Transgender Thread.

  • Thread starter Com Fox
  • 2,194 comments
  • 129,709 views

Transgender is...?

  • Ok for anyone

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Ok as long as it's binary (Male to Female or vice versa)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wrong

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No one's business except the person involved

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
What's a sentence where you're trying to refer to those AFAB?
So I start with:

Menstrual disorders are problems with the menstrual cycle that affect many women and people assigned female at birth (AFAB) and can have a significant impact on their quality of life.

And then refer as below for the rest of the article (as an example):

Some women have regular periods and little to no issues every month. Many women, however, experience problems before or during menstruation (their periods).

Would I have to remove woman/en or add "people AFAB" to each use of the term?
 
Last edited:
So I start with:

Menstrual disorders are problems with the menstrual cycle that affect many women and people assigned female at birth (AFAB) and can have a significant impact on their quality of life.

And then refer as below for the rest of the article (as an example):

Some women have regular periods and little to no issues every month. Many women, however, experience problems before or during menstruation (their periods).

Would I have to remove woman/en or add "people AFAB" to each use of the term?
I would change women to people or another neutral term like that, I don't think you would need to specificy AFAB at each time AFAB people are being referred to.
 
Could you use a little more pronouns? e.g. They, those that menstruate, those AFAB etc.
Yes, I could add those in at some points so it's clear.

Unfortunately the examples I've given are from an old piece of work that's already gone for final revision but I will incorporate these suggestions in future.
 
I'll point you in the direction of this video, which i think does a really good job of succinctly summing up my views on this issue.

CONTENT WARNING: some of these people say some pretty nasty stuff, including swearing and slurs.


If you can't be bothered to watch the video, here's a screenshot of JK Rowling agreeing with Matt Walsh, a self described fascist:
View attachment 1295654
There are many examples similar to this in the video, including even more egregious ones.

Thanks for that. I watched the entire video. I think the author does a nice job, and I like their summary at the end especially. The video was more effective characterizing some people as bigots than others, like Joyce for example I didn't think was particularly effective, but Posie Parker was a thorough takedown. Posie isn't in that photo in the video though, and one of the people the video was most sympathetic toward was in the photo. So the photo with the red labels and everything looks worse than it is.

I think the video does a good job of establishing tht Rowling seems to know who she is supporting and is fine with it. Actually Joyce has had to confront this question directly from Richard Dawkins in an interview I watched, and she makes the mistake (and I think Rowling makes this mistake if we're being generous to Rowling) of saying that she'll work with anyone who will help her in her cause. Any time you make yourself a single-cause person, as Joyce does, and as Rowling seems to, you end up aligning people who would undermine you. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not sound logic generally. I've seen people blinded into being single-cause, including that cause being LGBTQ+, and it never seems to go well.

Anyway, I asked for that evidence, and you supplied it pretty effectively. It certainly is enough to make me think that Rowling is being, at best, insufficiently careful in her support of people that align with her on one of her favorite causes.

What I will say is that its really quite challenging for me to spend time arguing for trans rights and understanding with strangers on the internet. Perhaps that means I shouldn't have bothered posting here in the first place, but I've typically seen you as a well mannered, friendly member of this community so I decided to try and point you in the right direction.
I appreciate that, and I can understand why that would be challenging.
But yes, id much rather avoid having an argument on this topic, as it really quite directly personally affects me and I spend way too much time thinking about the topic as it is. And I think this is actually part of the problem you are having; discussions about this topic usually very quickly devolve into throwing insults, because trans people tend to be extremely sensitive when discussing topics relating to their rights to exist. Which I actually think is pretty fair enough, even if its not particularly helpful for discussion.

Thats my piece, Josie out.
One of the best ways to get good information about a topic that isn't already super deeply entrenched in your life is to talk to the people for whom that topic is deeply entrenched. It is a big part of why I come here in the first place - to talk to people like yourself, who can uncover a helpful youtube video that doesn't devolve into the typical mudslinging you describe. So I appreciate your time and I recognize that it makes you feel vulnerable.
EDIT: also, I think the term "Feminism" is entirely relative to ones world view. Anyone can technically describe themselves as a feminist, and many people have done so whilst holding opinions that most other "feminists" would strongly disagree with. And, considering I believe that trans women are indeed women, I'd say JK Rowling is a pretty crap feminist. "Trans exclusionary" and "feminist" are kind of mutually exclusive terms in my world view.
Well here is a discussion on the topic, and I don't want to make you uncomfortable but I do want to push back on you a little. The feminist movement is largely about protecting women from men. Some of the reasons, many of the reasons, that women need protecting from men apply more appropriately to biological males rather than people who identify as male. I think that's a difficult point to argue with. So you can see why feminism might need to align in favor of protection of biological women from some trans women in certain instances.
 
Last edited:
So I start with:

Menstrual disorders are problems with the menstrual cycle that affect many women and people assigned female at birth (AFAB) and can have a significant impact on their quality of life.
I need help with this one. I have little idea what that even means. Sex is not assigned - it's just an observation of reality.

Saying that my son was assigned male at birth is absurd as saying he was assigned brown hair or assigned weighing 3.4kg. My son was not assigned male he IS male.

Am I missing some nuance here because it escapes me at the moment.
 
Last edited:
I need help with this one. I have little idea what that even means. Sex is not assigned - it's just an observation of reality.

Saying that my son was assigned male at birth is absurd as saying he was assigned brown hair or assigned weighing 3.4kg.

Am I missing some nuance here because it escapes me at the moment.
I'm nowhere as familiar with this as I want to be, but I believe this terminology specifically references the birth certificate for the individual. The sex of the newborn has to be assigned/recorded on the certificate.
 
I need help with this one. I have little idea what that even means. Sex is not assigned - it's just an observation of reality.

Saying that my son was assigned male at birth is absurd as saying he was assigned brown hair or assigned weighing 3.4kg. My son was not assigned male he IS male.

Am I missing some nuance here because it escapes me at the moment.

Yea you're missing some nuance. The idea is that gender is assigned at birth - but that your gender is not known at birth. Later in life you will determine your gender based on the contents of your mind and feelings. Sex can then simply be altered to align with the gender.
 
I'm nowhere as familiar with this as I want to be, but I believe this terminology specifically references the birth certificate for the individual. The sex of the newborn has to be assigned/recorded on the certificate.
The idea that sex is assigned to an individual is the bit that's absurd to me. I'll get on board with it being recorded, sure. That's 100% fine.

Yea you're missing some nuance. The idea is that gender is assigned at birth - but that your gender is not known at birth. Later in life you will determine your gender based on the contents of your mind and feelings. Sex can then simply be altered to align with the gender.
Perhaps it varies country to country but in mine gender is not assigned at birth - your sex is recorded. There is no mention of gender.
 
Perhaps it varies country to country but in mine gender is not assigned at birth - your sex is recorded. There is no mention of gender.

It's already apparent that you're not trying to understand. Would you refuse to call a baby that is assigned male at birth a "boy"? Because that's what this statement requires. The gender is assigned with the sex at birth in the absence of any appearance of conflict.

To understand this, you need to understand the view of sex as something that is inherently changeable and gender as inherently not changeable*, rather than the other way around. The idea is that it is the physical that is arbitrary and the mental that is fixed and "real". There is a rational basis for that concept - that the mental is more "real" than the physical.


Edit:
* ok so obviously we know that some people align themselves with a "fluid" gender. What I mean by this is that your gender is not something that can be surgically are forcibly altered. It is what it is, even if that is "fluid".
 
Last edited:
Some of it comes down to how we use words and interpret them. To me, sex is something you can't change because it's part of your chromosomes. Gender can change, but it gets tricky because, in addition to being a type of sex, gender can be male or female as well. So, in my opinion at least, my sex is male and my gender is male.

I wish there were a more straightforward way to distinguish this because using biological sex repeatedly is clunky.
 
Some of it comes down to how we use words and interpret them. To me, sex is something you can't change because it's part of your chromosomes. Gender can change, but it gets tricky because, in addition to being a type of sex, gender can be male or female as well. So, in my opinion at least, my sex is male and my gender is male.

I wish there were a more straightforward way to distinguish this because using biological sex repeatedly is clunky.

For me, the problem is the concept of gender altogether. It is poorly defined, and fairly indefensible in my view. Somewhat like the concept of race.
 
Last edited:
I need help with this one. I have little idea what that even means. Sex is not assigned - it's just an observation of reality.

Saying that my son was assigned male at birth is absurd as saying he was assigned brown hair or assigned weighing 3.4kg. My son was not assigned male he IS male.

Am I missing some nuance here because it escapes me at the moment.
Most of the time we use AGAB as a term because basically everywhere when someone is born male the assumption is that they're a boy, and vice versa with girls.

My assigned sex can be male, but even though I now identify as non-binary/demigirl I lived as a boy for several years due to being a boy being what's most commonly associated with being AMAB because that's how a cis normative society works.

Most of the time when we say "assigned sex" we mean "assigned gender most often correlated with someone's birth sex" eg Male/Boy Female/Girl.
 
It's already apparent that you're not trying to understand. Would you refuse to call a baby that is assigned male at birth a "boy"? Because that's what this statement requires. The gender is assigned with the sex at birth in the absence of any appearance of conflict.

To understand this, you need to understand the view of sex as something that is inherently changeable and gender as inherently not changeable*, rather than the other way around. The idea is that it is the physical that is arbitrary and the mental that is fixed and "real". There is a rational basis for that concept - that the mental is more "real" than the physical.


Edit:
* ok so obviously we know that some people align themselves with a "fluid" gender. What I mean by this is that your gender is not something that can be surgically are forcibly altered. It is what it is, even if that is "fluid".
Language matters to me. It's the use of the word "assigned" for sex that grates me. That's all - there is not much else to read into my comments to be honest. Just a relatively shallow observation based on a personal gripe about what grates me - language in this case.

Anyway appreciate the replies all.
 
Last edited:
Language matters to me. It's the use of the word "assigned" for sex that grates me. That's all - there is not much else to read into my comments to be honest. Just a relatively shallow observation based on a personal gripe about what grates me - language in this case.

To understand what's below, you have to see sex as something which is not innate, but rather is arbitrary - a collection of evidence that allow for a guess at what's really important - your gender. I'm not saying that this is a healthy way or the best way to think about this, I'm saying this is a way to understand.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity
What are the differences between sex, gender, and gender identity?
It’s common for people to confuse sex, gender, and gender identity. But they’re actually all different things.

Sex is a label — male or female — that you’re assigned by a doctor at birth based on the genitals you’re born with and the chromosomes you have. It goes on your birth certificate.

Gender is much more complex: It’s a social and legal status, and set of expectations from society, about behaviors, characteristics, and thoughts. Each culture has standards about the way that people should behave based on their gender. This is also generally male or female. But instead of being about body parts, it’s more about how you’re expected to act, because of your sex.

Gender identity is how you feel inside and how you express your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance. It’s a feeling that begins very early in life.

What’s assigned sex (aka “biological sex”)?
Assigned sex is a label that you’re given at birth based on medical factors, including your hormones, chromosomes, and genitals. Most people are assigned male or female, and this is what’s put on their birth certificates.

When someone’s sexual and reproductive anatomy doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male, they may be described as intersex.

Some people call the sex we’re assigned at birth “biological sex.” But this term doesn’t fully capture the complex biological, anatomical, and chromosomal variations that can occur. Having only two options (biological male or biological female) might not describe what’s going on inside a person’s body.

Instead of saying “biological sex,” some people use the phrase “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth.” This acknowledges that someone (often a doctor) is making a decision for someone else. The assignment of a biological sex may or may not align with what’s going on with a person’s body, how they feel, or how they identify.

The factors that determine our assigned sex begin as early as fertilization.

Each sperm has either an X or a Y chromosome in it. All eggs have an X chromosome.

When sperm fertilizes an egg, its X or Y chromosome combines with the X chromosome of the egg.

A person with XX chromosomes usually has female sex and reproductive organs, and is therefore usually assigned biologically female.

A person with XY chromosomes usually has male sex and reproductive organs, and is therefore usually assigned biologically male.

Other arrangements of chromosomes, hormones, and body parts can happen, which results in someone being intersex.
 
I scanned the article looking for actual offenses instead of just "anti-trans", and I didn't see anything that is clearly and definitely out of line. For example, one offense listed was "it said transgender people could be legitimately excluded from single-sex services if the reasons were 'justifiable and proportionate' ". There are single-sex services that I think transgender people may be justifiably excluded from.

From the linked article, this is one example of exclusion from single-sex services:

"Trans women could also be excluded from a domestic abuse refuge offering emergency accommodation if residents 'feel uncomfortable sharing accommodation … for reasons of trauma and safety'."
 
Last edited:
This is the basis of the initial complaint as I understand it. The commission is accused of standing in the way of legislation by the Scottish government to allow trans people to change the sex on their birth certificate. Whether you agree or not, the complainants aren't happy about their perceived interference and are concerned that in their view it appears to be politically motivated.
It may be interesting to see what the review concludes. I'm not pretending to be an expert in trans rights issues but wonder whether it's a zero sum game or whether an effective compromise can be reached between the two opposing sides of the argument. Whatever Ganhri decides I think it'll make news either way.
 
Last edited:
This is the basis of the initial complaint as I understand it. The commission is accused of standing in the way of legislation by the Scottish government to allow trans people to change the sex on their birth certificate. Whether you agree or not, the complainants aren't happy about their perceived interference and are concerned that in their view it appears to be politically motivated.
It may be interesting to see what the review concludes.
That is what I was referring to with my quotes above - gender self-ID. An example of a problem with gender self-ID is the one I quoted above.

"Trans women could also be excluded from a domestic abuse refuge offering emergency accommodation if residents 'feel uncomfortable sharing accommodation … for reasons of trauma and safety'."

Concluding, or even suggesting, that it might be important to allow female domestic abuse victims a space that does not include anyone born male is not "politically motivated" or "bigoted". This is one of many concerns with gender self-ID. Concluding, or even suggesting, that it might be important to allow people born female to participate in sports separately from people born male is not "politically motivated" or "bigoted". It's one of many concerns with gender self-ID. It's also not anti-trans any more than men and women's sports or domestic abuse centers are anti-male or anti-female.

Framing this "UK equalitites watchdog" as being "anti-trans", for apparently taking this positions is not open and honest discourse. I don't know what this watchdog is, and I don't know everything they've done. So maybe they're Nazis plotting to destroy the lives of transgender people, in which case I'll be fully in support of its destruction or censure.
 
Last edited:
That is what I was referring to with my quotes above - gender self-ID. An example of a problem with gender self-ID is the one I quoted above.

"Trans women could also be excluded from a domestic abuse refuge offering emergency accommodation if residents 'feel uncomfortable sharing accommodation … for reasons of trauma and safety'."

Concluding, or even suggesting, that it might be important to allow female domestic abuse victims a space that does not include anyone born male is not "politically motivated" or "bigoted". This is one of many concerns with gender self-ID. Concluding, or even suggesting, that it might be important to allow people born female to participate in sports separately from people born male is not "politically motivated" or "bigoted". It's one of many concerns with gender self-ID. It's also not anti-trans any more than men and women's sports or domestic abuse centers are anti-male or anti-female.

Framing this "UK equalitites watchdog" as being "anti-trans", for apparently taking this positions is not open and honest discourse. I don't know what this watchdog is, and I don't know everything they've done. So maybe they're Nazis plotting to destroy the lives of transgender people, in which case I'll be fully in support of its destruction or censure.
Do you think trans people should be prohibited from changing the sex on their birth certificate because of these concerns? It is beginning to sound like a zero sum game to me if they feel like they'd be losing out by not being able to do this. Perhaps a compromise would be for them to be allowed to amend their certificates to read "female (assigned male at birth) or vice versa rather than outright prohibited from making changes at all.
 
Last edited:
Do you think trans people should be prohibited from changing the sex on their birth certificate because of these concerns? It is beginning to sound like a zero sum game to me if they feel like they'd be losing out by not being able to do this. Perhaps a compromise would be for them to be allowed to amend their certificates to read "female (assigned male at birth) or vice versa rather than outright prohibited from making changes at all.
Seems like a good compromise to me. I'm sure there are quite a few others - including birth certificates that have separate entries for sex and gender, and even potentially keeping the sex entry confidential in many circumstances. I'm sure there are ways to accommodate the real and important issues that transgender people face, without also ignoring the real and important concerns that face self-ID the way it is generally proposed.

I think that there are activists within the trans community that push a no-compromise approach, because anything less than full self-ID with zero asterisks and zero acquiescence to the material importance of biological sex represents a loss or injustice of some sort. I think that is partly why suggesting that something short of full self-ID with no reservation often results in "anti-trans" and similar complaints.

I suppose it remains a sticking point that some organizations would need to be able to legally act on "assigned male at birth". I can leave it at that because generally "assigned female at birth" does not pose the same sorts of problems. As far as I know, self-ID into male doesn't present an issue for others, though I could see it presenting a problem for trans man should they be incarcerated.*


*Maybe on a dating site, though that doesn't seem nearly as important.
 
Last edited:
Do you think trans people should be prohibited from changing the sex on their birth certificate because of these concerns? It is beginning to sound like a zero sum game to me if they feel like they'd be losing out by not being able to do this. Perhaps a compromise would be for them to be allowed to amend their certificates to read "female (assigned male at birth) or vice versa rather than outright prohibited from making changes at all.
I think the material importance of an individual's biological sex is important and needs to be recorded.

So yes perhaps when you are born your birth certificate says "Male" but then as an adult you should perhaps be able to go through a process to change the entry to something similar to what you suggested or maybe something like "Male. Identifies as female."

I suspect it would take from somewhere like 5 years to never to agree wording that was acceptable to all involved, depending on what part of the world you lived in and the political wind at that time.
 
I think the material importance of an individual's biological sex is important and needs to be recorded.

So yes perhaps when you are born your birth certificate says "Male" but then as an adult you should perhaps be able to go through a process to change the entry to something similar to what you suggested or maybe something like "Male. Identifies as female."

I suspect it would take from somewhere like 5 years to never to agree wording that was acceptable to all involved, depending on what part of the world you lived in and the political wind at that time.
Imo you should be able to just change it from M to F or vice versa. In a lot of places, especially recently with the rise of the trans groomer panic, it can be dangerous to get outed as trans. Outside of a medical situation, I don't really see how assigned sex at birth would be important. Ik if I got pulled over or something, I'd rather be able to go stealth and have the person looking at my license think I'm cis, instead of trans, just in case they're transphobic.
 
Outside of a medical situation, I don't really see how assigned sex at birth would be important.
Sports, incarceration, crisis centers, dating and support groups. For that last one, for example, a lesbian support group.


Edit:

Regarding the medical scenario, it also may be important to understand the birth sex of the doctor as well. There will be people who strongly prefer a doctor with a specific birth sex for certain kinds of medical practice.
 
Last edited:
The bitchfit over gender identity is so bizarre and more than a little pathetic to me.

Though the two are conventionally linked, gender is a purely social construct distinct from biological sex, and when biological sex doesn't adhere to a strict binary, even as a matter of nature with chromosomal anomalies manifesting physiological anomalies especially in external and internal genitalia, it stands to reason that a social construct like gender would also not be so ironed out. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Being a social construct, gender is reasonably likely to be viewed differently in cultures which are different from one's own. Take the Bugis people on the Indonesian island Sulawesi.

Gender is a subjective aspect of identity. It is not strictly defined either by biological sex or by sexuality, but rather emerges from a complex interplay between a person’s sense of self, the social roles we perform, and our modes of self-expression.

In our society, a conventional recognition of only two genders creates an expectation that individuals will identify as one or the other. People who don’t identify with their assigned gender may identify as trans — perhaps on a trajectory of transition from one gender identity to another, occupying a space between genders, or embodying an alternative gender identity that may not be recognised or understood by others.

The Bugis of South Sulawesi embody a fascinating alternative to a binary gender framework. They recognise five genders, and each is considered essential to the maintenance of balance and harmony in Bugis society.

The Bugis are one of the four main ethnic groups of South Sulawesi, a narrow peninsular region of Sulawesi island that stretches south towards the island of Flores in the Indonesian archipelago. Today, the main religion here is Islam, but traditional spiritual and ritual practices still play an important role in many communities.

The first anthropologist to study the Bugis in any detail was Christian Pelras, an ethnographer who spent many years living and working in South Sulawesi. Pelras found that there were strong links between pre-Islamic Bugis belief systems and their concepts of gender.

As in most other cultures, the majority of Bugis belong to one of two main genders: people who are biologically male and who also identify and live as men (oroané); or people who are biologically female and who identify and live as women (makkunrai).

But in addition, Bugis also recognise calalai’ — biological females who live and work more like men in society; and calabai’ — biological males who live like women, wear feminine clothes, and perform many of the functions that women traditionally perform. Typically, neither calalai’ nor calabai’ actually want to become the opposite gender. They are comfortable holding gender identities that are non-binary, and they are generally accepted as such in Bugis society.

In addition to these four genders, a fifth is also recognised. Bissu are a class of traditional priest — experts in pre-Islamic Bugis belief systems and rituals. They are regarded as embodiments of male, female, mortal and deity combined.

Sharyn Graham Davies, Associate Professor at Aukland University of Technology, New Zealand, has undertaken extensive ethnographic research into Bugis concepts of gender. During fifteen months of fieldwork, she learned that bissu embody elements of all genders within them, and thereby occupy a space outside or above any single gender identity. They are essentially beyond gender — ‘meta-gender’ or ‘gender-transcendent’ as they are sometimes described.

Some bissu are born intersex, possessing ambiguous genitalia. This is not always the case, but irrespective of their biology most bissu have a gender-ambiguous or androgynous appearance. This blending of genders is believed to bestow special spiritual powers upon them, and they are highly regarded in Bugis society for having a unique ability to intercede with the spirit world.

As religious specialists, bissu orchestrate a range of important ceremonies. They heal the sick, officiate at weddings and bestow ritual blessings upon people in the community. Davies has observed bissu at work, and describes complex rituals in which reverence for Allah is blended with shamanic trance, chanting and possession by spirits or deities (dewata).

One of Davies’ research informants, a bissu she calls Mariani, succinctly encapsulates the importance of gender to the spiritual role that bissu perform:

“… you must understand, neither a man nor a woman is powerful (sakti) enough to be possessed (disurupi) by dewata, and if you can’t be possessed, then you’re not bissu. It’s the combination of woman and man, and human and dewata, that makes us bissu.” (Mariani, interviewed in Davies’ PhD thesis, 2004: 187)

Far from being an attribute to be ignored, tolerated or passively accepted, Mariani’s blended gender identity is a culturally potent state of being. It is essential to facilitate the important role that s/he performs in Bugis society, and it is therefore highly valued by many.

Along with oroané, makkunrai, calalai’ and calabai’, the contribution of bissu to gender diversity in South Sulawesi is neither challenging nor offensive. Indeed, it is considered critical for ensuring balance and harmony for all.
 
you're probably in the minority there to think so poorly of them. But I take it GTplanet doesn't like the trans movement either.
 

Latest Posts

Back