If gender is a social construct, what about age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?

That is kind of my point. Even in cases like that, where there are a significant subset of women who no longer have their uterus, it is still a defining trait of being a woman (or people with an XY chromosome) to have a reproductive system. When you are talking about the human species, how it exists and grows etc etc the two sex structure is essential. And the differences between them are basically all about reproduction when it comes down to it.

It's evidently not a defining trait of a woman to have a uterus, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?

That is kind of my point. Even in cases like that, where there are a significant subset of women who no longer have their uterus, it is still a defining trait of being a woman (or people with an XY chromosome) to have a reproductive system. When you are talking about the human species, how it exists and grows etc etc the two sex structure is essential. And the differences between them are basically all about reproduction when it comes down to it.

So now its not "women have a uterus" but "women have a reproductive system" ? Is a woman with uterus more of a woman than one without? How about a woman who has her uterus removed but keeps her fallopian tubes?

Or how about people just drop this? What is the context where defining who is a woman important? Are you a physician? A statistician? Or are you just trying to justify picking on a group of vulnerable people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In humans, those are anomalies.

What is the scientific definition of an "anomaly"? Why does it matter? Why is it so important to have definitions, and then use the term"anomalies" to exclude exceptions, when the English language allows us to address this simply with the word "most".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.

Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

Is Hanne Gaby Odiele a man or a woman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?

That is kind of my point. Even in cases like that, where there are a significant subset of women who no longer have their uterus, it is still a defining trait of being a woman (or people with an XY chromosome) to have a reproductive system. When you are talking about the human species, how it exists and grows etc etc the two sex structure is essential. And the differences between them are basically all about reproduction when it comes down to it.

So now its not "women have a uterus" but "women have a reproductive system" ? Is a woman with uterus more of a woman than one without? How about a woman who has her uterus removed but keeps her fallopian tubes?

Or how about people just drop this? What is the context where defining who is a woman important? Are you a physician? A statistician? Or are you just trying to justify picking on a group of vulnerable people?

It is important in the context of sociology/history/biology, basically all of human history. Women are in many many ways defined by their sex organs and reproductive systems. It is what makes us vulnerable, it is the defining rights that are constantly in danger of being stripped from us. And yes some of that is societal, but societal pressures that are inextricably woven into our biology.

I do not pick on transgendered people at all, I think they should be allowed to live their lives however they want to live their lives. Like I said earlier I have a transgendered relative who I treat exactly the way I treated her before her transition. I don't care if they want to call themselves a woman or a man. But they don't get to change the definition of what a woman is or what a man is to address the plight of a small subset of the population with a medical condition. If there was no real difference between men and women then why on earth do transgendered people feel so intensely focused on identifying as one or the other. The very definition of the transgendered condition speaks to the real differences between the sexes. If it was all a bucket of societal changes, then no one would feel so compelled to change their bodies and appearances so drastically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That is kind of my point. Even in cases like that, where there are a significant subset of women who no longer have their uterus, it is still a defining trait of being a woman (or people with an XY chromosome) to have a reproductive system.

its not a DEFINING trait of people with an XX chromosome to have a uterus. It is a statistically very high correlation, because the XX chromosomes have genes that lead to the formation of a uterus. Its an actual physical relationship, nothing to do with definitions or terminology.

When you are talking about the human species, how it exists and grows etc etc the two sex structure is essential. And the differences between them are basically all about reproduction when it comes down to it.

When you are taking about the species, reproducing is essential. The childless (except insofar as they make a major contribution to raising the children of others) might as well not exist. Sufficient material well being to enable children to survive long enough to reproduce is essential, but everything else is unnecessary.

Discussing the biological survival of a species is different from discussing the well being, and or the identity, of individuals. The species won't do any better because you call that MtF transgender person a "man" . They may be hurt by it though. But your soul may be hurt more by needless cruelty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.

Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

Is Hanne Gaby Odiele a man or a woman?

You keep just ignoring the use of the word anomaly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
It is important in the context of sociology/history/biology, basically all of human history. Women are in many many ways defined by their sex organs and reproductive systems. It is what makes us vulnerable, it is the defining rights that are constantly in danger of being stripped from us. And yes some of that is societal, but societal pressures that are inextricably woven into our biology.

I do not pick on transgendered people at all, I think they should be allowed to live their lives however they want to live their lives. Like I said earlier I have a transgendered relative who I treat exactly the way I treated her before her transition. I don't care if they want to call themselves a woman or a man. But they don't get to change the definition of what a woman is or what a man is to address the plight of a small subset of the population with a medical condition. If there was no real difference between men and women then why on earth do transgendered people feel so intensely focused on identifying as one or the other. The very definition of the transgendered condition speaks to the real differences between the sexes. If it was all a bucket of societal changes, then no one would feel so compelled to change their bodies and appearances so drastically.

Let's stop doing that.

Not that it's particularly on-topic, but I do think it's interesting that most of the angst and horror about transgender people seems to be about transwomen (people who were assigned male at birth and who live (or want to live) their lives as women). Nobody is angsty and horrified about transmen (people who were assigned female at birth and who live (or want to live) their lives as men).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.

Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

Is Hanne Gaby Odiele a man or a woman?

You keep just ignoring the use of the word anomaly.

Nobody said that everybody is like her. But there she is, just the same. So, is she a man or a woman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
It is important in the context of sociology/history/biology, basically all of human history. Women are in many many ways defined by their sex organs and reproductive systems. It is what makes us vulnerable, it is the defining rights that are constantly in danger of being stripped from us. And yes some of that is societal, but societal pressures that are inextricably woven into our biology.

I do not pick on transgendered people at all, I think they should be allowed to live their lives however they want to live their lives. Like I said earlier I have a transgendered relative who I treat exactly the way I treated her before her transition. I don't care if they want to call themselves a woman or a man. But they don't get to change the definition of what a woman is or what a man is to address the plight of a small subset of the population with a medical condition. If there was no real difference between men and women then why on earth do transgendered people feel so intensely focused on identifying as one or the other. The very definition of the transgendered condition speaks to the real differences between the sexes. If it was all a bucket of societal changes, then no one would feel so compelled to change their bodies and appearances so drastically.

Let's stop doing that.

Not that it's particularly on-topic, but I do think it's interesting that most of the angst and horror about transgender people seems to be about transwomen (people who were assigned male at birth and who live (or want to live) their lives as women). Nobody is angsty and horrified about transmen (people who were assigned female at birth and who live (or want to live) their lives as men).

Perhaps that is because men haven't been habitually persecuted throughout human history and don't have major political movements and efforts revolving around their access to equal pay and fair healthcare. So therefore they aren't bothered when some people start identifying as male because that person's issues and motivations don't effect or take away from anything involving men's advocacy. Whereas trying to come in and define women in a way that doesn't include our reproductive systems takes away from the ESSENTIAL and important efforts to fight restricted access to reproductive healthcare. No one was really team Rachel Dolezal, primarily because she tried to make black advocacy issues HER issues when they were not.

[Anonymous]

It is important in the context of sociology/history/biology, basically all of human history.

Unless you are a sociologist, biologist, etc it does not effect you. And I think people working in those fields can work well enough with "most" they do not, as a practical matter, need definitions that drop the modifiers.

Women are in many many ways defined by their sex organs and reproductive systems. It is what makes us vulnerable, it is the defining rights that are constantly in danger of being stripped from us. And yes some of that is societal, but societal pressures that are inextricably woven into our biology.

And transgender women share many of the vulnerabilities of women, and loss of rights.

But they don't get to change the definition of what a woman is or what a man is

Not sure what you mean by that. There is no "definition of what a woman or what a man is" that exists in the ether by itself. There are dictionaries. There is usage. Most dictionaries try to reflect usage, though a few do not. More and more people use the words man and woman that reflects how the people they are talking about define themselves. So language is changing. It seems to make you angry that language is changing, though you can still make yourself understood.

to address the plight of a small subset of the population with a medical condition.

I am not sure if its considered exactly a "medical condition".

If there was no real difference between men and women then why on earth do transgendered people feel so intensely focused on identifying as one or the other.
The very definition of the transgendered condition speaks to the real differences between the sexes. If it was all a bucket of societal changes, then no one would feel so compelled to change their bodies and appearances so drastically.

Clearly transgender people do not agree with the notion the old radical feminist idea that there is nothing else to sex and gender than our physical differences, which is why many radical feminists are uncomfortable with transgender. What is being argued is that gender as an identity is different from physical sex.

Anyway, it feels like you could do a lot more reading on this matter, rather than angry posting. Especially telling people they are stupid for pointing out to you how widespread hysterectomies are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.

Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

Is Hanne Gaby Odiele a man or a woman?

You keep just ignoring the use of the word anomaly.

Nobody said that everybody is like her. But there she is, just the same. So, is she a man or a woman?

I have no problem with her calling herself a woman, for all intents and purposes she is a woman. Except for the scientific labeling of who she is, which is important to separate as she was born with a condition that resulted in (terrible since it was not consented to) treatment. I do not know enough about androgen insensitivity to know what all the ramifications are but I do know that an anomalous genetic condition doesn't necessitate changing the way we speak about the human species. It requires specificity in talking about an individual that falls outside the normal parameters of the human condition.

[Anonymous]

Oh goodie. The TERFS are here.

I think we need to rethink our terminology. I think we should use the word transex rather than transgender. Gender is a complete social contract.

However, in spite of many deniers, a lot of emerging and legitimate research is showing that sex is not binary at all. Levels of testosterone, estrogen, and other issues are really Paving the way to a new understanding that there are different kinds of biological sex.

I think that is what people who are transgender feel. Not that they want to wear skirts or pants and makeup, but that the biological aspects of sex are wrong for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.

Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

Is Hanne Gaby Odiele a man or a woman?

You keep just ignoring the use of the word anomaly.

yes, because you keep using to whenever something inconvenient to your argument comes up. All X are Y. This X is not Y. That does not count, because its an anomaly. You have made your argument virtually non-falsiable by calling any evidence against it an anomaly, which therefor does not count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I self identify as older and collect SS checks?

Not only should you be able to do that, but you should be able to identify as an entire GROUP of people, men and women and other, alike, and collect a check for each and every one of them!


I mean, it's no MORE absurd than a 38 year old man declaring that "she" is a woman now, and demanding everyone use "her" preferred pronoun and allow her access to women's bathrooms and locker rooms.

I mean, we've already crossed that Rubicon.... So how dare anyone tell you that you CANNOT identify as a group of 9 senior citizens?

That's right. Don't forget and race.