Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have many waves ions about the broader issue of what it means when people born and assigned the female gender at birth this I they can no longer identify as a woman because they don’t present as femme. Or vice versa. A dude can’t wear a dress. I thought the whole point of gender as a social construct was that we could be free to be you and me as we see fit. For example, where are all the butch lesbians? In my youth I hung with many. Now it seems the young ones who would’ve been “butch” in the 90s are just claiming FTM.
I guess overall to me it seems that frequently it actually pigeonholes gender stereotypes more when people feel that because they don’t represent a mainstream expression of gender they must somehow be transgender. I’m not trying to be trans exclusionary. I don’t actually GAF what anyone wants to identify as, I’ll call you what you want, but I just can’t get past the irony of how much of this actually perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes while trying to be free of them.

Exactly.

Remember when Jenner shared at some awards show (Espys, maybe) about how she got all glammed up, and now she knows how it feel to be a woman?

I mean... no. No, you do not know what it’s like to be a woman.

Completely agree with both of these posts. Soon the girls will all think that if they don’t like wearing heels or playing with dolls then they’re actually a boy.

And that comment by Jenner was disgusting. It’s like someone getting their body painted with black ink and then claiming that they know exactly what it’s like to be a black person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, it’s really problematic when anyone who questions or pushes back on these new terms, etc is called a bigot. I am respectful of everyone. I will call people whatever they ask to be called. I don’t hate trans people or wish them ill will at all. That doesn’t mean I can’t have questions or point out things that don’t make sense.

Calling everyone who doesn’t blindly agree with you a bigot is just a way to shut people down and divide people. It’s controlling and counterproductive.

Can you point to anyone on this thread being called a "bigot?" Or any use of the term "bigot" before your post?

Not the PP, but this was slightly upthread:

You're being deliberately disingenuous. You say they don't assign a "gender" but rather "observe a newborn's biological sex and record it." Why didn't you use the word gender in the second sentence as well? You know that gender and sex are not the same thing as demonstrated in your own language choices.

And for your commentary on the deadname article, again, you're being dismissive just to be smug. No one is getting upset "about the mere mention of their former name." It's not simply about "mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes." It's about continuing to use a former name as a way to not recognize and diminish the significance of the person's transition and new name.

You understand all the "new language" as you call it but because you have problems with the people using it you cloak your bigotry in a sanctimonious criticism of the nuances of the language.

I'm the one who used the bigot term quoted and I will emphatically push back on the PP's assertion that I called someone "who doesn't blindly agree with me" a bigot. I did not call the poster a bigot just for pushing back on the terms at all. I actually explained and delineated why I think they were being bigoted:

1. being deliberately obtuse, pretending they don't understand semantics when really they don't want to accept them and
2. being dismissive, comparing apples and oranges to tell people directly affected by a situation that their feelings on the issue should really be a "non-issue."

I used the word bigot in the context of a wider discussion and that's the OPPOSITE of calling someone a bigot for just not agreeing with me.

Yes, calling people bigots can be divisive. Doesn't mean we should stop calling it out when we see it. If people don't agree that what I'm saying is bigoted is in fact bigoted, than come back and argue your counter points.

I didn't use the word to shut anyone down. If I wanted to shut people down my replies would be one sentence long instead of discussions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is his spouse now ungay?

that's my question. The spouse was a lesbian, but is now married to a man?

They are queer.

What does queer mean anyways? I never understood that term. Gay and lesbian and bi make sense but what is queer?

Basically it's an umbrella term: Queerness encompasses an intersection of identities. The term queer indicates an “individual who self-identifies as either Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (also sometimes called “questioning”), intersex, and or asexual, aka the LGBTQIA+ community.

Thank you for answering this question. I am sure the PPs appreciate it and I do too. These issues can be difficult for those of us of a certain age who want to be kind, respectful, and inclusive to wrap our minds around. Consequently, people ask questions which can be interpreted as rude or disrespectful. Generally people who ask questions aren't trying to ridicule. They just want to understand.

Nonetheless, the prevailing attitude of many "activists" is to respond: "it's not my job to educate you. Figure it out." It is so unproductive. I mean it's not like you can google "what category do you fall in if you are a lesbian who got married to a woman who is now a man?" It isn't easy to understand. Maybe the answer is that you don't categorize, but often the category is important if you want to understand and offer respect. The opposite of love is indifference. Interest demonstrates caring.

Actually, you can Google it. Even very niche topics have been discussed to death and written about extensively on the internet. It’s easy to find and spend your own time getting the information that already exists instead of demanding that someone take the time to tell you. Someone who genuinely seeks to understand will do that instead of dropping in to derail a discussion saying “What does queer mean anyway?”

Not all nuances are explained with google.

If I were straight and then my H came out as trans, and I don't want to be with a woman I might not want to remain married.

I think the original question was asked in a rude way, but the partner can not be ignored.

Nobody's trying to ignore the partner. My point is if you want to find out how partners feel about it when their spouse comes out as trans, Google it. You can find articles, forum discussions, advice columns. There's an entire subreddit dedicated to people whose partner's have come out of trans and what that experience is like. It's all there for you to find if you take a tiny bit of initiative.

I'm a partner. I ID as queer. We were in a non-het relationship when my partner came out as trans. So the fluidity, per PP, was less of a big deal. Not all queer people, but a good deal, are already more comfortable with not fitting into boxes.

New poster. I get the fluidity part of gender. But if you are lesbian and sexually/physically attracted to women's bodies, and a partner wants to physically transition to a male body, doesn't that present challenges?

PP responding. Sure. For some people. For other people less so. Sexual orientation is also on a spectrum. And so is medical transition. So, basically, for partners, those two things just need to align or have some field of overlap.

It's denial of basic biology to pretend gender is a social construct or that it exists on a spectrum. Gender reflects the biology. To pretend it was invented is purely rubbish. There are attributes given to the two genders that have been reinforced by culture over human history and one can consider that constructs, but gender itself is not distinguishable from biology.

Anonymous wrote:Here is something I don't understand. Eliot Page is a he/him. How is he also queer? If he likes women, how is he queer?

His post says he is transgender and queer.

Queer is sort of all encompassing of people who live/love outside of the completely binary gay/straight cis/trans lines. So a trans man and a cis woman might sort of outwardly exhibit "straight" in a photo or something but they likely will deal with some issues that straight/cis folks won't or might feel more connected to the rest of the queer community just because one is "man" and one is "woman"

There really isn't an analog to it with other issues. And its varies from person to person. I think in previous generations, trans folks were much more focused on the goal of being the other gender, there wasn't as much of an option to be this thing in between, proudly trans. It was more could you "pass" or not.

Anonymous wrote:Biology exists, no one is arguing that.

What people seem to oddly conflate is the idea that "gender is a social construct" means that "gender isn't real"... its VERY real. Social constructs are real, they have a basis in culture vs. science but that doesn't mean they aren't real. The language that "gender doesn't exist" somehow got tagged to people who advocate for trans rights, when that is obviously not true. Its not purely binary and never has been but it certainly exists- even though the roles and meanings of those gender terms are entirely built by the culture they are in.

Then why use “sex assigned at birth” instead of “biological sex”? Biologically we are male or female (anomalies excluded), do you agree?

Biology exists, no one is arguing that.

What people seem to oddly conflate is the idea that "gender is a social construct" means that "gender isn't real"... its VERY real. Social constructs are real, they have a basis in culture vs. science but that doesn't mean they aren't real. The language that "gender doesn't exist" somehow got tagged to people who advocate for trans rights, when that is obviously not true. Its not purely binary and never has been but it certainly exists- even though the roles and meanings of those gender terms are entirely built by the culture they are in.

Anonymous wrote:
There are probably people who know more about this than me, but I think some of this is probably rooted in verbiage around gay people as well. Homophobes were up our ass about being gay as being a choice we could simply un-make, and that caused us a lot of grief over a couple of decades. Hence, the "born this way" argument (see Lady Gaga, et al.). I think this translated to the trans community a bit in that ensuring the language that is used follows the experiences that people have.

Again: being assigned a gender at birth is fine, but some people realize that gender doesn't fit. They don't think they've "changed" but that the gender that was assigned due to genitals doesn't match their lived experience. So this is the verbiage that the trans community uses that best fits.

DP

This is a very articulate way of putting it, thank you. Your point as I see it: words matter and frame how people think. If we change terminology now so that more inclusive ways of saying things become more common, the people who have only heard the "born this way" line of terminology grow up thinking that way too. It's refreshing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. As for “assigned at birth,” this makes it sound like doctors arbitrarily pick someone’s gender. No, they don’t assign a “gender” at all. They observe the newborn’s biological sex and record it. The push for this new language denies science & facts. We can be respectful of all types of people without doing that.

Regarding the “deadname” article— that stance is ridiculous. Continuing to call someone by a name they don’t prefer is rude. But mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes should be a non-issue. People change their names for all sorts of reasons— marriage, divorce, adoption, Prince, etc. I’ve never heard any of these other groups get upset about the mere mention of their former name.

You're being deliberately disingenuous. You say they don't assign a "gender" but rather "observe a newborn's biological sex and record it." Why didn't you use the word gender in the second sentence as well? You know that gender and sex are not the same thing as demonstrated in your own language choices.

And for your commentary on the deadname article, again, you're being dismissive just to be smug. No one is getting upset "about the mere mention of their former name." It's not simply about "mentioning what someone used to be called for informational purposes." It's about continuing to use a former name as a way to not recognize and diminish the significance of the person's transition and new name.

You understand all the "new language" as you call it but because you have problems with the people using it you cloak your bigotry in a sanctimonious criticism of the nuances of the language.

No, that article stated that there is NEVER a reason for a news agency to publish a trans person’s former name— at all. Not even once. Did you read the article?
And no one is “assigning” gender because it is a social construct. There is no official document about someone’s gender, at birth or otherwise. The birth certificate states biological sex. So do forms asking for “male” or “female.” They are asking about biological sex. Gender is different, right?

Here’s the quote:
“ “Reminder: there is NEVER a reason to publish someone’s deadname,” the Transgender Journalist Association said in a statement on Twitter”

PUBLISH being the operative word. PP was comparing people using old names when changing names because of marriage as if it were the same issue. This is an LGBTQ organization making recommendations for journalistic standards. It's not about being rude or offended as the PP tried to frame it. It's about setting norms for published media.

Anonymous wrote:I have many waves ions about the broader issue of what it means when people born and assigned the female gender at birth this I they can no longer identify as a woman because they don’t present as femme. Or vice versa. A dude can’t wear a dress. I thought the whole point of gender as a social construct was that we could be free to be you and me as we see fit. For example, where are all the butch lesbians? In my youth I hung with many. Now it seems the young ones who would’ve been “butch” in the 90s are just claiming FTM.
I guess overall to me it seems that frequently it actually pigeonholes gender stereotypes more when people feel that because they don’t represent a mainstream expression of gender they must somehow be transgender. I’m not trying to be trans exclusionary. I don’t actually GAF what anyone wants to identify as, I’ll call you what you want, but I just can’t get past the irony of how much of this actually perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes while trying to be free of them.

Exactly.

Remember when Jenner shared at some awards show (Espys, maybe) about how she got all glammed up, and now she knows how it feel to be a woman?

I mean... no. No, you do not know what it’s like to be a woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The people on this thread asking questions are not people who give a fig about the Kardashians.

The truth is most of this gender stuff makes little sense. You are born with a biological sex. It is based on your chromosomes. What does it mean to be a man or a woman beyond that? What does it mean to say you know you are a different gender than what your chromosomes indicate? Separate from biological sex most ways we define gender are a bunch of made up bullshit that varies from culture to culture. People who pretend this is cut and dried are full of it.

The way I see it is that everything else in nature is a spectrum and we are now realizing that gender and sexuality are also on a spectrum.

Gender and sexuality are on a spectrum. ITA! But, biology isn’t. Biology is objective. I would like to know why the phrase “sex assigned at birth” is used instead of “biological sex.”

I just find it difficult to pretend biology doesn’t exist. Biology makes you physically a man or a woman...for the vast majority of people (recognizing the small percentage of biological abnormalities).

A think I agree with a PP who thinks the idea of gender shouldn’t exist. You are biologically what you are (man or woman), but you live as you feel, whether that be masculine, feminine, or a fun mix of both.

I agree. Gender is a social construct that isn’t really real. I’ll call someone whatever name they want, use whatever pronouns they want, will fight discrimination, etc, but deep inside I know the only thing that makes me a woman is the way I was socialized due to my biology. In some circles this makes me TERF scum or something, but it’s the only thing that really makes sense.

Thank you for agreeing! It’s just...biology exists, and it’s crazy to pretend it doesn’t. That said, I will always treat people with respect and call them as they wish.

I have many waves ions about the broader issue of what it means when people born and assigned the female gender at birth this I they can no longer identify as a woman because they don’t present as femme. Or vice versa. A dude can’t wear a dress. I thought the whole point of gender as a social construct was that we could be free to be you and me as we see fit. For example, where are all the butch lesbians? In my youth I hung with many. Now it seems the young ones who would’ve been “butch” in the 90s are just claiming FTM.
I guess overall to me it seems that frequently it actually pigeonholes gender stereotypes more when people feel that because they don’t represent a mainstream expression of gender they must somehow be transgender. I’m not trying to be trans exclusionary. I don’t actually GAF what anyone wants to identify as, I’ll call you what you want, but I just can’t get past the irony of how much of this actually perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes while trying to be free of them.

His partner made the sweetest post on Instagram.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIQ2CHBlcKa/?igshid=6hs602owx86l

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The people on this thread asking questions are not people who give a fig about the Kardashians.

The truth is most of this gender stuff makes little sense. You are born with a biological sex. It is based on your chromosomes. What does it mean to be a man or a woman beyond that? What does it mean to say you know you are a different gender than what your chromosomes indicate? Separate from biological sex most ways we define gender are a bunch of made up bullshit that varies from culture to culture. People who pretend this is cut and dried are full of it.

The way I see it is that everything else in nature is a spectrum and we are now realizing that gender and sexuality are also on a spectrum.

Gender and sexuality are on a spectrum. ITA! But, biology isn’t. Biology is objective. I would like to know why the phrase “sex assigned at birth” is used instead of “biological sex.”

I just find it difficult to pretend biology doesn’t exist. Biology makes you physically a man or a woman...for the vast majority of people (recognizing the small percentage of biological abnormalities).

A think I agree with a PP who thinks the idea of gender shouldn’t exist. You are biologically what you are (man or woman), but you live as you feel, whether that be masculine, feminine, or a fun mix of both.

I agree. Gender is a social construct that isn’t really real. I’ll call someone whatever name they want, use whatever pronouns they want, will fight discrimination, etc, but deep inside I know the only thing that makes me a woman is the way I was socialized due to my biology. In some circles this makes me TERF scum or something, but it’s the only thing that really makes sense.

PP, can you explain more how that thinking makes you TERF scum? Thanks to an earlier poster, I read up last night on TERFs, but I am not sure I understand the point you are making (and I want to). I knew nothing about the TERF movement before yesterday, but having studied radical feminist scholarship in my youth, I can see understand how that foundation might lead down a path to TERF ideology. Not saying I agree with it, just that I can see how some feminists have arrived at those beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, it’s really problematic when anyone who questions or pushes back on these new terms, etc is called a bigot. I am respectful of everyone. I will call people whatever they ask to be called. I don’t hate trans people or wish them ill will at all. That doesn’t mean I can’t have questions or point out things that don’t make sense.

Calling everyone who doesn’t blindly agree with you a bigot is just a way to shut people down and divide people. It’s controlling and counterproductive.

I don't see anyone being called a bigot just because they ask questions, as long as they're doing so respectfully. There are people who are "asking questions" as an attack, in a demeaning way, and those people don't get to use "innocent curiosity" as a shield.

We can take things in inaccurately when uncomfortable. No one called anyone a bigot.

That is inaccurate. See above.

Will you be mortally wounded forever or continue to live?