Ellen Page announced new identity as Elliott Page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-binary is not trans.

Then what exactly is it? And why would he choose the pronoun he rather than just using They/Them pronouns, change his name to a guy’s name and present as a guy!

Non-bianary is like Sam Smith. Sam wants the pronouns they/them used for ... them. It irks me because of the plurality for one person. But Sam has not come out as trans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-binary is not trans.

Counterpoint: Yes it is.

Trans is an umbrella term for anyone whose gender presentation does not match their sex assigned at birth. Page was assigned female at birth but they don't identify as such now. Hence, trans.

Assigned? God, I feel old.

[Anonymous]

Good for Elliott. I am happy for Ellen/Elliot and everyone who has loved him/her. As a parent, I want nothing but happiness for my kids, so I hope that she/he got the support and unconditional love from her/his parents too.

-Middle-age, not-hippie, Asian-American mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-binary is not trans.

Counterpoint: Yes it is.

Trans is an umbrella term for anyone whose gender presentation does not match their sex assigned at birth. Page was assigned female at birth but they don't identify as such now. Hence, trans.

Assigned? God, I feel old.

Yes, assigned. That’s the verbiage these days and while I didn’t quite get it at first either, now I see why that description makes sense. Once upon a time, we used phrasing of “changing” gender, or how one used to be this gender and is now a different gender. Trans folks told us all along they didn’t “use” to be the other gender. To put it another way: it’s no longer “sex change operation” but “gender confirmation surgery”. They were that “new” gender all along. Also, that verbiage decouples one’s genitals with gender for two reasons: 1) they don’t align and 2) a trans person’s genitals are no one’s business (although that always seems to be the first question on someone’s mind).

So, yes, the right way to think about it is one’s gender assigned at birth. Your gender assigned birth (by doctors and parents) usually matches the person’s gender when they’re older but not always, and that verbiage allows for that. Hence, assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth.

[Anonymous]

^ I meant to say, “1) they don’t ALWAYS align”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-binary is not trans.

Counterpoint: Yes it is.

Trans is an umbrella term for anyone whose gender presentation does not match their sex assigned at birth. Page was assigned female at birth but they don't identify as such now. Hence, trans.

Assigned? God, I feel old.

Yes, assigned. That’s the verbiage these days and while I didn’t quite get it at first either, now I see why that description makes sense. Once upon a time, we used phrasing of “changing” gender, or how one used to be this gender and is now a different gender. Trans folks told us all along they didn’t “use” to be the other gender. To put it another way: it’s no longer “sex change operation” but “gender confirmation surgery”. They were that “new” gender all along. Also, that verbiage decouples one’s genitals with gender for two reasons: 1) they don’t align and 2) a trans person’s genitals are no one’s business (although that always seems to be the first question on someone’s mind).

So, yes, the right way to think about it is one’s gender assigned at birth. Your gender assigned birth (by doctors and parents) usually matches the person’s gender when they’re older but not always, and that verbiage allows for that. Hence, assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth.

So the doctor who assigns a child as female because the baby has ovaries and is pumping out estrogen and is already carrying a lifetime's worth of eggs is just confused...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-binary is not trans.

Trans is now whatever the hell someone wants it to be. Seriously.

It’s not, seriously. PPs have posted a wealth of information upthread. It is a defined term. You’re just too lazy to learn what it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-binary is not trans.

Counterpoint: Yes it is.

Trans is an umbrella term for anyone whose gender presentation does not match their sex assigned at birth. Page was assigned female at birth but they don't identify as such now. Hence, trans.

Assigned? God, I feel old.

Yes, assigned. That’s the verbiage these days and while I didn’t quite get it at first either, now I see why that description makes sense. Once upon a time, we used phrasing of “changing” gender, or how one used to be this gender and is now a different gender. Trans folks told us all along they didn’t “use” to be the other gender. To put it another way: it’s no longer “sex change operation” but “gender confirmation surgery”. They were that “new” gender all along. Also, that verbiage decouples one’s genitals with gender for two reasons: 1) they don’t align and 2) a trans person’s genitals are no one’s business (although that always seems to be the first question on someone’s mind).

So, yes, the right way to think about it is one’s gender assigned at birth. Your gender assigned birth (by doctors and parents) usually matches the person’s gender when they’re older but not always, and that verbiage allows for that. Hence, assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth.

Mental gymnastics aside, "gender assigned at birth" = biological sex.

[Anonymous]

Can you be transgendered and gay? Does that mean you are now straight?

[Anonymous]

Some of the wide-eyed responses here are just wild. If you can read at an 8th grade level or name all the Kardashians, you sure as hell have the mental capacity to comprehend gender identity.

To pretend otherwise is just willful ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-binary is not trans.

Counterpoint: Yes it is.

Trans is an umbrella term for anyone whose gender presentation does not match their sex assigned at birth. Page was assigned female at birth but they don't identify as such now. Hence, trans.

Assigned? God, I feel old.

Yes, assigned. That’s the verbiage these days and while I didn’t quite get it at first either, now I see why that description makes sense. Once upon a time, we used phrasing of “changing” gender, or how one used to be this gender and is now a different gender. Trans folks told us all along they didn’t “use” to be the other gender. To put it another way: it’s no longer “sex change operation” but “gender confirmation surgery”. They were that “new” gender all along. Also, that verbiage decouples one’s genitals with gender for two reasons: 1) they don’t align and 2) a trans person’s genitals are no one’s business (although that always seems to be the first question on someone’s mind).

So, yes, the right way to think about it is one’s gender assigned at birth. Your gender assigned birth (by doctors and parents) usually matches the person’s gender when they’re older but not always, and that verbiage allows for that. Hence, assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth.

So the doctor who assigns a child as female because the baby has ovaries and is pumping out estrogen and is already carrying a lifetime's worth of eggs is just confused...

I think you’re confused Jan. PP was just explaining what “assigned” meant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you be transgendered and gay? Does that mean you are now straight?

Gender and sexuality are 2 different things

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the wide-eyed responses here are just wild. If you can read at an 8th grade level or name all the Kardashians, you sure as hell have the mental capacity to comprehend gender identity.

To pretend otherwise is just willful ignorance.

How much do you expect people to know about an unrelated to them topic?

Ellen is now Elliot and wants to referred as he/them. That's all I need to know.

I'd appreciate all the education and awareness campaign, but there is only so much time for me to be deeply engrossed into all the topics/minority issues. My kid has some special needs, and I don't expect people to learn about those issues on their volition or to know much about the condition. I talk, and explain, and try to educate. Thus, I appreciate the PPs and their labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-binary is not trans.

Counterpoint: Yes it is.

Trans is an umbrella term for anyone whose gender presentation does not match their sex assigned at birth. Page was assigned female at birth but they don't identify as such now. Hence, trans.

Assigned? God, I feel old.

Yes, assigned. That’s the verbiage these days and while I didn’t quite get it at first either, now I see why that description makes sense. Once upon a time, we used phrasing of “changing” gender, or how one used to be this gender and is now a different gender. Trans folks told us all along they didn’t “use” to be the other gender. To put it another way: it’s no longer “sex change operation” but “gender confirmation surgery”. They were that “new” gender all along. Also, that verbiage decouples one’s genitals with gender for two reasons: 1) they don’t align and 2) a trans person’s genitals are no one’s business (although that always seems to be the first question on someone’s mind).

So, yes, the right way to think about it is one’s gender assigned at birth. Your gender assigned birth (by doctors and parents) usually matches the person’s gender when they’re older but not always, and that verbiage allows for that. Hence, assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth.

So the doctor who assigns a child as female because the baby has ovaries and is pumping out estrogen and is already carrying a lifetime's worth of eggs is just confused...

The doctor is not confused. The doctor assumes genitals = gender and usually they’re right. But not always. It’s like assuming someone is straight. Usually you’re right, but not always. I’m a cis gay woman. People assume I’m straight. They assume my wife is straight if I’m not with her. It’s fine, but it’s not always right. There’s a lot of confusion around trans issues by non-trans folks (and the support we saw early in this thread was bound to not last!) and recognizing that the gender assigned at birth is not always accurate is a way to process understanding trans folks.

Again: usually they match. But not always. And that’s ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-binary is not trans.

Counterpoint: Yes it is.

Trans is an umbrella term for anyone whose gender presentation does not match their sex assigned at birth. Page was assigned female at birth but they don't identify as such now. Hence, trans.

Assigned? God, I feel old.

Yes, assigned. That’s the verbiage these days and while I didn’t quite get it at first either, now I see why that description makes sense. Once upon a time, we used phrasing of “changing” gender, or how one used to be this gender and is now a different gender. Trans folks told us all along they didn’t “use” to be the other gender. To put it another way: it’s no longer “sex change operation” but “gender confirmation surgery”. They were that “new” gender all along. Also, that verbiage decouples one’s genitals with gender for two reasons: 1) they don’t align and 2) a trans person’s genitals are no one’s business (although that always seems to be the first question on someone’s mind).

So, yes, the right way to think about it is one’s gender assigned at birth. Your gender assigned birth (by doctors and parents) usually matches the person’s gender when they’re older but not always, and that verbiage allows for that. Hence, assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth.

So the doctor who assigns a child as female because the baby has ovaries and is pumping out estrogen and is already carrying a lifetime's worth of eggs is just confused...

The doctor is not confused. The doctor assumes genitals = gender and usually they’re right. But not always. It’s like assuming someone is straight. Usually you’re right, but not always. I’m a cis gay woman. People assume I’m straight. They assume my wife is straight if I’m not with her. It’s fine, but it’s not always right. There’s a lot of confusion around trans issues by non-trans folks (and the support we saw early in this thread was bound to not last!) and recognizing that the gender assigned at birth is not always accurate is a way to process understanding trans folks.

Again: usually they match. But not always. And that’s ok.

No. Doctors assume that physical sexual characteristics + blood tests showing the presence or absence of y chromosomes = biological sex, and they are correct. There is no gender being assigned at birth because gender is not the same as biological sex. This should be clear to everyone by now.