Transgender Thread.

[ScottPuss20]

To echo what @LeMansAid said, I suspect a lot of people here would agree with you on that. In fact they're so closely aligned to the point where there have been multiple pages in thread based on misunderstandings about what people are saying versus what they're indending to say.

Those 'trans activists' disagree with Matt Walsh's definition of a woman, but not because they are denying "biological reality". They disagree because they view the word 'woman' in the context of gender, and not sex.

If you use sex as the signifier for day-to-day life, for instance:

• Which bathroom do I use?
• Do I use Mr or Miss if I'm asking my teacher something?
• If I'm talking to someone else about Scott, do I say "he" or "she"?

Then you'll have a very difficult time trying to prove it and you might get it wrong sometimes.

Let's go back to those photos. I asked you 'what bathroom and pronouns would these people use', and you responded 'Male' to each of them.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of your response is that you are saying these men are all biologically male, and if you were talking about one of them, you would use the term "he".

View attachment 1419632

This is a rugby player named Ilona Maher. She was born female, and her identiy is 'woman'.

View attachment 1419633
This is a body builder named Shaun Stinson. He was born female, but his gender identity is 'man'.

View attachment 1419634

This is LaRae Perkins. She was born female, and her gender is a woman. She has a condition called PCOS (which can only happen in those born female) which can cause facial hair growth.

The point I hope you can get from that little exercise is understanding why many people will prioritise gender over sex when it comes to day-to-day interactions.

And unless you're a doctor, or about to (consentually) undress someone for some fun adult sleepovers, I would say sex is irelevant to the conversation.

I'm happy that you haven't called me "ignorant" here. It very much seems that our idea of gender is based on societal expectation instead of biological reality. We expect males to be muscular. We expect females to have long hair. And in the majority of cases, this is very much true and hence why it's considered a "norm". I am not against freedom of expression but you can't ignore biological fact and say that sex is a spectrum. It's not. Legitimate trans people do not deserve the discrimination and the people who are exploiting the whole transgender thing immediately call it into question. In my mind, a transgender person is someone who does not present themselves in a way that their sex organs would suggest on their birth certificate. These cases are quite rare though so this whole hullabaloo is just ridiculous. People are in hysterics and that's when all logic goes out the window.

 

[Daniel]

can't ignore biological fact and say that sex is a spectrum.

Two things here:

Biological fact. Like I mentioned before, I don't think many trans people or allies are "ignoring biological facts", but don't consider it relevant. I'm would assume they're referring to a gender spectrum. I've mentioned it in a number of different posts on this thread, but different cultures have different genders outside of just man and woman, and if you want to speak for all of humanity, it's probably simpler to just say "gender is a spectrum" rather than try to point out every single different gender there is in every single culture on Earth.

Sex is not a spectrum. Others have pointed it out before on this forum and probably with better nuance, but it's not entirely wrong to consider biological sex as some sort of spectrum.

If you classify biological sex solely on chromosomes, then someone with de la Chapelle syndrome must be a woman, even though they were born with a penis?

If you classify biological sex on sex organs then how do you classify someone who has had phalloplasty or vaginoplasty?

If you classify it based on traits that are typically associated with biological males, or biological females then how do you classify someone with gynaecomastia, or PCOS?

Those questions are all rhetorical. You don't need to answer them but merely think about how many different possible combinations there can be when you have to take into account chromosomes, genotypes, karyotypes, internal sex organs and external sex organs. It might not exactly be a spectrum but it's certainly not male/female.

These cases are quite rare so this whole hullabaloo is just ridiculous. People are just in hysterics and that's when all logic goes out the window.

Agreed! But what else can do you do if your state is looking to legislate requiring you to use the female bathroom, even if you look like Shaun Stinson?

Also, who do you think is "exploiting the whole transgender thing" and why?

 

[LeMansAid]

If you classify biological sex solely on chromosomes, then someone with de la Chapelle syndrome must be a woman, even though they were born with a penis?

I don't see why not. Men typically bald more readily than women, I don't see why a female with alopecia should be any more likely to be called a male. Just because we're very used to associating penises with males, doesn't mean that it needs to be exclusive.

Not that you're obliged to reply, but you saw my earlier reply to you?

 

[Daniel]

I don't see why not. Men typically bald more readily than women, I don't see why a female with alopecia should be any more likely to be called a male. Just because we're very used to associating penises with males, doesn't mean that it needs to be exclusive.

For what it's worth, someone with de la Chapelle syndrome (XX chromosomes) has a male phenotype. That is to say they have "typical-male" externally presenting genitals.

If you would still classify that person as "female", the question then becomes, what sex is someone with Kleinfelter syndrome (XXY chromosomes), or X0 chromosomes (ie one X chromosome and a lack of a second)?

Not that you're obliged to reply, but you saw my earlier reply to you?

Yep! I edited in a response to a previous post.

 

[LeMansAid]

For what it's worth, someone with de la Chapelle syndrome (XX chromosomes) has a male phenotype. That is to say they have "typical-male" externally presenting genitals.

If you would still classify that person as "female", the question then becomes, what sex is someone with Kleinfelter syndrome (XXY chromosomes), or X0 chromosomes (ie one X chromosome and a lack of a second)?

Yep! I edited in a response to a previous post.

Male, female, kleinfelter, etc... How ever many sexes we need to cover the variations. That actually presents as way less complex to me, and doesn't problematically ascribe behavioural traits to those sexes.

Thank you for pointing out that you edited. I was notified of being tagged but read the post before the edit(s) happened. I still can't see how de-coupling gender from sex is useful, though. If I replace all of your gender words with sex words (ie. "gendered" might become "sex-associated" or "sex-specific", depending on the context) it all still makes just as much sense. Why not cut out the middle..... person, and just get back to ultimately broadening how one can behave and present as a male or female?

 

[Scaff]

These cases are quite rare though so this whole hullabaloo is just ridiculous.

It's not when you consider that even quite rare things are very, very numerous when you have a large enough sample size, and the human population is very, very large.

I've even covered this with you before, the population of Australia and a rough total of trans-individuals are around the same. Ignoring or limiting the rights of all Australians would (I'm sure you agree) be unjust, the exact same is true of trans-individuals.

 

[Daniel]

Male, female, kleinfelter, etc... How ever many sexes we need to cover the variations.

I suppose it's a lot easier for biologists and physicians to just go there's two...but, or it's complicated. If you think that we should only use chromosomal combinations for the number of sexes, then my all means submit the suggestion to the medical and scientific community.

If I replace all of your gender words with sex words (ie. "gendered" might become "sex-associated" or "sex-specific", depending on the context) it all still makes just as much sense.

Err, not exactly. Like I said, one points to cultural norms that have been constructed over time and across cultures. The other points to biological reality.

Menstruation specific to one sex*. That is something that is biologically inherent.
Wearing high heels is associated with one gender. That is not biologically inherent, it's because cultures have ascribed that role and trait.

Why not cut out the middle..... person, and just get back to ultimately broadening how one can behave and present as a male or female?

It'd be great for us to get to this point as societies, but the fact that gender is so deepy engrained into us socially but also psychologically (I believe our internal sense of gender is determined around 3-5 yearso old), how would you be able to do that without de-coupling the two concepts at all?

*I don't know enough about menstruation in other female phenotypes that aren't XX chromosome pairings.

 

[Scaff]

Wearing high heels is associated with one gender. That is not biologically inherent, it's because cultures have ascribed that role and trait.

And this is a great example of how what we describe as norm are anything but, as they are fluid over time.

High heels have only been gendered since the 20th century, look back before that, and right the way back to the ancient Egyptians and they were more indicators of either social status, practicality, or job function (and often a combination of these).

 

[Famine]

I suppose it's a lot easier for biologists and physicians to just go there's two...but, or it's complicated. If you think that we should only use chromosomal combinations for the number of sexes, then my all means submit the suggestion to the medical and scientific community.

And then there's mosaicism

 

[Daniel]

And then there's mosaicism

Ooh I'm not much of a ceramics fan artwork fan, sorry.