Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't figure out why some of you care so much how others describe themselves.

If this did not have an impact on society as a whole, most reasonable people would not care. However, the truth matters and if you are going to make (in my opinion) radical claims like gender and sex are distinct and the former is totally subjective it seems to me you should be called to explain it. The baseless mantra of “trans women are women” is what brings me pause and I suspect others who are far more liberal than I.

What is the actual impact on society?

To name a few:
Dismantling of sex-based protections for females
Preservation of the ability of women to create and maintain female only spaces
Irreversible damage to children
Failure to acknowledge the global epidemic of male violence
Science denialism
Freedom of religion

What are the actual, real world impacts for “protections” and “spaces”?

One of example of many is below.
This also applies to prisons, as you know.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/06/women-only-naked-spa-lacks-constitutional-right-to-exclude-transgender-patrons-with-pensises/

“Failure to acknowledge the global epidemic of male violence”? Really?
Gender activists are fighting to prevent the dissemination of statistics related male rapists in female prisons
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/washington-aclu-male-rapists-confirmed

No one denying science.
Actually, gender activists are arguing in court proceedings that humans are not sexually dimorphic and males and females do not exist
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

And what do you mean by “freedom of religion”?

The first amendment grants us Free exercise of religion. Bills which allow male prisoners to be housed with females violates religious women whose faith requires sex-separation to freely exercise their religion. The first amendment also establishes no establishment of a state religion. Laws which codify gender identity imposes a belief system defined by one’s inner thoughts and feelings, thus establishing a government-sanctioned religious doctrine that is not based in material reality.

I was just about to respond in good faith when I read this. Seems like I'd be wasting my time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1

I’m not defined by my ability to menstruate or reproduce.

So what does make you a woman, in your experience?

It's my sense of self. While I don't follow many gender norms, I tend to identify more with being a woman than not being a woman.

How do you identify with being a woman? What is that?

A feeling? It's no one specific thing.

Can you explain the feeling? Because it is obviously a feeling that differentiated you from a man.

I've never felt like a man so I'm not sure how different it would be.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would this change the fact that I find it offensive to be referred to as a "person who menstruates instead of as a woman?" It's not a faux concern to point out offensive language.

The point we are discussing with regard to language is the need for accuracy and comprehension. In the normal course of life, there is little reason to refer to you specifically any other way than as a woman if that is your preference. But, if for some reason someone needed to refer to anyone capable of menstruation, simply saying "women" would include many females who are either too young or too old and leave out trans women who do menstruate. So, referring to "people who menstruate" is actually more accurate.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1

I’m not defined by my ability to menstruate or reproduce.

So what does make you a woman, in your experience?

It's my sense of self. While I don't follow many gender norms, I tend to identify more with being a woman than not being a woman.

How do you identify with being a woman? What is that?

A feeling? It's no one specific thing.

Can you explain the feeling? Because it is obviously a feeling that differentiated you from a man.

I've never felt like a man so I'm not sure how different it would be.

Then how do you know you don’t feel like a man? If you don’t know what that feels like and you can even explain what you feel like?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would this change the fact that I find it offensive to be referred to as a "person who menstruates instead of as a woman?" It's not a faux concern to point out offensive language.

The point we are discussing with regard to language is the need for accuracy and comprehension. In the normal course of life, there is little reason to refer to you specifically any other way than as a woman if that is your preference. But, if for some reason someone needed to refer to anyone capable of menstruation, simply saying "women" would include many females who are either too young or too old and leave out trans women who do menstruate. So, referring to "people who menstruate" is actually more accurate.

Women have never been confused by such language in the past, but apparently lots of people are now concerned about accurately profiling those formerly known as women according to their specific reproductive and anatomical characteristics, as well as where they are in their reproductive life cycle. Do you also refer to abortion as a "fertile uterus-havers of reproductive ages" rights issue? There is a lot of faux concern going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't figure out why some of you care so much how others describe themselves.

If this did not have an impact on society as a whole, most reasonable people would not care. However, the truth matters and if you are going to make (in my opinion) radical claims like gender and sex are distinct and the former is totally subjective it seems to me you should be called to explain it. The baseless mantra of “trans women are women” is what brings me pause and I suspect others who are far more liberal than I.

What is the actual impact on society?

To name a few:
Dismantling of sex-based protections for females
Preservation of the ability of women to create and maintain female only spaces
Irreversible damage to children
Failure to acknowledge the global epidemic of male violence
Science denialism
Freedom of religion

What are the actual, real world impacts for “protections” and “spaces”?

One of example of many is below.
This also applies to prisons, as you know.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/06/women-only-naked-spa-lacks-constitutional-right-to-exclude-transgender-patrons-with-pensises/

“Failure to acknowledge the global epidemic of male violence”? Really?
Gender activists are fighting to prevent the dissemination of statistics related male rapists in female prisons
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/washington-aclu-male-rapists-confirmed

No one denying science.
Actually, gender activists are arguing in court proceedings that humans are not sexually dimorphic and males and females do not exist
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

And what do you mean by “freedom of religion”?

The first amendment grants us Free exercise of religion. Bills which allow male prisoners to be housed with females violates religious women whose faith requires sex-separation to freely exercise their religion. The first amendment also establishes no establishment of a state religion. Laws which codify gender identity imposes a belief system defined by one’s inner thoughts and feelings, thus establishing a government-sanctioned religious doctrine that is not based in material reality.

I was just about to respond in good faith when I read this. Seems like I'd be wasting my time.

Ok. Please explain the difference between gender identity and other faith based doctrines which are not based on science or material reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1

I’m not defined by my ability to menstruate or reproduce.

So what does make you a woman, in your experience?

It's my sense of self. While I don't follow many gender norms, I tend to identify more with being a woman than not being a woman.

Please give one specific example.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would this change the fact that I find it offensive to be referred to as a "person who menstruates instead of as a woman?" It's not a faux concern to point out offensive language.

The point we are discussing with regard to language is the need for accuracy and comprehension. In the normal course of life, there is little reason to refer to you specifically any other way than as a woman if that is your preference. But, if for some reason someone needed to refer to anyone capable of menstruation, simply saying "women" would include many females who are either too young or too old and leave out trans women who do menstruate. So, referring to "people who menstruate" is actually more accurate.

Trans women do not menstruate. You seem to be a bit confused.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would this change the fact that I find it offensive to be referred to as a "person who menstruates instead of as a woman?" It's not a faux concern to point out offensive language.

The point we are discussing with regard to language is the need for accuracy and comprehension. In the normal course of life, there is little reason to refer to you specifically any other way than as a woman if that is your preference. But, if for some reason someone needed to refer to anyone capable of menstruation, simply saying "women" would include many females who are either too young or too old and leave out trans women who do menstruate. So, referring to "people who menstruate" is actually more accurate.

Women have never been confused by such language in the past, but apparently lots of people are now concerned about accurately profiling those formerly known as women according to their specific reproductive and anatomical characteristics, as well as where they are in their reproductive life cycle. Do you also refer to abortion as a "fertile uterus-havers of reproductive ages" rights issue? There is a lot of faux concern going on.

Obviously, I only refer to abortions in the Supreme Court-sanctioned language as hindrances to the supply of domestic infants.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would this change the fact that I find it offensive to be referred to as a "person who menstruates instead of as a woman?" It's not a faux concern to point out offensive language.

The point we are discussing with regard to language is the need for accuracy and comprehension. In the normal course of life, there is little reason to refer to you specifically any other way than as a woman if that is your preference. But, if for some reason someone needed to refer to anyone capable of menstruation, simply saying "women" would include many females who are either too young or too old and leave out trans women who do menstruate. So, referring to "people who menstruate" is actually more accurate.

Trans women do not menstruate. You seem to be a bit confused.

Correct. Another case of my typing fingers working faster than my brain. I obviously meant trans men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't figure out why some of you care so much how others describe themselves.

If this did not have an impact on society as a whole, most reasonable people would not care. However, the truth matters and if you are going to make (in my opinion) radical claims like gender and sex are distinct and the former is totally subjective it seems to me you should be called to explain it. The baseless mantra of “trans women are women” is what brings me pause and I suspect others who are far more liberal than I.

What is the actual impact on society?

You must be new to this thread but here are just a few: putting bigger, faster biological males on the field of play in contact sports with biological women, placing biological males in restrooms reserved for biological females, putting children on puberty blocking medications and giving them surgeries that permanently alter their bodies when their brains have not fully formed - I could go on and on and on. Again, I think it comes down to what the moderator said earlier - if you don’t agree on the gender/sex relationship to each other, is really moot to discuss.

But what are the actual impacts to society?

So some small % of sports teams might have transgender athletes?

Bathrooms - unless you’re snooping in stalls there is no difference.

The benefits for puberty blockers outweigh the potential risks. That’s a family’s decision to make and only impacts that family.

I cannot wait until a bunch of male golfers (think guys ranked below 900 in the world rankings) figure out how much money can be made on the various women’s professional tours and utterly dominate. It will happen. Small percentage of athletes are trans now, but anytime money can be made - and I am talking about millions of dollars - say goodbye to women's golf (and tennis too - Serena Williams herself said she would be destroyed in straight sets if playing a male professional). If you scoff at this, I am guessing you never worked and trained hard to be a female athlete. Maria Navratilova is on record as being firmly against biological men in women’s sports - especially tennis.

#1 - highly unlikely that people will become transgender solely for sports.
#2 - if many do, the various sports leagues will adjust their transition requirements.

Billie Jean King thinks we should have more gender integration in sports to lower the discrepancy between women & men sports. And she has a little experience playing against a man.
https://msmagazine.com/2023/03/22/gender-integration-sports-women-male-dominance-trans/

And Caitlyn Jenner is adamantly against biological men in women’s sports. You really think it is a good idea to integrate women sports with biological men? Floyd Mayweather boxing Tatiyana Ali? LeBron against Britany Greiner? I know a fair amount about golf and I can tell you you’d never see another biological woman win again if men came into the fold. As for the likelihood of it happening - this wild be a quick, easy and legal way to win millions - don’t discount the desire to make a quick buck.

Did you even read what Billie Jean said?

Your golf fantasy is completely baseless.

No it’s not. The article suggests gender integration in the form of a hypothetical golf team which is comprised of 2 males and 2 females. Men will always have more physical power to drive the ball further than women. This is a reality of evolutionary biology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would this change the fact that I find it offensive to be referred to as a "person who menstruates instead of as a woman?" It's not a faux concern to point out offensive language.

The point we are discussing with regard to language is the need for accuracy and comprehension. In the normal course of life, there is little reason to refer to you specifically any other way than as a woman if that is your preference. But, if for some reason someone needed to refer to anyone capable of menstruation, simply saying "women" would include many females who are either too young or too old and leave out trans women who do menstruate. So, referring to "people who menstruate" is actually more accurate.

Women have never been confused by such language in the past, but apparently lots of people are now concerned about accurately profiling those formerly known as women according to their specific reproductive and anatomical characteristics, as well as where they are in their reproductive life cycle. Do you also refer to abortion as a "fertile uterus-havers of reproductive ages" rights issue? There is a lot of faux concern going on.

I believe the most common term would be a “reproductive rights” issue. I prefer that term both because it’s inclusive of transmen and also because it encourages all men (cis and trans) to get behind it rather than them feeling like it isn’t something they should worry about since it only affects women.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would this change the fact that I find it offensive to be referred to as a "person who menstruates instead of as a woman?" It's not a faux concern to point out offensive language.

The point we are discussing with regard to language is the need for accuracy and comprehension. In the normal course of life, there is little reason to refer to you specifically any other way than as a woman if that is your preference. But, if for some reason someone needed to refer to anyone capable of menstruation, simply saying "women" would include many females who are either too young or too old and leave out trans women who do menstruate. So, referring to "people who menstruate" is actually more accurate.

Women have never been confused by such language in the past, but apparently lots of people are now concerned about accurately profiling those formerly known as women according to their specific reproductive and anatomical characteristics, as well as where they are in their reproductive life cycle. Do you also refer to abortion as a "fertile uterus-havers of reproductive ages" rights issue? There is a lot of faux concern going on.

Obviously, I only refer to abortions in the Supreme Court-sanctioned language as hindrances to the supply of domestic infants.

Well I never once doubted that you identify as a man. I just didn't know you identified as a conservative man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't figure out why some of you care so much how others describe themselves.

If this did not have an impact on society as a whole, most reasonable people would not care. However, the truth matters and if you are going to make (in my opinion) radical claims like gender and sex are distinct and the former is totally subjective it seems to me you should be called to explain it. The baseless mantra of “trans women are women” is what brings me pause and I suspect others who are far more liberal than I.

What is the actual impact on society?

You must be new to this thread but here are just a few: putting bigger, faster biological males on the field of play in contact sports with biological women, placing biological males in restrooms reserved for biological females, putting children on puberty blocking medications and giving them surgeries that permanently alter their bodies when their brains have not fully formed - I could go on and on and on. Again, I think it comes down to what the moderator said earlier - if you don’t agree on the gender/sex relationship to each other, is really moot to discuss.

But what are the actual impacts to society?

So some small % of sports teams might have transgender athletes?

Bathrooms - unless you’re snooping in stalls there is no difference.

The benefits for puberty blockers outweigh the potential risks. That’s a family’s decision to make and only impacts that family.

I cannot wait until a bunch of male golfers (think guys ranked below 900 in the world rankings) figure out how much money can be made on the various women’s professional tours and utterly dominate. It will happen. Small percentage of athletes are trans now, but anytime money can be made - and I am talking about millions of dollars - say goodbye to women's golf (and tennis too - Serena Williams herself said she would be destroyed in straight sets if playing a male professional). If you scoff at this, I am guessing you never worked and trained hard to be a female athlete. Maria Navratilova is on record as being firmly against biological men in women’s sports - especially tennis.

#1 - highly unlikely that people will become transgender solely for sports.
#2 - if many do, the various sports leagues will adjust their transition requirements.

Billie Jean King thinks we should have more gender integration in sports to lower the discrepancy between women & men sports. And she has a little experience playing against a man.
https://msmagazine.com/2023/03/22/gender-integration-sports-women-male-dominance-trans/

And Caitlyn Jenner is adamantly against biological men in women’s sports. You really think it is a good idea to integrate women sports with biological men? Floyd Mayweather boxing Tatiyana Ali? LeBron against Britany Greiner? I know a fair amount about golf and I can tell you you’d never see another biological woman win again if men came into the fold. As for the likelihood of it happening - this wild be a quick, easy and legal way to win millions - don’t discount the desire to make a quick buck.

Did you even read what Billie Jean said?

Your golf fantasy is completely baseless.

Yes, never has money been a motivation for individuals to do something dishonorable. Unless you are suggesting women would beat men playing from the same tees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does it mean to you to be a woman?

This is highly personal, so anything that I say about what it means to be a woman might not have anything to do with what it means to you. Plus, gender is a spectrum. So since we are in a conversational context that is more about disagreeing than understanding I don't think it would be worth listing out what it means to me to be a woman. I will say though that I do not feel good when somebody misgenders me. If somebody were to call me "mister" or refer to me as "he" I would correct them. And I have no problem with being called a woman. So just there, psychologically, is one difference between a trans person and me.