Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.
There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.
Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.
The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.
This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.
Laetitia Ky’s thread below:
So she’s openly attacking transgender people?
That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?
It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.
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:
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.
The feeling that you have a certain set of expectations/roles as defined by society. Maybe you don't actually conform to most or all of those, but those are the expectations/roles that you feel that you and others have for yourself.
I feel like a woman when people make sexist comments.
I feel like a woman when Republicans try to tell me what I can and can't do to my body.
I feel like a woman when people judge me on my gender conforming/nonconforming decisions.
I think these are all valid and well put. Do you see how these are related to your sex? They have gender expectations for you based on your sex. They make stereotypes based on sex. They try to tell you what to do with your reproductive organs. For you, being a woman has something to do with interacting with the world as a female.
No, most of the expectations and stereotypes are not based on sex; they're based on gender. Very few are actually related to sex organs. Expecting me to "not be bossy" at work is not related to my sex. Expecting me to wash dishes after an event is not related to my sex. I don't have a special rinse cycle in my vagina.
OK. Why do you think women are given less permission to be 'bossy' than men? Why do think that women are typically expected to do household chores like washing up? Why do these specific stereotypes exist?
Yes, those are (sexist) expectations in society, but they don't have a biological basis. Women are not inherently better at dishes than men. It's a social construct.
Right. I agree with you than women are not inherently better at dishwashing than men. So, let's assume that is true. Why do you think there a sexist societal expectation that you as a woman are more expected to wash dished than a man?
DP
I know the answer to that, and you know the answer to that, but you won’t get the PP to admit that these stereotypes are 100% rooted in biological sex. PP would love to pretend that these stereotypes came out of thin air, but they did not. They came out of centuries (millennia) of women having babies and taking care of the house while the men went out to hunt.
If they admit this, their entire argument falls apart.
No one has denied that they are related. But those stereotypes are formed by society; they aren't inherent physical abilities/characteristics.
Sex is typically physically observable at birth. Biology.
Gender consists of stereotypes/roles/expectations create by society. Construct.
Again, they are related, but not the same.
There is nothing in biology that dictates that I should do dishes. There are only the expectations/stereotypes that were formed by society.
Very few "roles" are actually based on sex/biology -- ovulation/insemination, pregnancy, breastfeeding. Everything else is fair game.
There are quite a few people who have stated that the link between gender and sex can be/is severed.
I think we need to agree to disagree here. But, I'll ask one more time. Why did society form the expectation that you, a woman should do dishes? Why isn't the stereotype that men do dishes? Why isn't the the stereotype that the tallest person in the household does this dishes? Or the person with the biggest nose or biggest hands? Wouldn't it make more sense that the person with the biggest hands or fastest movement was expected to do the dishes?
Because it was convenient for society? But there isn’t an underlying physical/biological reason WHY people with vaginas are expected to do dishes.
Someone with excellent dexterity? Sure. There would be a biological reason.
Why do you think society in the past found it to be convenient to create this stereotype/expectation for women and not people with dexterity, brown eyes, or any other traits?
Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.
There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.
Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.
The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.
This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.
Laetitia Ky’s thread below:
So she’s openly attacking transgender people?
That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?
It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.
+ a million.
What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.
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:
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.
The feeling that you have a certain set of expectations/roles as defined by society. Maybe you don't actually conform to most or all of those, but those are the expectations/roles that you feel that you and others have for yourself.
I feel like a woman when people make sexist comments.
I feel like a woman when Republicans try to tell me what I can and can't do to my body.
I feel like a woman when people judge me on my gender conforming/nonconforming decisions.
I think these are all valid and well put. Do you see how these are related to your sex? They have gender expectations for you based on your sex. They make stereotypes based on sex. They try to tell you what to do with your reproductive organs. For you, being a woman has something to do with interacting with the world as a female.
No, most of the expectations and stereotypes are not based on sex; they're based on gender. Very few are actually related to sex organs. Expecting me to "not be bossy" at work is not related to my sex. Expecting me to wash dishes after an event is not related to my sex. I don't have a special rinse cycle in my vagina.
OK. Why do you think women are given less permission to be 'bossy' than men? Why do think that women are typically expected to do household chores like washing up? Why do these specific stereotypes exist?
Yes, those are (sexist) expectations in society, but they don't have a biological basis. Women are not inherently better at dishes than men. It's a social construct.
Right. I agree with you than women are not inherently better at dishwashing than men. So, let's assume that is true. Why do you think there a sexist societal expectation that you as a woman are more expected to wash dished than a man?
DP
I know the answer to that, and you know the answer to that, but you won’t get the PP to admit that these stereotypes are 100% rooted in biological sex. PP would love to pretend that these stereotypes came out of thin air, but they did not. They came out of centuries (millennia) of women having babies and taking care of the house while the men went out to hunt.
If they admit this, their entire argument falls apart.
No one has denied that they are related. But those stereotypes are formed by society; they aren't inherent physical abilities/characteristics.
Sex is typically physically observable at birth. Biology.
Gender consists of stereotypes/roles/expectations create by society. Construct.
Again, they are related, but not the same.
There is nothing in biology that dictates that I should do dishes. There are only the expectations/stereotypes that were formed by society.
Very few "roles" are actually based on sex/biology -- ovulation/insemination, pregnancy, breastfeeding. Everything else is fair game.
There are quite a few people who have stated that the link between gender and sex can be/is severed.
I think we need to agree to disagree here. But, I'll ask one more time. Why did society form the expectation that you, a woman should do dishes? Why isn't the stereotype that men do dishes? Why isn't the the stereotype that the tallest person in the household does this dishes? Or the person with the biggest nose or biggest hands? Wouldn't it make more sense that the person with the biggest hands or fastest movement was expected to do the dishes?
Because it was convenient for society? But there isn’t an underlying physical/biological reason WHY people with vaginas are expected to do dishes.
Someone with excellent dexterity? Sure. There would be a biological reason.
Why do you think society in the past found it to be convenient to create this stereotype/expectation for women and not people with dexterity, brown eyes, or any other traits?
It wasn’t based on physical characteristics/biology. Unless you think women have some physical attributes that makes them uniquely capable of washing dishes?
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:
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.
The feeling that you have a certain set of expectations/roles as defined by society. Maybe you don't actually conform to most or all of those, but those are the expectations/roles that you feel that you and others have for yourself.
I feel like a woman when people make sexist comments.
I feel like a woman when Republicans try to tell me what I can and can't do to my body.
I feel like a woman when people judge me on my gender conforming/nonconforming decisions.
I think these are all valid and well put. Do you see how these are related to your sex? They have gender expectations for you based on your sex. They make stereotypes based on sex. They try to tell you what to do with your reproductive organs. For you, being a woman has something to do with interacting with the world as a female.
No, most of the expectations and stereotypes are not based on sex; they're based on gender. Very few are actually related to sex organs. Expecting me to "not be bossy" at work is not related to my sex. Expecting me to wash dishes after an event is not related to my sex. I don't have a special rinse cycle in my vagina.
OK. Why do you think women are given less permission to be 'bossy' than men? Why do think that women are typically expected to do household chores like washing up? Why do these specific stereotypes exist?
Yes, those are (sexist) expectations in society, but they don't have a biological basis. Women are not inherently better at dishes than men. It's a social construct.
Right. I agree with you than women are not inherently better at dishwashing than men. So, let's assume that is true. Why do you think there a sexist societal expectation that you as a woman are more expected to wash dished than a man?
DP
I know the answer to that, and you know the answer to that, but you won’t get the PP to admit that these stereotypes are 100% rooted in biological sex. PP would love to pretend that these stereotypes came out of thin air, but they did not. They came out of centuries (millennia) of women having babies and taking care of the house while the men went out to hunt.
If they admit this, their entire argument falls apart.
No one has denied that they are related. But those stereotypes are formed by society; they aren't inherent physical abilities/characteristics.
Sex is typically physically observable at birth. Biology.
Gender consists of stereotypes/roles/expectations create by society. Construct.
Again, they are related, but not the same.
There is nothing in biology that dictates that I should do dishes. There are only the expectations/stereotypes that were formed by society.
Very few "roles" are actually based on sex/biology -- ovulation/insemination, pregnancy, breastfeeding. Everything else is fair game.
I know they were formed by society. They were formed by society based on biological sex.
If you keep insisting they are not based on biological sex, then what were they based on? How did society decide that females should do dishes? They didn’t randomly assign roles based on absolutely nothing.
You’re talking about WHO was assigned that responsibility - females.
That isn’t a WHY. There isn’t a biological/physical reason behind it, only societal.
Do you agree that there are biological differences between females and males apart from reproductive organs?
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:
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.
NP. Woman has acquired an additional definition which has been updated, but its original meaning is still included in the dictionary, and is very specific: adult human female. Referring to a group of adult females as "women" is still technically accurate and inclusive. As the pp upthread so aptly put it: no one has said you can't use the word "woman" anymore. Faux concern.
Exactly. So much of these comments read as insincere or fake.
I think that most people understand these comments are sincere. Expanding the definition of a word is changing it. I think we can all agree to that. I understand that you believe it is the right thing to do to change aka expand the meaning to be more inclusive. But it is in fact a significant change of the meaning which has meant a very specific thing for millennia.
Again, no one has said you have to stop using the word. You can even use it with the old timey definition. Fake "concern".
You're right. No one has said that anyone has to stop using that word woman! But, many many people and places prohibit people (usually women) from using the word women to refer exclusively to adult human females. Some may even call it hate speech or bigotry. For example, in many online communities and spaces (including this one at many times!) it is not acceptable to distinguish a women based on biological sex as class of people which is different than women based on gender identity. People who express these ideas are often "blocked and reported" and banned. It's not faux concern to acknowledge the reality of what happens when the word is used based on the 'old-timey definition'.
Well if you're entering a discussion specifically about transgender people and are intentionally misgendering/excluding people then, yeah, that's pretty rude.
I see. It's totally fine to use the old timey definition. No reason for 'fake' concern. Except actually, wait, no it's not OK.
Which by the way is a fine opinion to have. Just be honest about your position.
Sorry, should have including the disclaimer that it's OK for 99% of your conversations about "women", but in the rare instance that you are discussing transgenderism then you should try to be polite.
So 99% of the time when discussing women as a class of people, it is OK to exclude trans women? I’m not sure if that position is supported by the trans community. Perhaps someone could weigh in.
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:
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.
I don’t think anyone cares how you refer to yourself. It is the changing of the language to conform to the subjective reality of a ridiculously small portion of the population that I find silly.
Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.
There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.
Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.
The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.
This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.
Laetitia Ky’s thread below:
So she’s openly attacking transgender people?
That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?
It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.
+ a million.
What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.
Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?
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:
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.
Changing language to include a staggeringly small percentage of the population really doesn’t make much sense. Sometimes, you just have to be the outlier.
The only time this is relevant is in the very rare circumstance when an AFAB person that does not identify as a woman is pregnant and in a group. Let’s say there’s a group of pregnant women. You can call them pregnant women or pregnant people. If a trans man joins that group, pregnant people would be the correct term at this point but if you call them pregnant women and don’t care if you offend the trans man, I doubt he would say anything. You would just make him feel bad. While pregnant trans men are a thing that does happen, it’s an incredibly rare occurrence. Most trans men don’t want to get pregnant and have a hysterectomy.
You are free to upset a trans man in this situation. No one is forcing you to call them pregnant people. Realistically speaking, you are unlikely to ever meet a pregnant trans man and you’re raging against language changes that are almost never needed.
Who is concerned about offending the women who don’t appreciate being called pregnant people?
Why don’t those women’s feelings matter?
[Different PP]
If you know someone who is triggered by being inclusive then, yes, try to use “woman” for her.
Are you a woman? Can you not see how what is happening here? The further we move toward equal rights, and we have made so much progress over the last few decades, the more extreme the measures get to suppress us. We simply cannot allow women to be erased and this society is rapidly moving in that direction. We simply have to start by protecting the word and allowing us to identify ourselves as women. Please try to open your mind. Remember this: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Stop letting your ideology cloud your good judgement.
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:
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.
I don’t think anyone cares how you refer to yourself. It is the changing of the language to conform to the subjective reality of a ridiculously small portion of the population that I find silly.
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:
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.
The feeling that you have a certain set of expectations/roles as defined by society. Maybe you don't actually conform to most or all of those, but those are the expectations/roles that you feel that you and others have for yourself.
I feel like a woman when people make sexist comments.
I feel like a woman when Republicans try to tell me what I can and can't do to my body.
I feel like a woman when people judge me on my gender conforming/nonconforming decisions.
I think these are all valid and well put. Do you see how these are related to your sex? They have gender expectations for you based on your sex. They make stereotypes based on sex. They try to tell you what to do with your reproductive organs. For you, being a woman has something to do with interacting with the world as a female.
No, most of the expectations and stereotypes are not based on sex; they're based on gender. Very few are actually related to sex organs. Expecting me to "not be bossy" at work is not related to my sex. Expecting me to wash dishes after an event is not related to my sex. I don't have a special rinse cycle in my vagina.
OK. Why do you think women are given less permission to be 'bossy' than men? Why do think that women are typically expected to do household chores like washing up? Why do these specific stereotypes exist?
Yes, those are (sexist) expectations in society, but they don't have a biological basis. Women are not inherently better at dishes than men. It's a social construct.
Right. I agree with you than women are not inherently better at dishwashing than men. So, let's assume that is true. Why do you think there a sexist societal expectation that you as a woman are more expected to wash dished than a man?
DP
I know the answer to that, and you know the answer to that, but you won’t get the PP to admit that these stereotypes are 100% rooted in biological sex. PP would love to pretend that these stereotypes came out of thin air, but they did not. They came out of centuries (millennia) of women having babies and taking care of the house while the men went out to hunt.
If they admit this, their entire argument falls apart.
No one has denied that they are related. But those stereotypes are formed by society; they aren't inherent physical abilities/characteristics.
Sex is typically physically observable at birth. Biology.
Gender consists of stereotypes/roles/expectations create by society. Construct.
Again, they are related, but not the same.
There is nothing in biology that dictates that I should do dishes. There are only the expectations/stereotypes that were formed by society.
Very few "roles" are actually based on sex/biology -- ovulation/insemination, pregnancy, breastfeeding. Everything else is fair game.
There are quite a few people who have stated that the link between gender and sex can be/is severed.
I think we need to agree to disagree here. But, I'll ask one more time. Why did society form the expectation that you, a woman should do dishes? Why isn't the stereotype that men do dishes? Why isn't the the stereotype that the tallest person in the household does this dishes? Or the person with the biggest nose or biggest hands? Wouldn't it make more sense that the person with the biggest hands or fastest movement was expected to do the dishes?
Because it was convenient for society? But there isn’t an underlying physical/biological reason WHY people with vaginas are expected to do dishes.
Someone with excellent dexterity? Sure. There would be a biological reason.
Why do you think society in the past found it to be convenient to create this stereotype/expectation for women and not people with dexterity, brown eyes, or any other traits?
It wasn’t based on physical characteristics/biology. Unless you think women have some physical attributes that makes them uniquely capable of washing dishes?
It was ABSOLUTELY based on biology. A woman who GIVES BIRTH and BREASTFEEDS is at home taking care of the babies - because of this she should also cook, clean and take care of the house. The man, who has MORE MUSCLE MASS and is stronger on the whole goes out and hunts gathers. So he is historically the “breadwinner” and takes care of other things that generally require more strength.
Literally both make and female roles were born out of biology. I haven’t heard any cogent argument that explains otherwise.
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:
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.
NP. Woman has acquired an additional definition which has been updated, but its original meaning is still included in the dictionary, and is very specific: adult human female. Referring to a group of adult females as "women" is still technically accurate and inclusive. As the pp upthread so aptly put it: no one has said you can't use the word "woman" anymore. Faux concern.
Exactly. So much of these comments read as insincere or fake.
I think that most people understand these comments are sincere. Expanding the definition of a word is changing it. I think we can all agree to that. I understand that you believe it is the right thing to do to change aka expand the meaning to be more inclusive. But it is in fact a significant change of the meaning which has meant a very specific thing for millennia.
Again, no one has said you have to stop using the word. You can even use it with the old timey definition. Fake "concern".
You're right. No one has said that anyone has to stop using that word woman! But, many many people and places prohibit people (usually women) from using the word women to refer exclusively to adult human females. Some may even call it hate speech or bigotry. For example, in many online communities and spaces (including this one at many times!) it is not acceptable to distinguish a women based on biological sex as class of people which is different than women based on gender identity. People who express these ideas are often "blocked and reported" and banned. It's not faux concern to acknowledge the reality of what happens when the word is used based on the 'old-timey definition'.
Well if you're entering a discussion specifically about transgender people and are intentionally misgendering/excluding people then, yeah, that's pretty rude.
I see. It's totally fine to use the old timey definition. No reason for 'fake' concern. Except actually, wait, no it's not OK.
Which by the way is a fine opinion to have. Just be honest about your position.
Sorry, should have including the disclaimer that it's OK for 99% of your conversations about "women", but in the rare instance that you are discussing transgenderism then you should try to be polite.
So 99% of the time when discussing women as a class of people, it is OK to exclude trans women? I’m not sure if that position is supported by the trans community. Perhaps someone could weigh in.
It’s ok. When you use the word ‘women’ people won’t know that you’re being exclusionary in your definition. Unless you go out of your way to tell them. Probably better to keep that to yourself.
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:
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.
The feeling that you have a certain set of expectations/roles as defined by society. Maybe you don't actually conform to most or all of those, but those are the expectations/roles that you feel that you and others have for yourself.
I feel like a woman when people make sexist comments.
I feel like a woman when Republicans try to tell me what I can and can't do to my body.
I feel like a woman when people judge me on my gender conforming/nonconforming decisions.
I think these are all valid and well put. Do you see how these are related to your sex? They have gender expectations for you based on your sex. They make stereotypes based on sex. They try to tell you what to do with your reproductive organs. For you, being a woman has something to do with interacting with the world as a female.
No, most of the expectations and stereotypes are not based on sex; they're based on gender. Very few are actually related to sex organs. Expecting me to "not be bossy" at work is not related to my sex. Expecting me to wash dishes after an event is not related to my sex. I don't have a special rinse cycle in my vagina.
OK. Why do you think women are given less permission to be 'bossy' than men? Why do think that women are typically expected to do household chores like washing up? Why do these specific stereotypes exist?
Yes, those are (sexist) expectations in society, but they don't have a biological basis. Women are not inherently better at dishes than men. It's a social construct.
Right. I agree with you than women are not inherently better at dishwashing than men. So, let's assume that is true. Why do you think there a sexist societal expectation that you as a woman are more expected to wash dished than a man?
DP
I know the answer to that, and you know the answer to that, but you won’t get the PP to admit that these stereotypes are 100% rooted in biological sex. PP would love to pretend that these stereotypes came out of thin air, but they did not. They came out of centuries (millennia) of women having babies and taking care of the house while the men went out to hunt.
If they admit this, their entire argument falls apart.
No one has denied that they are related. But those stereotypes are formed by society; they aren't inherent physical abilities/characteristics.
Sex is typically physically observable at birth. Biology.
Gender consists of stereotypes/roles/expectations create by society. Construct.
Again, they are related, but not the same.
There is nothing in biology that dictates that I should do dishes. There are only the expectations/stereotypes that were formed by society.
Very few "roles" are actually based on sex/biology -- ovulation/insemination, pregnancy, breastfeeding. Everything else is fair game.
I know they were formed by society. They were formed by society based on biological sex.
If you keep insisting they are not based on biological sex, then what were they based on? How did society decide that females should do dishes? They didn’t randomly assign roles based on absolutely nothing.
You’re talking about WHO was assigned that responsibility - females.
That isn’t a WHY. There isn’t a biological/physical reason behind it, only societal.
Still waiting to hear your explanation for WHY, if you insist that it’s not biological.
Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.
There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.
Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.
The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.
This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.
Laetitia Ky’s thread below:
So she’s openly attacking transgender people?
That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?
It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.
+ a million.
What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.
Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?
Any and al of the bullies attacking JK Rowling or Martina Navratilova for example for daring protect the rights of women.
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:
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.
But don’t you agree that as a society, we need to have definitions for men and women that must apply without regard to the internal feelings of the individual powerful as they may be? For instance, in the emergency medical context, it is highly relevant for the EMTs to alert the ER that a person is a male or female so that the physicians can anticipate what exams and treatments would need to be performed. No serious person can say that a transwoman could be suspected of having a miscarriage, for example.
Fortunately, our medical workers are capable of assessing the situation and handling many different scenarios.
Till one of them is sued for not checking an impossible condition. And if someone passes so well as male or female, as per your photos here, in a time-critical situation, it would be easy to miss something life-threatening.
Forum Index
»
Website Feedback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}