Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems like we both can agree that gender roles came from biological sex and gender is mutable. And thankfully men are not forced to hunt tigers while women raise children in cave and that is a good thing! Your position is that gender roles are now entirely severed from sex? OK, in that case I would like to learn more. What is gender to you exactly? Every definition I can find references back to it's association to sex.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

No. And I think you know that at heart.

I consider myself someone whose primary issue is the safety and progress of women (that also means I am very pro gun control, for instance). For millennia, women have faced extreme violence, almost always at the hands of men, specifically because women bear children and on average they are physically weaker. The stats on violence are overwhelmingly male; violence in our society as a whole is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who have or start life with penises.

You can’t just erase that history of violence and oppression based on sex-based characteristics because a small percentage of the population identifies as trans. That seems to be the position of trans advocates (and perhaps yours), but it is wishful thinking at best. And this is shown in the limited stats on criminality of transwomen that we have: transwomen retain male criminality profiles, not female, even after transition.

I think trans people deserve to be safe. But it is critical to make them safe in a way that does not increase the risks to women, and that’s not happening now. Women who raise issues of safety in fact often face violence for doing so: they are doxxed, they get violent rape and death threats, they are physically attacked, often now on video. This is, of course, exactly in line with the history of feminism. Women fighting for the safety of women and children have always faced extreme violence from angry men. It is literally a characteristic of the history of feminism.

Are you saying that trans women are attacking cis women in bathrooms or that you’re afraid of trans women in bathrooms? Like what, sexually assaulted? With an estrogenized penis?

Two teens in Loudoun County schools say yes.

I was going to simply delete this but I'll respond one time and hopefully we can dispense with this. No party involved was trans. The couple had previously met in the bathroom for heterosexual sex. They were meeting again for the same purpose when the girl changed her mind. The second assault didn't involve bathrooms at all. Please stop exploiting this incident to inflame transphobia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not denying their existence. But definitely don’t think transwomen should be competing against biological women.

Do you think transgenderism is mental illness?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When someone wants to be the other sex, what are they looking for? When a woman wants to be a man, is it because they feel uncomfortable at puberty and don’t like having breasts due to unwanted male attention? They hate getting a period? Is it because they will have more power as a man?
On the flip side, why do men want to become women? Is it because society values strength, athleticism and confidence in men and if you are lacking in these traits, then you feel yiu aren’t a man? Is it because you enjoy fashion, makeup etc?
I am convinced that the pressure and expectations from society cause our youth to feel they don’t fit. I remember when I went thru early puberty I hated my chest. I got a lot of attention and it made me embarrassed. I was also a tomboy and wonder if I was born today, if I would have chosen to present as a male to take advantages of the benefits of being a male.

No, it’s because of gender dysphoria. You can’t use yourself as an awkward cisgender child as a baseline for transgender people. You can try to relate to trans people but you aren’t trans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is being proposed in many posts is to ban transgender women from women's bathrooms in order to prevent cisgender men from pretending to be transgender women and entering bathrooms. It's pretty far feteched and to be honest with you, really is just saying that they don't want non-passing trans women in the bathroom because they think they can always tell who is trans. They can't. They think the pictures posted earlier of the trans men are some 1 in 1000 exceptions to the rule. After four or five years of hormones, a great many people eventually pass. Maybe not as many on close inspection looking for specific features to read but people don't do that in the bathroom. They would be the weird ones if they're staring at other women in the bathroom trying to figure out if they're trans (and at least 99.4% of the time they would just be cis anyway).

Here's the other thing that most people don't know or acknowledge (and while this isn't universally true since nothing in this world is), it's pretty common for trans women to continue to present as a man until hormones change them enough that it becomes difficult to live that way. Most trans women are extremely worried about making cis women uncomfortable in bathrooms and other spaces. They have a term for when a trans woman continues to present as a man but eventually cannot pass as one any longer - "Male fail". Some younger people that are 18 or 20 can have this happen in 3-6 months. Older transitioners might not happen until several years in or never (more time for testosterone to masculine the face). But many trans women eventually cannot pass as men. Many trans men cannot pass as women. It's not some rare occurrence. If people think it's rare to pass, it's because they are basing their opinion of what trans people look like on stereotypes or early transitioners (or cis crossdressers and drag queens).

Why, specifically, do you think it is far-fetched? Can you give me an example, in the entire history of the world, of male predators collectively not taking advantage of any enhanced access they can get to women for their predation? We know from prior research and from women’s lived experiences that single-sexed places enhance women’s safety. Why is that suddenly deemed to be irrelevant and untrue, or “far-fetched” as you say?

Also, I keep seeing this framing of the issue as cis male predators pretending to be trans. But that’s not the issue — the cis male predators don’t even need to pretend, and of course the transwomen predators (who, as noted, retain male criminality patterns) don’t need to pretend either. In other words, the “pretending” scenario is a red herring. In a world where anyone can access previously single-sexed spaces, a putative predator doesn’t need to pretend anything, because they can’t be challenged. These laws remove a tool in the very limited toolbox women have traditionally had to preserve their physical safety, because you cannot challenge a predator in a previously single-sex space. Prior to days of self-ID, women could have predatory people removed from their single-sex places. But no business will risk the backlash now.

I don’t even think bans are the answer, by the way, because they have their own issues. But I think it is appalling how slanted towards traditionally male privilege these discussions are. These laws have caused and will cause women to be hurt. It should be okay to talk about that and acknowledge the risks and harms, and who is paying what price for them. But even just mentioning that, just talking about it, causes women to be subject to horrific violence and threats. The women who talk publicly about the cost to women of the removal of single-sex spaces have paid an enormous price. That alone is telling.

I will be offline for awhile so any response for awhile is not going to be me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

No. And I think you know that at heart.

I consider myself someone whose primary issue is the safety and progress of women (that also means I am very pro gun control, for instance). For millennia, women have faced extreme violence, almost always at the hands of men, specifically because women bear children and on average they are physically weaker. The stats on violence are overwhelmingly male; violence in our society as a whole is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who have or start life with penises.

You can’t just erase that history of violence and oppression based on sex-based characteristics because a small percentage of the population identifies as trans. That seems to be the position of trans advocates (and perhaps yours), but it is wishful thinking at best. And this is shown in the limited stats on criminality of transwomen that we have: transwomen retain male criminality profiles, not female, even after transition.

I think trans people deserve to be safe. But it is critical to make them safe in a way that does not increase the risks to women, and that’s not happening now. Women who raise issues of safety in fact often face violence for doing so: they are doxxed, they get violent rape and death threats, they are physically attacked, often now on video. This is, of course, exactly in line with the history of feminism. Women fighting for the safety of women and children have always faced extreme violence from angry men. It is literally a characteristic of the history of feminism.

Are you saying that trans women are attacking cis women in bathrooms or that you’re afraid of trans women in bathrooms? Like what, sexually assaulted? With an estrogenized penis?

I was talking about more than bathrooms. But with respect to bathrooms, the issue is more complicated that you describe. It isn’t transwomen attacking ciswomen. It is male-sexed predators in general using self-ID laws to get access to places they couldn’t access before. Some of those predators will be trans, some will be cis, but what they share at heart are historically male violence patterns towards women.

Also, whenever people (usually trans activists) claim that estrogenized penises can’t cause sexual assault, I know without a doubt that they are not female. Sexual assault is a crime of power and violence. The penis is a tool; if it can’t be used, something else will be used. Women over the millennia have been raped and assaulted by men using many, many other means. Transwomen taking estrogen retain male violence patterns in any event; estrogen doesn’t seem to stop anything.

It is not at all true that all transwomen are sexual predators, and I want to make that clear. Neither are all men. But SOME men are, and SOME transwomen are, and they will use (and already have used) increased access for predation. But since many places are elevating the self-ID of transwomen over the safety of women, women who even talk about the risks of expanded access face extreme violence themselves.

Which specific self ID laws are you talking about in the DMV that resulted in cis men attacking women in bathrooms? Is this something you’re scared of or something that’s happened in let’s say, MD?

Research shows that assaults of females by males are less prevalent in single sex spaces than coed spaces. Right now, bathrooms remain mostly sex segregated. When males have full access to women’s spaces, we can expect the rates of violence against women to rise to those of coed spaces.

Why pit women against other women when the real culprit here is men?

Feminists should look for ways to protect all women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not denying their existence. But definitely don’t think transwomen should be competing against biological women.

Do you think transgenderism is mental illness?

I am not the PP, but I'll respond. I think transgenderism is most aptly comparable to a faith or spiritual belief system, not a mental illness. A faith-based belief system founded on the unscientific idea that a person’s sex is subjective, changeable, and/or defined by one’s inner thoughts and feelings.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

It is pretty interesting reading the last ten pages of this thread. There is (most likely) one poster who uses the same rhetorical method inflaming people over and over. They use the "so what you're saying is" strawman formulation in short, burst-type sentences, accusing "you" of something "you" didn't say, and then usually name calling. My guess is they've done 50% of the posts. Then there seem to be a few very smart people who continue to calmly take the strawman arguments down, without name calling. I think this is why Jeff has left this one up (which is odd--this would usually be blown away by now.)

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd also be interested in hearing about this. Can anyone share their thoughts?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

No. And I think you know that at heart.

I consider myself someone whose primary issue is the safety and progress of women (that also means I am very pro gun control, for instance). For millennia, women have faced extreme violence, almost always at the hands of men, specifically because women bear children and on average they are physically weaker. The stats on violence are overwhelmingly male; violence in our society as a whole is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who have or start life with penises.

You can’t just erase that history of violence and oppression based on sex-based characteristics because a small percentage of the population identifies as trans. That seems to be the position of trans advocates (and perhaps yours), but it is wishful thinking at best. And this is shown in the limited stats on criminality of transwomen that we have: transwomen retain male criminality profiles, not female, even after transition.

I think trans people deserve to be safe. But it is critical to make them safe in a way that does not increase the risks to women, and that’s not happening now. Women who raise issues of safety in fact often face violence for doing so: they are doxxed, they get violent rape and death threats, they are physically attacked, often now on video. This is, of course, exactly in line with the history of feminism. Women fighting for the safety of women and children have always faced extreme violence from angry men. It is literally a characteristic of the history of feminism.

Are you saying that trans women are attacking cis women in bathrooms or that you’re afraid of trans women in bathrooms? Like what, sexually assaulted? With an estrogenized penis?

Two teens in Loudoun County schools say yes.

I was going to simply delete this but I'll respond one time and hopefully we can dispense with this. No party involved was trans. The couple had previously met in the bathroom for heterosexual sex. They were meeting again for the same purpose when the girl changed her mind. The second assault didn't involve bathrooms at all. Please stop exploiting this incident to inflame transphobia.

NP. Are you saying it wasn’t rape because she changed her mind and he didn’t have to accept that due to previous sexual encounters? You seem to be saying that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself when you say that sex and gender are separate but then call female a gender.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

No. And I think you know that at heart.

I consider myself someone whose primary issue is the safety and progress of women (that also means I am very pro gun control, for instance). For millennia, women have faced extreme violence, almost always at the hands of men, specifically because women bear children and on average they are physically weaker. The stats on violence are overwhelmingly male; violence in our society as a whole is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who have or start life with penises.

You can’t just erase that history of violence and oppression based on sex-based characteristics because a small percentage of the population identifies as trans. That seems to be the position of trans advocates (and perhaps yours), but it is wishful thinking at best. And this is shown in the limited stats on criminality of transwomen that we have: transwomen retain male criminality profiles, not female, even after transition.

I think trans people deserve to be safe. But it is critical to make them safe in a way that does not increase the risks to women, and that’s not happening now. Women who raise issues of safety in fact often face violence for doing so: they are doxxed, they get violent rape and death threats, they are physically attacked, often now on video. This is, of course, exactly in line with the history of feminism. Women fighting for the safety of women and children have always faced extreme violence from angry men. It is literally a characteristic of the history of feminism.

Are you saying that trans women are attacking cis women in bathrooms or that you’re afraid of trans women in bathrooms? Like what, sexually assaulted? With an estrogenized penis?

Two teens in Loudoun County schools say yes.

I was going to simply delete this but I'll respond one time and hopefully we can dispense with this. No party involved was trans. The couple had previously met in the bathroom for heterosexual sex. They were meeting again for the same purpose when the girl changed her mind. The second assault didn't involve bathrooms at all. Please stop exploiting this incident to inflame transphobia.

NP. Are you saying it wasn’t rape because she changed her mind and he didn’t have to accept that due to previous sexual encounters? You seem to be saying that.

No, I am saying that this was not something that involved a trans person. It is not a case of a trans women entering a women's space. It is not a case of a male exploiting trans-inclusive policies to gain access to women's space. It is a case of two teenagers meeting to have sex and then the incident turning into rape. It is similar to any number of other incidents in which consensual encounters turned into non-consensual rape. But, it has nothing to do with trans people and is not relevant to this discussion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself when you say that sex and gender are separate but then call female a gender.

Just careless writing. But, score one for you.