Transgender Thread.

[TumeK5]

@Imari Funny enough, I was actually going to mention this very thing, but thought "nah, this is common info, right..."

Right?

 

[MatskiMonk]

That asking to be addressed with a plural is silly.

They/Them is how you would address someone you knew to be a person, but how you weren't gendering for whatever reason... like, if you were being pursued by an unknown assassin, and you had to explain to a random stranger whose help you needed, you'd say, "they're trying to kill me, we need to stop them". If you were citing the work of a scientist who's gender you didn't know, but who's name you did, the most linguistically frictionless way to refer to them is they.. like, Dr. Brown didn't know what the flux capacitor would do at 88.8mph and 1.21GW, but they supposed it would enable time travel...

I mean, you might choose to reword that to support your argument, but it's perfectly good English.

Also...

 

[TumeK5]

Also, it just occured to me, but there is a possible scenario where you know the person's name, but when talking to others about them you don't want to disclose their name for privacy's sake. Then you have to use some pronouns.



Notice how I used they/them when referring to a person in general? Isn't it neat?

 

[TexRex]

They/them is a strange way of being addressed because they aren't singular terms.

Sure they are. There's even a special name for when they are. Indefinite singular pronouns. They're called that because the subject isn't defined beyond as the singular. Turns out there are all kinds of pronouns depending on particular use that have nothing to do with gender non-conforming personal preference. But even in the case of gender non-conforming personal preference, why is it so triggering?

 

[ScottPuss20]

Yeah sorry about that, I must be half-asleep to not pick up on my logical fallacy😹

"I don't know who I'm dealing with but I'm going to find them"

I feel really stupid now.

 

[Scaff]

I can accept the existence of trans people.

But only if you can effectively pretend they don't exist.

But not when it destroys an existing brand

Then you should be annoyed at the marketing execs, not the people in the ad, who you may be shocked to hear, didn't actually create the concept of the ad. Oh, for the record, have a guess how much my 79 year old father (who is an absurd JLR fan - currently owns 1 x Jag and 5 x LR) is angry at trans-people for the new re-brand? That's right he didn't even mention it!

and is made out to be "normal" when it's not.

Citation required (oh and that right there is transphobia).

The people featured in the Jaguar ad are very few and far between in reality.

Fun game, let's take another community that is a similar size (in terms of percentage of world population) and imagine them being treated the same. Hi Australia, you now have to sit down and shut-up, @ScottPuss20 says that your too small a number to be included.

 

[UKMikey]

That's a relief. I won't have to change the signature on my posts after all.

 

[McLaren]

Yes!

The answer is actually, no.

I don't think you've fully grasped the personal, turnaround hypothetical Imari presented towards you. You are aware disability rights were born out of making noise, right? That they stemmed from the very civil rights movement Black people fought for?

The history of the disability rights movement is inseparable from the civil rights movement, both of which strive for equality, justice, and inclusion for marginalized communities. Inspired by the progress made by Black people in their fight against discrimination, the disability rights movement emerged to advocate for the specific needs of people with disabilities. Influenced by the civil rights movement, disability rights activists employed similar tactics, like sit-ins, to protest the unequal treatment of and lack of accessibility for people with disabilities.

Of the connection between the two movements, Disability Rights Michigan noted, “If it weren’t for the civil rights movement, the disability rights movement, and resulting civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities, would probably never have existed. The civil rights movement inspired individuals with disabilities to fight against segregation and for full inclusion under the law. Public institutions would often segregate or exclude people with disabilities from participation in public education, employment, or in using public services, such as public transportation. They took their cues for how to advocate for themselves from Black civil rights activists, many of whom had disabilities themselves.”

https://www.naacpldf.org/disability-rights-and-racial-justice/

I'm not going to engage in a debate over it, but I think Imari's post presented an interesting thought for you to re-consider because (without knowing the physical background of others here), you're actually in a position to empathize where the transgender community comes from when it comes to inclusion b/c you are part of a community of people who raised their voices & let it be known that their physical appearance made them no less of man-or-woman than others, & they did not deserve to be excluded from society because others felt they were an inconvenience, disruption, or hindrance to "normal" people's lives. And that just because things were created for your benefit over mine in every day life, does not mean I am now "forced" to accept that you are treated the way you want to be treated. Those "perks" created to make your life easier do not hinder mine in any way.

 

[ScottPuss20]

But only if you can effectively pretend they don't exist.

I do not pretend.

Then you should be annoyed at the marketing execs, not the people in the ad, who you may be shocked to hear, didn't actually create the concept of the ad. Oh, for the record, have a guess how much my 79 year old father (who is an absurd JLR fan - currently owns 1 x Jag and 5 x LR) is angry at trans-people for the new re-brand? That's right he didn't even mention it!

I am annoyed at the execs for doing something soo stupid and out of touch with reality.

Citation required (oh and that right there is transphobia).

It’s not transphobia, it’s a fact. They make up a small number of people on earth. I know that I’m not normal.

Fun game, let's take another community that is a similar size (in terms of percentage of world population) and imagine them being treated the same. Hi Australia, you now have to sit down and shut-up, @ScottPuss20 says that your too small a number to be included.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Could you maybe put it into context?

The answer is actually, no.

I don't think you've fully grasped the personal, turnaround hypothetical Imari presented towards you. You are aware disability rights were born out of making noise, right? That they stemmed from the very civil rights movement Black people fought for?

https://www.naacpldf.org/disability-rights-and-racial-justice/

The goal of these movements was to increase accessibility for disabled people and give them an easier path through life. They did not bully others into submission, they protested and lobbied governments to change certain laws. Some of these gender activists want more than equal rights, they want to totally destroy biological truths. That is a much slipperier slope.

 

[Imari]

The goal of these movements was to increase accessibility for disabled people and give them an easier path through life. They did not bully others into submission, they protested and lobbied governments to change certain laws.

That's semantics. Protests and lobbying can equally be described as bullying if you disagree with the outcome. Functionally, the movements are the same. As are basically all movements for equality and fair treatment.

Some of these gender activists want more than equal rights, they want to totally destroy biological truths.

You can't say you're not a transphobe and say this.

No rational trans activist is trying to totally destroy the idea of biological gender. At best they want people to know that even biological gender is significantly more complicated than most people think it is. Maybe there's some loonies out there, but they're not the ones driving the movement.

What I think most trans people would like is for society to recognise that in the vast majority of gendered interactions, the idea of gender is based more on appearance and vibes than any physical truth. If someone feels more comfortable as a man, then let them be a man.

If someone who looks like a dude and is dressed like a dude walks into the dudes bathroom and goes into a stall to pee, how is that a problem for you exactly? You might get a fright when you peer over the top of the door and see that he doesn't have a cock? That seems like a you problem.

Now, you could describe that as destroying the idea of social gender if you wanted to be hyperbolic, and I think that would be just fine. There's a lot of stuff that's stereotypically male and female for no particularly good reason and the sooner people get those ideas out of their heads the better.

That is a much slipperier slope.

A slippery slope to what exactly? Allowing people to feel comfortable being their authentic selves?

Disabled activism required actual actions on the part of other people to accommodate disabled people. That was a good and fair thing, but even just physical disabled access is non-trivial in a lot of cases.

Trans people basically just ask that you treat them like another person. You don't have to do anything except not lose your rag and call them by their preferred names, just like you do for every other human that you've interacted with ever. There is no cost to you. You lose nothing. You are not required to go into the bathroom with them and hold their hand.

But the cost of absolutely nothing is apparently too high for you to pay when it comes to someone else's happiness. That tells us who you are, as a man.

 

[McLaren]

The goal of these movements was to increase accessibility for disabled people and give them an easier path through life. They did not bully others into submission, they protested and lobbied governments to change certain laws.

So, then you actually agree they should not have, "made too much of a fuss and disrupted other people's lives. Just be a quiet little disabled and stay in their line".

The movement for transgender rights is not far away; they too want accessibility & an easier life without discrimination b/c they are "different".

Some of these gender activists want more than equal rights, they want to totally destroy biological truths.

There literally people out there today who do not like the fact disabled people get perks as simple as dedicated parking spaces up front that the law protects through fines.

That is a much slipperier slope.

I remember gay rights being seen as a "slippery slope".

But, as said, I'm not going to debate you on this. I merely believe you should have given second thought to a comparison made involving your own life experience as a sign of some common ground, and you've apparently decided to glance over it with the belief that your community's journey was justified, but transgenderism isn't b/c of the words of a few, even though there were disabled rights activists also asking for things that could be as seen as "excessive" by today's standards.

In 1988, students at Gallaudet University, the only American university specifically for deaf students, led the "Deaf President Now" protest. Students made several demands, calling for a Deaf president and majority Deaf population on the Board of Trustees. This week-long protest resulted successfully in the appointment of deaf president, Dr. I. King Jordan. Their protest inspired inclusion and integration across communities.

Disability History: The Disability Rights Movement (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

You do you, mate.

 

[Scaff]

I do not pretend.

Yes you do, you clearly advocated for putting limits on the actions and speech of a minority group.

I am annoyed at the execs for doing something soo stupid and out of touch with reality.

Yet you blame trans individuals for that action.

It’s not transphobia, it’s a fact.

What is a 'fact', and be careful how to reply to ensure you are indeed stating a fact and not your opinion dressed up as fact.

They make up a small number of people on earth.

So do Australians, should we limit the rights of Australians for the same reason?

I know that I’m not normal.

Define normal.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Could you maybe put it into context?

I already have, I'm using two similar size groups to illustrate the absurdity of limiting rights based on the percentage of global population.

The goal of these movements was to increase accessibility for disabled people and give them an easier path through life. They did not bully others into submission, they protested and lobbied governments to change certain laws.

Through direct action, they did not meekly ask permission, they went out and demanded it, and you benefited from that direct action, yet you don't want the same route to be open to other minority groups.

Some of these gender activists want more than equal rights, they want to totally destroy biological truths. That is a much slipperier slope.

Oh boy, this is going to be fun. Go on then, what biological truths? Keep in mind that gender isn't biological (it's a social construct), and what I suspect you are referring to is biological sex (and I promise you that's not even close to as simple as you think it is).

 

[TumeK5]

From what I gather, this person has had a rather rough life, and thanks to how it has transpired so far, takes his misery out on other groups that are also suffering and struggling.

Some comedy writes itself.


Ah, I see the whiteknight has arrived. Funny how he only poo'd this post and nothing else. He has a lot to catch up on, I suppose.

 

[Uncreative]

Some of these gender activists want more than equal rights, they want to totally destroy biological truths. That is a much slipperier slope.

I'm assuming by "destroy biological truths" you mean go against the ideas of gender essentialism, the idea that there is something inherently different between male and female people (if this isn't what you mean please say so because I'd like to argue in good faith and explain specifically why I disagree with you). Most trans people and trans allies disagree with gender essentialism and believe that gender (man, woman, non-binary, etc) is a sociological role, and that the differences between men and women in a society are due to societal pressures and stereotypes instead of any deeper biological reasoning.

The norm of men having shorter hair and women having long hair doesn't stem from a biological reason, but is a norm that is created based on how a society historically expects the people in it to act based on their sex. Biological differences don't really matter as much when you can take hormones or have surgeries done that bring you closer to the way the opposite sex of the one you were assigned as is perceived. Our idea is that the reason female people tend to be more nurturing or gentle and male people tend to be more leader-ly and outspoken is that if women are expected to take care of children and men are expected to be breadwinners by society, that is what influences them instead of an inherent biological reason.

It’s not transphobia, it’s a fact. They make up a small number of people on earth. I know that I’m not normal.

A demographic being the majority or minority in a society doesn't mean one is normal and one is wrong. The majority of people in the USA are white, but that doesn't mean being black or Hispanic is wrong. There being less black people than white people doesn't mean that media or goods can't be catered towards non-white people. When trans people are focused on more than cis people in a specific case it is almost always to increase representation to a point where it's not weird or unusual for someone who isn't cishet to be shown in media. People focusing on trans healthcare are trying to make it so an underrepresented group can have access to healthcare on the level that cis people do. It is a fact that a cis man can be prescribed testosterone and a cis woman can be prescribed estrogen easier than a trans person can, and don't need to jump through the same hoops a trans person does. The point of focusing on minority issues is to afford marginalized groups the same rights and abilities as the groups that are in the majority.

 

[Daniel]

I'm assuming by "destroy biological truths" you mean go against the ideas of gender essentialism, the idea that there is something inherently different between male and female people (if this isn't what you mean please say so because I'd like to argue in good faith and explain specifically why I disagree with you). Most trans people and trans allies disagree with gender essentialism and believe that gender (man, woman, non-binary, etc) is a sociological role, and that the differences between men and women in a society are due to societal pressures and stereotypes instead of any deeper biological reasoning.

I think a another clarifying clarifying question to @ScottPuss20 would be: can you describe the difference between sex and gender?

 

[TexRex]

It's important to keep in mind that this one's positions aren't so much reasoned as they are regurgitated and without having another's takes ready to hand one is left with the choice between floundering on and flouncing out.

 

[novcze]

I think a another clarifying clarifying question to @ScottPuss20 would be: can you describe the difference between sex and gender?

Do you realize that some countries don’t recognize gender and people are fine with that? If you think about it, it makes sense: people can do whatever they want, except for things limited by their biological reality. They don’t need to conform to a social construct to live as they choose.

Earlier in this thread, I shared the opinion that modern gender definitions might be an English cultural concept. However, given the number of people struggling with it, I now believe it was created by academia as a new field of study to secure grants and generate income.

In my own country, I’ve noticed that the only people talking about gender are west-influenced activists and academics.

And by the way, I can't be the only one arguing that gender theory is flawed, as it reinforces stereotypes and/or creates new ones, ultimately shifting the focus from the obvious fact that every person is an individual who doesn't need to conform to a social construct.

 

[MatskiMonk]

... huh, I was just going to go with; Gender is what you are, Sex is what you watch on the internet.

 

[Exorcet]

Do you realize that some countries don’t recognize gender and people are fine with that? If you think about it, it makes sense: people can do whatever they want, except for things limited by their biological reality. They don’t need to conform to a social construct to live as they choose.

In the sense of not caring how people act, then not recognizing gender is fine, but this doesn't always happen. The reason for bringing gender to the forefront is because people have traditionally been influenced by it even if they didn't recognize it as a concept.

Earlier in this thread, I shared the opinion that modern gender definitions might be an English cultural concept. However, given the number of people struggling with it, I now believe it was created by academia as a new field of study to secure grants and generate income.

Gender rolls seem to be fairly common globally, though sometimes to varying degrees. They're also not limited to the modern era. Christianity has put men and women into different roles for centuries in Europe and this was inherited from Jewish gender roles. The strong preference for male children in China is the result of very long lived cultural views on gender. This is why gender has become a field of study. I'm not sure how a baseless field would survive to receive grants if it never produced results.

In my own country, I’ve noticed that the only people talking about gender are west-influenced activists and academics.

And by the way, I can't be the only one arguing that gender theory is flawed, as it reinforces stereotypes and/or creates new ones, ultimately shifting the focus from the obvious fact that every person is an individual who doesn't need to conform to a social construct.

What gender theory are you talking about here? The field isn't built around reinforcing the existing stereotypes.

 

[Daniel]

Do you realize that some countries don’t recognize gender and people are fine with that? If you think about it, it makes sense: people can do whatever they want, except for things limited by their biological reality. They don’t need to conform to a social construct to live as they choose.

People living beyond the realms of "born as man, live as man" have walked this earth for millenia.

Just because it's not commonplace, or recognised, or accepted in some countries does not mean it does not exist.

@Exorcet had already spoken to the realities of socially constructed expectations and restrictions placed upon men & women.

It'd be great to be able to choose to do whatever you want, but the point I want to hammer home is that: we all live in cultures where expectations, norms and social roles exist for men and women. It might not be illegal to defy those expectations and norms, but that doesn't mean ramifications do not exist.

Think about the fact that women in then-Czechoslovakia only got the right to vote in 1920. There's no biological reason for that, but women couldn't to things they wanted to.

A man can choose to be a stay-at-home dad while his wife is the main breadwinner, but you would be lying to yourself if you said that the role of homemaker was not traditionally a role for the mother. Or that the father would get no pushback, criticism or ridicule for choosing to be the stay-at-home dad.

However, given the number of people struggling with it, I now believe it was created by academia as a new field of study to secure grants and generate income.

Academia exists to observe and study what is happening in the world. Sometimes, new words and concepts are 'created' to describe things that were already happening. To put it really simply, gender started being used to refer to the social and cultural differences and sex started to be used to describe the biological differences.

Differentiating between the two also makes it a hell of a lot easier to explain the social phenomena of trans people and other "third genders" that have existed in cultures around the world well before academia even knew about them.

Take two-spirited people in North America, or Balkan sworn virgins, or fa'afafine in Samoa, or the multiple genders aside from man and woman in the Bugis culture in Indonesia.

Countless research has been done on them. They exist.

Handwaving this all away as "some countries don't recognise gender" or saying that it's a term created by academia for grant money and only commonly used by "west-influenced" activists is wilfully ignorant at best, and transphobic at worst.

In my own country, I’ve noticed that the only people talking about gender are west-influenced activists and academics.

That's funny because one of the earliest possible archeological examples of a transgender person was discovered in Prague.

 

[ScottPuss20]

"What is a woman?"



Matt may be a **** movie reviewer but I agree with him here. I don't know how anyone can argue with this but I'm just a man pretending to be a cat so what do I know?

 

[Daniel]

"What is a woman?"



Matt may be a **** movie reviewer but I agree with him here. I don't know how anyone can argue with this but I'm just a man pretending to be a cat so what do I know?

I had a quick listen through and don't think Matt touched upon the differences between sex and gender, and looks to use man/male and woman/female almost interchangeably.

It doesn't answer my question to you of: can you describe the differences between sex and gender?

 

[sw3g005]

Matt may be a **** movie reviewer but I agree with him here. I don't know how anyone can argue with this but I'm just a man pretending to be a cat so what do I know?

Wait Matt Walsh is a film reviewer??? I only knew of him as an alt-right POS so him having any other job is uh... certainly news to me.

But then again, I did learn only recently that Ben Shapiro was an unsuccessful screenwriter, so...

 

[McLaren]

I don't know how anyone can argue with this

Watch the Joe Rogan interview with him #1895. He spouts this same anti-transgender, anti-gay rhetoric & Rogan grills him on every counter-point.

Edit* Here's an example. Walsh tries boast millions of kids were on hormone blockers as part of his propaganda that children were being "indoctrinated" by LGTBQ+. Immediately gets fact checked by Jamie that less than 5,000 over 5 years were on them & tries to scale it back to "hundreds of thousands" with still no actual proof.


It's shocking what happens when you actually watch these right-wing grifting idiots outside their own channels where they control the discussion. It's how Crowder, Shapiro, & this dumb ass all draw viewers to themselves, by purposely enticing average people with zero time to prepare/study to "debate" them so they can film it, and then keep the footage they want whilst using those people to paint the narrative all of them are "stupid" & get "owned". So folks like Scott here share them thinking they're actually making "sense" b/c they don't know any better themselves.

It is the equivalent of late night comedy skits like Jay-Walking except these ghouls are actually serious about trying to push their desired views.

I'm just a man pretending to be a cat so what do I know

Agreeing with the view point of a man who would dead face tell his audience what society should do to you, regardless if you're joking or not.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Watch the Joe Rogan interview with him #1895. He spouts this same anti-transgender, anti-gay rhetoric & Rogan grills him on every counter-point.

Edit* Here's an example. Walsh tries boast millions of kids were on hormone blockers as part of his propaganda that children were being "indoctrinated" by LGTBQ+. Immediately gets fact checked by Jamie that less than 5,000 over 5 years were on them & tries to scale it back to "hundreds of thousands" with still no actual proof.


It's shocking what happens when you actually watch these right-wing grifting idiots outside their own channels where they control the discussion. It's how Crowder, Shapiro, & this dumb ass all draw viewers to themselves, by purposely enticing average people with zero time to prepare/study to "debate" them so they can film it, and then keep the footage they want whilst using those people to paint the narrative all of them are "stupid" & get "owned". So folks like Scott here share them thinking they're actually making "sense" b/c they don't know any better themselves.

It is the equivalent of late night comedy skits like Jay-Walking except these ghouls are actually serious about trying to push their desired views.

Agreeing with the view point of a man who would dead face tell his audience what society should do to you, regardless if you're joking or not.

What? So telling people that there's 2 types of reproductive organs is wrong? And you're saying that I'm just a dumbass follower? Do you even know who you're dealing with? Or are you too busy being outraged to see the insanity that trans activists push?

 

[McLaren]

And you're saying that I'm just a dumbass follower?

The shoe fits if you want to label yourself that.

Do you even know who you're dealing with?

Who? Matt Walsh? That moron wouldn't say **** to me. These guys are bitch made in public on their own.

Or are you too busy being outraged

Look in a mirror. You throw a fit every time you talk about transgender & now we all know why b/c you listen to the dumbest people on YouTube.

 

[Exorcet]

What? So telling people that there's 2 types of reproductive organs is wrong?

In the very first video Matt's definition was challenged with the idea of a person without reproductive organs. Intersex is a thing and by itself it already makes a neat binary sex classification difficult. Things get even muddier when you realize that people forgo biology all the time when classifying people in social situations. Who checks another person's chromosomes or internal organs before addressing them? No one in day to day life. In many, many cases if someone fits another's internal concept of a man they are labeled as male no matter their biology. The same is true in the reverse situation.

I myself don't have a problem with using biological definitions for male and female, but even then I realize that those definitions aren't as straight forward in practice as they might seem. Right now we're communicating through the internet where biology is even harder to establish, yet people are still labeled male and female based on a number of factors through this medium. Those factors are subjective in many cases, which makes the notion of identity being subjective as put forward in the video not so far fetched. I think it's reasonable to disagree to the points raised, but not so much to dismiss the idea entirely. I think it's also important to point out that, at least from what I saw, no one was arguing against biological reality.

And you're saying that I'm just a dumbass follower? Do you even know who you're dealing with? Or are you too busy being outraged to see the insanity that trans activists push?

I'm assuming the insanity is supposed to be in the videos you posted. Can you summarize it? At best I see arguments that sound unpolished perhaps from a lack of preparation, but still touch on some valid points.

 

[sw3g005]

Or are you too busy being outraged to see the insanity that trans activists push?

LMAO projection much? And what insanity are trans activists trying to push? The right to be left alone and not get harassed (to death in an increasingly worrying amount of cases) by politicians and influencers needing a scapegoat to further their agenda?

 

[Com Fox]

I'm just a man pretending to be a cat so what do I know?

Wait you actually identify as a cat or is that a joke?

If it's the former, curious why you identifying as a cat is fine but people identifying as the opposite gender or a different one is crossing the line?

 

[LeMansAid]

@Daniel - "The differences between sex and gender"...

If viewed not as interchangeable terms, referring solely to biological sex, I don't see that there's much point in describing "gender" at all. Still, if there's a want to describe these certain traits/behaviours/roles, I oppose the conflation with sex. Using male/female terminology attaches those descriptions/monikers to biological sex, making it inherently sexist and (in my opinion) societally regressive. I think that it needs to be further distanced (by not using male/female), or not distanced at all. In the same way, I would vehemently oppose there becoming an equivalent distinction between say race and ethnicity, where ethnicity became a term for certain traits/behaviours/roles to be deemed black, white, asian.....

I think that people should be and feel free to look and act how they need/want to, without that being a commentary on what it is to be male or female. I oppose sexism in both its "conservative" and "progressive" forms.