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.
We obviously need a way to communicate clearly and accurate and not just about biological sex. But language evolves. I grew up referring to any female younger than my mother as a "girl" and then was told that was sexist. So, I started calling them "ladies" and was told that was also problematic. Then I switched to "women". I'm an old dog now who has trouble with new tricks, but I can adapt to a new term if necessary.
Also, I think context is important. If an EMT trying to save a life misgenders a trans person, I suspect the person will be cut considerable slack. But, if you are Nikki Haley trying to score political points by intentionally misgendering an Instagram influencer, you probably deserve whatever scorn comes your way.
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.
And if woman refuses to take on these domestic chores, man with more muscle mass can strangle her with his bare hands, threaten to do so, and/or abandon her to starve. He only needs her for one (biological) thing. So she complies, becomes subservient.
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?
No. I’ve already said that men and women are equally capable of dishwashing. The expectation that women wash dishes is a harmful and regressive gender stereotype.
I think we need to agree to disagree. Your position appears to be that society has historically expected women to wash dishes as opposed to dexterous people or brown eyed people as pure happenstance, chance, or randomness. Is that correct?
My position is that it is not a randomly assigned stereotype for women to wash dishes. It has evolved through history because historically women were expected by society to keep the home. Why were women expected to keep the home? Again, you’re right it’s not entirely biological factors at play. For example, many women were excluded culturally and legally from pursuing paid employment despite the fact they they had the physical and mental abilities to do the job. But why were women historically excluded from the labor market, whether due to laws, cultural norms, or stereotypes and expected to stay at home instead?
Throughout time, women have historically been expected to remain in the home to raise children since they bear children. Males are clearly capable of child care after weaning. I don’t really think this history of societal sex-based oppression of women is up for debate.
Anonymous wrote:I can't figure out why some of you care so much how others describe themselves.
If this did not have an impact on society as a whole, most reasonable people would not care. However, the truth matters and if you are going to make (in my opinion) radical claims like gender and sex are distinct and the former is totally subjective it seems to me you should be called to explain it. The baseless mantra of “trans women are women” is what brings me pause and I suspect others who are far more liberal than I.
What is the actual impact on society?
To name a few:
Dismantling of sex-based protections for females
Preservation of the ability of women to create and maintain female only spaces
Irreversible damage to children
Failure to acknowledge the global epidemic of male violence
Science denialism
Freedom of religion
Still curious about what this means.
Ask the Muslim families in Montgomery County who can’t have their kids opt out of transgender lessons, etc.
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.
“She should” = society, not biology
It’s based on convenience, not a direct physical attribute.
Ovulation/insemination, pregnancy, and breastfeeding are the only uniquely sex-based functions.
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.
And if woman refuses to take on these domestic chores, man with more muscle mass can strangle her with his bare hands, threaten to do so, and/or abandon her to starve. He only needs her for one (biological) thing. So she complies, becomes subservient.
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.
Why would this change the fact that I find it offensive to be referred to as a "person who menstruates instead of as a woman?" It's not a faux concern to point out offensive language.
The point we are discussing with regard to language is the need for accuracy and comprehension. In the normal course of life, there is little reason to refer to you specifically any other way than as a woman if that is your preference. But, if for some reason someone needed to refer to anyone capable of menstruation, simply saying "women" would include many females who are either too young or too old and leave out trans women who do menstruate. So, referring to "people who menstruate" is actually more accurate.
If that excludes trans women from taking up appointments in OB/GYN offices, then go for it.
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.
And if woman refuses to take on these domestic chores, man with more muscle mass can strangle her with his bare hands, threaten to do so, and/or abandon her to starve. He only needs her for one (biological) thing. So she complies, becomes subservient.
So social pressures, not biological.
How is a critical imbalance in strength not biological?
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?
No. I’ve already said that men and women are equally capable of dishwashing. The expectation that women wash dishes is a harmful and regressive gender stereotype.
I think we need to agree to disagree. Your position appears to be that society has historically expected women to wash dishes as opposed to dexterous people or brown eyed people as pure happenstance, chance, or randomness. Is that correct?
My position is that it is not a randomly assigned stereotype for women to wash dishes. It has evolved through history because historically women were expected by society to keep the home. Why were women expected to keep the home? Again, you’re right it’s not entirely biological factors at play. For example, many women were excluded culturally and legally from pursuing paid employment despite the fact they they had the physical and mental abilities to do the job. But why were women historically excluded from the labor market, whether due to laws, cultural norms, or stereotypes and expected to stay at home instead?
Throughout time, women have historically been expected to remain in the home to raise children since they bear children. Males are clearly capable of child care after weaning. I don’t really think this history of societal sex-based oppression of women is up for debate.
So, we’ll agree to disagree.
I’ve already said. Convenience. It was more practical.
Unlike pregnancy, there is no underlying biological reason, just societal.
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.
Depends on what, how, where you say it.
What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.
1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.
If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.
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.
And if woman refuses to take on these domestic chores, man with more muscle mass can strangle her with his bare hands, threaten to do so, and/or abandon her to starve. He only needs her for one (biological) thing. So she complies, becomes subservient.
So social pressures, not biological.
How is a critical imbalance in strength not biological?
That explains how it happens and to whom, but not why. Why? Because it’s convenient. It’s a choice made by people/society, not a biological function.
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.
Depends on what, how, where you say it.
What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.
1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.
If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.
Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.
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.
Why would this change the fact that I find it offensive to be referred to as a "person who menstruates instead of as a woman?" It's not a faux concern to point out offensive language.
The point we are discussing with regard to language is the need for accuracy and comprehension. In the normal course of life, there is little reason to refer to you specifically any other way than as a woman if that is your preference. But, if for some reason someone needed to refer to anyone capable of menstruation, simply saying "women" would include many females who are either too young or too old and leave out trans women who do menstruate. So, referring to "people who menstruate" is actually more accurate.
If that excludes trans women from taking up appointments in OB/GYN offices, then go for it.
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.
Depends on what, how, where you say it.
What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.
1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.
If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.
Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.
??
You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?
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?
No. I’ve already said that men and women are equally capable of dishwashing. The expectation that women wash dishes is a harmful and regressive gender stereotype.
I think we need to agree to disagree. Your position appears to be that society has historically expected women to wash dishes as opposed to dexterous people or brown eyed people as pure happenstance, chance, or randomness. Is that correct?
My position is that it is not a randomly assigned stereotype for women to wash dishes. It has evolved through history because historically women were expected by society to keep the home. Why were women expected to keep the home? Again, you’re right it’s not entirely biological factors at play. For example, many women were excluded culturally and legally from pursuing paid employment despite the fact they they had the physical and mental abilities to do the job. But why were women historically excluded from the labor market, whether due to laws, cultural norms, or stereotypes and expected to stay at home instead?
Throughout time, women have historically been expected to remain in the home to raise children since they bear children. Males are clearly capable of child care after weaning. I don’t really think this history of societal sex-based oppression of women is up for debate.
So, we’ll agree to disagree.
I’ve already said. Convenience. It was more practical.
Unlike pregnancy, there is no underlying biological reason, just societal.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that it was convenient because she was already home raising the kids that biologically, only she can bear. The reason she was home was biology. I’m not sure why you refuse to admit this. If you can tell me another reason why she was home, instead of the man, I’m all ears.
Forum Index
»
Website Feedback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
