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.

 

[novcze]

You refused to engage in any of my points highlighting some of the core aspects of gender (including differences in social expectations, roles and norms) and sex (differences in biology). If that's not handwaving then why is yours flapping around in the wind?

I understand what yours gender means; there’s no need to engage further.

Also just confirming, when you say you're "providing a different perspective", are you also providing the perspective of the 50-60 Czechs who undergo gender-affirming surgery per year,

It’s sex-affirming surgery, not gender-affirming. And yes, it’s also their 'reality', as they live within the same legal system. And you can’t change your sex in legal documents without surgery, ...

as well as the views of the Constitutional Court ruling that made it easier for trans people to change their legal gender

... because the ruling of the Constitutional Court has yet to take effect. And it’s unclear what the new process will look like.

Yes, that would be gender wouldn't it?

In yours definitions, we have gender linked with biological sex, as I wrote.

I'm sure most of the world does the same, though it doesn't eliminate the possibility of gender roles.

What gender roles? I do what needs to be done, i.e., live, and I don’t ask if it fits the expectations.

 

[Famine]

It’s sex-affirming surgery, not gender-affirming.

Actually, it's not.

"Sex change" surgery is "gender-affirming", because it changes the presentation of the body from the sex that doesn't match the gender to the one that does. It "affirms" the gender.

 

[MatskiMonk]

@Famine, am I imagining it, or did you once post an explanation of the timeline of physical development in foetuses with regards to the release of hormones affecting physical development?

I have it in mind that the triggers for physical development are quite early, and arrive at a point where the brain hasn't necessarily 'decided' what 'it' is?

 

[Daniel]

It’s sex-affirming surgery, not gender-affirming. And yes, it’s also their 'reality', as they live within the same legal system. And you can’t change your sex in legal documents without surgery, ...

Then how do you define 'sex'? I'm not asking you to define what your country thinks, but what you personally think, because you still cannot claim to think for your entire country.

Is it biology?

If its biology, what part of biology is it? Chromosomes? Genotype? Phenotype? Penis? Breasts? Hormones?

Is it psychology? Is it what I genuinely believe myself to be inside my head?

Is it legal? Is it what letter shows up on my driver's licence? What if I change my last name from Novák to Nováková?

Is it social? Is it based on what section of the store I buy shirts, or which bathroom I use, or what pronouns I would like someone to use if they're talking about me.

If you think about it, it makes sense: people can do whatever they want, except for things limited by their biological reality.

The reason I ask is because you imply here that sex seems to be based on biological reality, but you later agree that it can be changed via legal means.

 

[TexRex]

We expect females to have long hair.

Conservative is when you cry like a little bitch because pixie cut.

Miss France Eve Gilles forced to defend short haircut after international backlash: ‘Every woman is different’

A haircut sparked international online backlash after Eve Gilles was crowned Miss France on Saturday.

nypost.com

Miss France in woke row over 'androgynous' winner with pixie cut

Eve Gilles is the first contestant with a short hairstyle to win, fuelling outrage among viewers who say show prioritised 'inclusivity'

www.telegraph.co.uk

Expectations are stupid. Expectations are frequently and easily subverted. Expectations are based on emotion rather than reason.

Edit: Audrey Hepburn was woke.

 

[Daniel]

Conservative is when you cry like a little bitch because pixie cut.

Miss France Eve Gilles forced to defend short haircut after international backlash: ‘Every woman is different’

A haircut sparked international online backlash after Eve Gilles was crowned Miss France on Saturday.

nypost.com

Miss France in woke row over 'androgynous' winner with pixie cut

Eve Gilles is the first contestant with a short hairstyle to win, fuelling outrage among viewers who say show prioritised 'inclusivity'

www.telegraph.co.uk

Expectations are stupid. Expectations are frequently and easily subverted. Expectations are based on emotion rather than reason.

Edit: Audrey Hepburn was woke.

Women biologically can't have short hair. It's not even possible.

 

[FPV MIC]

Women biologically can't have short hair. It's not even possible.

Sooo... this is really Harry Berry?

Damn, she, I mean he really had me fooled... especially in Swordfish!

 

[TexRex]

Sooo... this is really Harry Berry?
View attachment 1419869

Damn, she, I mean he really had me fooled... especially in Swordfish!

Hal.

 

[FPV MIC]

Hal.

Of course, silly me

 

[ScottPuss20]

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

Fat slobs like this one:

This is very clearly a man pretending to be a woman and it's disgusting.

Conservative is when you cry like a little bitch because pixie cut.

Miss France Eve Gilles forced to defend short haircut after international backlash: ‘Every woman is different’

A haircut sparked international online backlash after Eve Gilles was crowned Miss France on Saturday.

nypost.com

Miss France in woke row over 'androgynous' winner with pixie cut

Eve Gilles is the first contestant with a short hairstyle to win, fuelling outrage among viewers who say show prioritised 'inclusivity'

www.telegraph.co.uk

Expectations are stupid. Expectations are frequently and easily subverted. Expectations are based on emotion rather than reason.

Edit: Audrey Hepburn was woke.

I'm not crying like a little bitch.

 

[Famine]

Fat slops like this one:

You know, if you feed yourself too much of the wrong stuff, your body does that.

Unrelatedly, why is it every time I see you posting something to reinforce your opinion it's a right-wing source known for just making stuff up?

If you feed yourself too much of the wrong stuff, your mind does... well, you.

 

[ScottPuss20]

You know, if you feed yourself too much of the wrong stuff, your body does that.

Unrelatedly, why is it every time I see you posting something to reinforce your opinion it's a right-wing source known for just making stuff up?

If you feed yourself too much of the wrong stuff, your mind does... well, you.

You just can't help yourself can you? I could very easily say that the left-wing sources make stuff up too you know.

 

[Famine]

You just can't help yourself can you?

In what sense?

Did I force you to post a Daily Caller video? Did I force you to post lots of Matt Walsh crap?

I could very easily say that the left-wing sources make stuff up too you know.

I'm sure you could, and there are very many that are just as unreliable as the Daily Caller (which ranks below Fox and OANN for truthfulness). I have no idea how that'd affect anything though.

 

[ScottPuss20]

In what sense?

You can't help post a snide remark about my level of intelligence.

I'm sure you could, and there are very many that are just as unreliable as the Daily Caller (which ranks below Fox and OANN for truthfulness). I have no idea how that'd affect anything though.

It just means that both ends of the spectrum are guilty.

 

[Famine]

You can't help post a snide remark about my level of intelligence.

Nope. Try reading it again.

You keep on trotting out the "ignorant" one too. You seem to miss the point that being ignorant of something (meaning "not knowing") is not the same as being an ignorant.

I am amazed that you have the gall to say that someone is "clearly a man" given that you managed to wrongly identify the sex of two of three individuals in a previous post...

Also I'd have thought that you would know that there's plenty of reasons for someone to be overweight without being a "slop" (I assume "slob"). Genes do be like that sometimes, but it's weird you want to just insult someone based on their appearance...

It just means that both ends of the spectrum are guilty.

Sure. Who's posting lunatic extremist left-wing "news" sources known for making stuff up to bolster their opinions in order for this to be relevant to the thread in any way?

 

[Daniel]

You can't help post a snide remark about my level of intelligence.

Is it snide to remark that the sources you are known to use are biased and unreliable[1][2][3]? Or is it just in the way Famine said it and he could have said it nicer?

It just means that both ends of the spectrum are guilty.

To my knowledge, nobody here (at least in this thread) has recently been posting unreliable left-wing sources. From memory, I've linked to a local Czech newspaper regarding the 50-60 surgeries that occur a year, and also linked to an article on the archaeological discovery of a male skeleton that was buried in a way that female skeletons were typical buried, suggesting that the person may have been trans.

I am amazed that you have the gall to say that someone is "clearly a man" given that you managed to wrongly identify the sex of two of three individuals in a previous post...

If Scott said "male" in regards to biological sex, he actually got all three wrong. If he said "male" in regards to gender, he only got two wrong.

 

[McLaren]

So, does this mean if a guy has sex with a woman with short hair, he's practically gay since she's "almost a boy"?

'Cause brother, I've been gay multiple times, then.

It just means that both ends of the spectrum are guilty.

But, you are the one actively, repeatedly sharing sources guilty of making stuff up.

 

[Famine]

If Scott said "male" in regards to biological sex, he actually got all three wrong. If he said "male" in regards to gender, he only got two wrong.

That depends on the precise meaning of the word "biological". Some mean chromosomal (which is usually a lot more complex than they think), some mean physiological - and some of those are cosmetic and some are "functional" (as if a woman's ability to breed confers womanhood).

Either way, he wanted to send all three into the boys' toilets 'cos they all look like dudes to him and two of three don't appear to be AMAB at all while the third appears AFAB but while male-identifying and jacked as hell I have no idea (nor care to) what's in their pants to make a "biological" determination.


Just as a purest nugget of fake-outrage hilarity, disabled-access toilets are almost exclusively non-gendered in the UK. Oh no, non-gendered toilets.

 

[TumeK5]

So anyway, which wing do you belong to? The left or right? Mine varies, depending which side the male toilet is situated at.

 

[Daniel]

That depends on the precise meaning of the word "biological". Some mean chromosomal (which is usually a lot more complex than they think), some mean physiological - and some of those are cosmetic and some are "functional" (as if a woman's ability to breed confers womanhood).

Either way, he wanted to send all three into the boys' toilets 'cos they all look like dudes to him and two of three don't appear to be AMAB at all while the third appears AFAB but while male-identifying and jacked as hell I have no idea (nor care to) what's in their pants to make a "biological" determination.


Just as a purest nugget of fake-outrage hilarity, disabled-access toilets are almost exclusively non-gendered in the UK. Oh no, non-gendered toilets.

Given how confusing sex is (even when you leave out gender) I probably should have used a better term.

AMAB: all three wrong.
Male gender identity: two wrong.