Question about the homophobia thread

[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.

Completely agree. I have yet to hear a coherent, scientific explanation as to what makes gender dysphoria any different than other body dysmorphia conditions such as body integrity identity disorder or anorexia. Those conditions originate in the brain because the physical reality is obviously at odds with their perception of themselves. Those with BIID can suffer from years with intense discomfort sometimes going to drastic measures such as self amputation. If it is ethical to allow those with gender dysphoria to transition then should those with BIID be allowed to amputate healthy limbs? How is it any different? Interestingly studies on transgender individuals have shown differences in the part of the brain that deal with body perception and sense of self.

Precisely. People are free to believe in whatever they want, call themselves whatever they want, and modify their body however they want. However, people are not free to force others to hold the same beliefs. The difference with body dysmorphia is that 1) medical regulators do not affirm the dysmorphia and 2) an anorexics starvation does not impact the rights of non-anorexics.

Laws which state that the government can not discriminate on gender identity mean that in effect the government cannot distinguish between women and men based biological sex. And any male can “identify” as a woman and vice versa, based on their feelings. Again, feelings and beliefs about identity are unobservable and unrelated to factual evidence that exists in reality.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

What is the gender spectrum? What are the ends of the spectrum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous 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.

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.

Why would a trans man assume that abortion only affects women? Do you honestly think they would be confused because it has been framed as a women's rights issue, and they now identify as men? Like they don't realize that they have a uterus?

[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 don’t menstruate. Some trans men and non-binary people do. The reason that the people want to call all of these people women is because they consider trans men and NB’s that are AFAB as women.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Believing an opposite sex soul can be trapped in a person's body is a spiritual belief not rooted in science. Other than a feeling they are the opposite sex, what physically or scientifically really makes it a reality?

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Faiths tend to involve supernatural forces.

[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.

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.

What is the gender spectrum? What are the ends of the spectrum?

Wow, if you have to ask that question you need to just scroll wikipedia for a second but I'll do my best.

What do you think of when you think "man" or "masculine?" People who embody all or most of that are on one end of the spectrum. People who embody all or most of what you think of "woman" or "feminine" are on the other. Most of us are close enough to one end or the other to feel comfortable identifying as a man or a woman. You can obviously still have a lot of "feminine" traits and feel comfortable being a man, and vice versa, but generally those labels work for you if you are cis. Maybe .5% of people just don't feel comfortable with either. Some people assigned one gender at birth do NOT feel comfortable with that gender and need to transition to the other side of the spectrum.

[Anonymous]

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.

Nope. For millennia, the terms men and women have referred to biological sex, aka males and females. However, recently gender activists have attempted to change the definition of men and women to refer not to biological males and females, but gender identity, which is a belief based on their feelings.

So you are being disingenuous. While no one has said that you can’t say woman, what they are saying is that the meaning of the word woman has changed from a reference to observable human characteristics of a sexually dimorphic species, to a reference to individuals personal feelings and beliefs.

[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.

Trans women don’t menstruate. Some trans men and non-binary people do. The reason that the people want to call all of these people women is because they consider trans men and NB’s that are AFAB as women.

A lot of the confusion could be eliminated by the use of the terms male and female, since reproductive organs and functions are sex-specific. Then however you identify (man, woman, non-binary, whatever) is still included. It's win-win.

[Anonymous]

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.

Nope. For millennia, the terms men and women have referred to biological sex, aka males and females. However, recently gender activists have attempted to change the definition of men and women to refer not to biological males and females, but gender identity, which is a belief based on their feelings.

So you are being disingenuous. While no one has said that you can’t say woman, what they are saying is that the meaning of the word woman has changed from a reference to observable human characteristics of a sexually dimorphic species, to a reference to individuals personal feelings and beliefs.

Not only that, these feelings and beliefs apparently cannot be explained or quantified. Up to this point no one has been able to explain what identifying as a woman actually means.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

What is the gender spectrum? What are the ends of the spectrum?

Wow, if you have to ask that question you need to just scroll wikipedia for a second but I'll do my best.

What do you think of when you think "man" or "masculine?" People who embody all or most of that are on one end of the spectrum. People who embody all or most of what you think of "woman" or "feminine" are on the other. Most of us are close enough to one end or the other to feel comfortable identifying as a man or a woman. You can obviously still have a lot of "feminine" traits and feel comfortable being a man, and vice versa, but generally those labels work for you if you are cis. Maybe .5% of people just don't feel comfortable with either. Some people assigned one gender at birth do NOT feel comfortable with that gender and need to transition to the other side of the spectrum.

It was a sincere question. I’m sorry to have upset you. When I hear man, I think of the male biological sex. And perhaps some stereotypes and cultural norms which stem from male biological sex. But I can’t think of anything I consider masculine which is wholly unrelated to biological sex. Could you perhaps share an example of what that would be for you?

Also I thought sex, not gender, was “assigned” at birth?

[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?

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.

Faiths tend to involve supernatural forces.

And what is a supernatural force?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous 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.

Nope. For millennia, the terms men and women have referred to biological sex, aka males and females. However, recently gender activists have attempted to change the definition of men and women to refer not to biological males and females, but gender identity, which is a belief based on their feelings.

So you are being disingenuous. While no one has said that you can’t say woman, what they are saying is that the meaning of the word woman has changed from a reference to observable human characteristics of a sexually dimorphic species, to a reference to individuals personal feelings and beliefs.

Not only that, these feelings and beliefs apparently cannot be explained or quantified. Up to this point no one has been able to explain what identifying as a woman actually means.

A woman is anyone who identifies as a (woman is anyone who identifies as a (woman is anyone who identifies as a...))

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Faiths tend to involve supernatural forces.

And what is a supernatural force?

Gods, Santas, etc.

[Anonymous]

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.

Nope. For millennia, the terms men and women have referred to biological sex, aka males and females. However, recently gender activists have attempted to change the definition of men and women to refer not to biological males and females, but gender identity, which is a belief based on their feelings.

So you are being disingenuous. While no one has said that you can’t say woman, what they are saying is that the meaning of the word woman has changed from a reference to observable human characteristics of a sexually dimorphic species, to a reference to individuals personal feelings and beliefs.

Language changes constantly.

There is zero harm in being inclusive. Unless you're just too rigid to handle change.