation, relying on everyone involved to have an understanding of the common context as well as the scientific context.
The reality is that people have been redefining words since around 2016 to meet their transgender agenda.
Everyone knows biological males can’t become biologically female. They desperately want to because they are either mentally ill (gender dysphoria) or have a sexual paraphilia (p0rn addiction or autogyniphilia).
Are you that weirdo who is obsessed with this condition?
We have been redefining words ever since we first invented words.
DP
You can mention a condition and not be obsessed with it.
It’s also not very common in the realm of science to change the meanings of words. Male and female are established scientific classifications. We don’t need to change those words to fit a non scientific idea or belief.
There is a poster here who goes beyond mentioning it. They spend a lot of time
Scientific words, meanings, and classifications change as we learn more. Hysteria, homosexual, dropsy, consumption, giant panda, brontosaurus, Pluto, etc.
What was the old meaning of homosexual? No one uses dropsy, hysteria and consumption anymore. I think these are bad examples.
They are examples of how language/words evolve as we learn more.
Homosexuality used to be defined as mental illness and was actually listed in the DSM.
Categorizing something as a mental illness does not change its definition.
Of course it does.
Is this the same definition today?
“ homosexuality is a mental illness, homosexuals "constitute security risks" to the nation because "those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons."”
“ These theories, usually psychoanalytic in nature, regard expressions of homosexual feelings or behavior at a young age as a normal step toward the development of adult heterosexuality [19,20]. Ideally, homosexuality should just be a passing phase that one outgrows. However, as a “developmental arrest,” adult homosexuality is equated with stunted growth. ”
“ Thus, the modern history of homosexuality usually begins in the mid-19th century, most notably with the writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs [21]. Trained in law, theology, and history, he might be considered an early gay rights advocate who wrote a series of political tracts criticizing German laws criminalizing same sex relationships between men. He hypothesized that some men were born with a woman’s spirit trapped in their bodies and that these men constituted a third sex he named urnings. He also defined a woman who we would today call a lesbian as urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman.”
“ Krafft-Ebing believed that although one might be born with a homosexual predisposition, such inclinations should be considered a congenital disease.”
“ “Should Homosexuality be in the APA Nomenclature?” [56]. The Nomenclature Committee, APA’s scientific body addressing this issue also wrestled with the question of what constitutes a mental disorder. ”
You can eye roll as much as you want but you are incorrect. Homosexuality is the attraction of someone of the same sex. Doesn’t matter what causes it, or what you attribute it to, the basic definition of the same. It’s like saying attributing cancer to genetic or environmental issues changes its meaning. It does not. Cancer is an abnormal proliferation of cells. Doesn’t matter what it is classified as, it doesn’t matter what causes it – the basic definition will always be the same.
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?
Man and woman. That’s what we’re being told to use. Male has a very specific scientific meaning. According to trans activists, man does not. You say you’re a man, you’re a man. If you are trying to say that you cannot call a transwoman male, then there is some literal suspension of disbelief going on here. You are actively trying to rewrite science.
Is Yale School of Medicine scientific enough for you?
You do know, presumably, as a scientist, that one word can have multiple meanings (homographs). I bet that you, as a scientist, have run into words like mole, which has different meanings in medicine, chemistry, and zoology. Some words can even be different parts of speech, like male (noun or adjective), depending on how it’s used. Additionally, some words can have a technical definition when used in a scientific setting, and a less strict, commonly accepted meaning when used in casual conversation among nonscientists. I would think that as a scientist, you’d be used to people using words that you know also have a scientific meaning in a nonscientific conversation, relying on everyone involved to have an understanding of the common context as well as the scientific context.
The reality is that people have been redefining words since around 2016 to meet their transgender agenda.
Everyone knows biological males can’t become biologically female. They desperately want to because they are either mentally ill (gender dysphoria) or have a sexual paraphilia (p0rn addiction or autogyniphilia).
Are you that weirdo who is obsessed with this condition?
We have been redefining words ever since we first invented words.
DP
You can mention a condition and not be obsessed with it.
It’s also not very common in the realm of science to change the meanings of words. Male and female are established scientific classifications. We don’t need to change those words to fit a non scientific idea or belief.
There is a poster here who goes beyond mentioning it. They spend a lot of time
Scientific words, meanings, and classifications change as we learn more. Hysteria, homosexual, dropsy, consumption, giant panda, brontosaurus, Pluto, etc.
What was the old meaning of homosexual? No one uses dropsy, hysteria and consumption anymore. I think these are bad examples.
They are examples of how language/words evolve as we learn more.
Homosexuality used to be defined as mental illness and was actually listed in the DSM.
Categorizing something as a mental illness does not change its definition.
Of course it does.
Is this the same definition today?
“ homosexuality is a mental illness, homosexuals "constitute security risks" to the nation because "those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons."”
“ These theories, usually psychoanalytic in nature, regard expressions of homosexual feelings or behavior at a young age as a normal step toward the development of adult heterosexuality [19,20]. Ideally, homosexuality should just be a passing phase that one outgrows. However, as a “developmental arrest,” adult homosexuality is equated with stunted growth. ”
“ Thus, the modern history of homosexuality usually begins in the mid-19th century, most notably with the writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs [21]. Trained in law, theology, and history, he might be considered an early gay rights advocate who wrote a series of political tracts criticizing German laws criminalizing same sex relationships between men. He hypothesized that some men were born with a woman’s spirit trapped in their bodies and that these men constituted a third sex he named urnings. He also defined a woman who we would today call a lesbian as urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman.”
“ Krafft-Ebing believed that although one might be born with a homosexual predisposition, such inclinations should be considered a congenital disease.”
“ “Should Homosexuality be in the APA Nomenclature?” [56]. The Nomenclature Committee, APA’s scientific body addressing this issue also wrestled with the question of what constitutes a mental disorder. ”
You can eye roll as much as you want but you are incorrect. Homosexuality is the attraction of someone of the same sex. Doesn’t matter what causes it, or what you attribute it to, the basic definition of the same. It’s like saying attributing cancer to genetic or environmental issues changes its meaning. It does not. Cancer is an abnormal proliferation of cells. Doesn’t matter what it is classified as, it doesn’t matter what causes it – the basic definition will always be the same.
At the most basic level, ok. But we were discussing scientific classifications and meanings. Being cataloged in DSM is certainly one way of defining it - as a mental disorder. A disease. Immature sexuality. "developmental arrest" "He also defined a woman who we would today call a lesbian as urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman."
Again, scientific words, meanings, and classifications change as we learn more. Science is constantly evolving.
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?
Man and woman. That’s what we’re being told to use. Male has a very specific scientific meaning. According to trans activists, man does not. You say you’re a man, you’re a man. If you are trying to say that you cannot call a transwoman male, then there is some literal suspension of disbelief going on here. You are actively trying to rewrite science.
Is Yale School of Medicine scientific enough for you?
You do know, presumably, as a scientist, that one word can have multiple meanings (homographs). I bet that you, as a scientist, have run into words like mole, which has different meanings in medicine, chemistry, and zoology. Some words can even be different parts of speech, like male (noun or adjective), depending on how it’s used. Additionally, some words can have a technical definition when used in a scientific setting, and a less strict, commonly accepted meaning when used in casual conversation among nonscientists. I would think that as a scientist, you’d be used to people using words that you know also have a scientific meaning in a nonscientific conversation, relying on everyone involved to have an understanding of the common context as well as the scientific context.
The reality is that people have been redefining words since around 2016 to meet their transgender agenda.
Everyone knows biological males can’t become biologically female. They desperately want to because they are either mentally ill (gender dysphoria) or have a sexual paraphilia (p0rn addiction or autogyniphilia).
Are you that weirdo who is obsessed with this condition?
We have been redefining words ever since we first invented words.
DP
You can mention a condition and not be obsessed with it.
It’s also not very common in the realm of science to change the meanings of words. Male and female are established scientific classifications. We don’t need to change those words to fit a non scientific idea or belief.
There is a poster here who goes beyond mentioning it. They spend a lot of time
Scientific words, meanings, and classifications change as we learn more. Hysteria, homosexual, dropsy, consumption, giant panda, brontosaurus, Pluto, etc.
What was the old meaning of homosexual? No one uses dropsy, hysteria and consumption anymore. I think these are bad examples.
They are examples of how language/words evolve as we learn more.
Homosexuality used to be defined as mental illness and was actually listed in the DSM.
Categorizing something as a mental illness does not change its definition.
Of course it does.
Is this the same definition today?
“ homosexuality is a mental illness, homosexuals "constitute security risks" to the nation because "those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons."”
“ These theories, usually psychoanalytic in nature, regard expressions of homosexual feelings or behavior at a young age as a normal step toward the development of adult heterosexuality [19,20]. Ideally, homosexuality should just be a passing phase that one outgrows. However, as a “developmental arrest,” adult homosexuality is equated with stunted growth. ”
“ Thus, the modern history of homosexuality usually begins in the mid-19th century, most notably with the writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs [21]. Trained in law, theology, and history, he might be considered an early gay rights advocate who wrote a series of political tracts criticizing German laws criminalizing same sex relationships between men. He hypothesized that some men were born with a woman’s spirit trapped in their bodies and that these men constituted a third sex he named urnings. He also defined a woman who we would today call a lesbian as urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman.”
“ Krafft-Ebing believed that although one might be born with a homosexual predisposition, such inclinations should be considered a congenital disease.”
“ “Should Homosexuality be in the APA Nomenclature?” [56]. The Nomenclature Committee, APA’s scientific body addressing this issue also wrestled with the question of what constitutes a mental disorder. ”
You can eye roll as much as you want but you are incorrect. Homosexuality is the attraction of someone of the same sex. Doesn’t matter what causes it, or what you attribute it to, the basic definition of the same. It’s like saying attributing cancer to genetic or environmental issues changes its meaning. It does not. Cancer is an abnormal proliferation of cells. Doesn’t matter what it is classified as, it doesn’t matter what causes it – the basic definition will always be the same.
At the most basic level, ok. But we were discussing scientific classifications and meanings. Being cataloged in DSM is certainly one way of defining it - as a mental disorder. A disease. Immature sexuality. "developmental arrest" "He also defined a woman who we would today call a lesbian as urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman."
Again, scientific words, meanings, and classifications change as we learn more. Science is constantly evolving.
Well luckily there’s nothing scientific about gender so I’m feeling pretty confident the meaning of male and female isn’t changing anytime soon.
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?
Man and woman. That’s what we’re being told to use. Male has a very specific scientific meaning. According to trans activists, man does not. You say you’re a man, you’re a man. If you are trying to say that you cannot call a transwoman male, then there is some literal suspension of disbelief going on here. You are actively trying to rewrite science.
Is Yale School of Medicine scientific enough for you?
You do know, presumably, as a scientist, that one word can have multiple meanings (homographs). I bet that you, as a scientist, have run into words like mole, which has different meanings in medicine, chemistry, and zoology. Some words can even be different parts of speech, like male (noun or adjective), depending on how it’s used. Additionally, some words can have a technical definition when used in a scientific setting, and a less strict, commonly accepted meaning when used in casual conversation among nonscientists. I would think that as a scientist, you’d be used to people using words that you know also have a scientific meaning in a nonscientific conversation, relying on everyone involved to have an understanding of the common context as well as the scientific context.
The reality is that people have been redefining words since around 2016 to meet their transgender agenda.
Everyone knows biological males can’t become biologically female. They desperately want to because they are either mentally ill (gender dysphoria) or have a sexual paraphilia (p0rn addiction or autogyniphilia).
Are you that weirdo who is obsessed with this condition?
We have been redefining words ever since we first invented words.
DP
You can mention a condition and not be obsessed with it.
It’s also not very common in the realm of science to change the meanings of words. Male and female are established scientific classifications. We don’t need to change those words to fit a non scientific idea or belief.
There is a poster here who goes beyond mentioning it. They spend a lot of time
Scientific words, meanings, and classifications change as we learn more. Hysteria, homosexual, dropsy, consumption, giant panda, brontosaurus, Pluto, etc.
What was the old meaning of homosexual? No one uses dropsy, hysteria and consumption anymore. I think these are bad examples.
They are examples of how language/words evolve as we learn more.
Homosexuality used to be defined as mental illness and was actually listed in the DSM.
Categorizing something as a mental illness does not change its definition.
Of course it does.
Is this the same definition today?
“ homosexuality is a mental illness, homosexuals "constitute security risks" to the nation because "those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons."”
“ These theories, usually psychoanalytic in nature, regard expressions of homosexual feelings or behavior at a young age as a normal step toward the development of adult heterosexuality [19,20]. Ideally, homosexuality should just be a passing phase that one outgrows. However, as a “developmental arrest,” adult homosexuality is equated with stunted growth. ”
“ Thus, the modern history of homosexuality usually begins in the mid-19th century, most notably with the writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs [21]. Trained in law, theology, and history, he might be considered an early gay rights advocate who wrote a series of political tracts criticizing German laws criminalizing same sex relationships between men. He hypothesized that some men were born with a woman’s spirit trapped in their bodies and that these men constituted a third sex he named urnings. He also defined a woman who we would today call a lesbian as urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman.”
“ Krafft-Ebing believed that although one might be born with a homosexual predisposition, such inclinations should be considered a congenital disease.”
“ “Should Homosexuality be in the APA Nomenclature?” [56]. The Nomenclature Committee, APA’s scientific body addressing this issue also wrestled with the question of what constitutes a mental disorder. ”
You can eye roll as much as you want but you are incorrect. Homosexuality is the attraction of someone of the same sex. Doesn’t matter what causes it, or what you attribute it to, the basic definition of the same. It’s like saying attributing cancer to genetic or environmental issues changes its meaning. It does not. Cancer is an abnormal proliferation of cells. Doesn’t matter what it is classified as, it doesn’t matter what causes it – the basic definition will always be the same.
At the most basic level, ok. But we were discussing scientific classifications and meanings. Being cataloged in DSM is certainly one way of defining it - as a mental disorder. A disease. Immature sexuality. "developmental arrest" "He also defined a woman who we would today call a lesbian as urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman."
Again, scientific words, meanings, and classifications change as we learn more. Science is constantly evolving.
Well luckily [b]there’s nothing scientific about gender [google]so I’m feeling pretty confident the meaning of male and female isn’t changing anytime soon.
There are possibly markers in the brain. Science is constantly learning more.
Is everyone down with transwomen breastfeeding (whatever they produce from the medications they take, at least) infants? Was surprised that didn’t merit more discussion here.
Anonymous wrote:Is everyone down with transwomen breastfeeding (whatever they produce from the medications they take, at least) infants? Was surprised that didn’t merit more discussion here.
Transgender women can produce milk?
Sounds like a discussion they should have with their doctor. MYOB. Mind your own boobs.
Anonymous wrote:Is everyone down with transwomen breastfeeding (whatever they produce from the medications they take, at least) infants? Was surprised that didn’t merit more discussion here.
Why would anyone ever care if a trans woman breastfeeds? Is it somehow hurting someone?
Anonymous wrote:Is everyone down with transwomen breastfeeding (whatever they produce from the medications they take, at least) infants? Was surprised that didn’t merit more discussion here.
Why would anyone ever care if a trans woman breastfeeds? Is it somehow hurting someone?
Anonymous wrote:Is everyone down with transwomen breastfeeding (whatever they produce from the medications they take, at least) infants? Was surprised that didn’t merit more discussion here.
Transgender women can produce milk?
Sounds like a discussion they should have with their doctor. MYOB. Mind your own boobs.
Anonymous wrote:Is everyone down with transwomen breastfeeding (whatever they produce from the medications they take, at least) infants? Was surprised that didn’t merit more discussion here.
Why would anyone ever care if a trans woman breastfeeds? Is it somehow hurting someone?
Um, the baby?
How do babies breastfed from a transgender woman? Is it via a feeding tube?
Anonymous wrote:Is everyone down with transwomen breastfeeding (whatever they produce from the medications they take, at least) infants? Was surprised that didn’t merit more discussion here.
Why would anyone ever care if a trans woman breastfeeds? Is it somehow hurting someone?
Um, the baby?
How do babies breastfed from a transgender woman? Is it via a feeding tube?
Or do transgender women actually lactate?
They take a drug. Also it’s more about bonding with the baby than nutrients.
Anonymous wrote:Is everyone down with transwomen breastfeeding (whatever they produce from the medications they take, at least) infants? Was surprised that didn’t merit more discussion here.
Transgender women can produce milk?
Sounds like a discussion they should have with their doctor. MYOB. Mind your own boobs.
Anonymous wrote:Is everyone down with transwomen breastfeeding (whatever they produce from the medications they take, at least) infants? Was surprised that didn’t merit more discussion here.
Why would anyone ever care if a trans woman breastfeeds? Is it somehow hurting someone?
Um, the baby?
How do babies breastfed from a transgender woman? Is it via a feeding tube?
Or do transgender women actually lactate?
They take multiple drugs including anti-psychotics to induce lactation.
Anonymous wrote:Is everyone down with transwomen breastfeeding (whatever they produce from the medications they take, at least) infants? Was surprised that didn’t merit more discussion here.
Transgender women can produce milk?
Sounds like a discussion they should have with their doctor. MYOB. Mind your own boobs.
(Don’t know who that tweet is from, but I’ve found it many other places.)
Win-win!
Breastfeeding releases oxytocin, which is a helluva hormone. I also described it as euphoric.
-cisgender woman
Into nipple clamps as well? And when you fed your baby, we’re you down with using medication that causes heart murmurs in infants? Different strokes, I guess.
Forum Index
»
Website Feedback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
