Transgender Thread.

[Daniel]

So why the hell are soo many people are coming out of the woodwork and calling themselves "experts" on sex and gender now?

Can you please provide an example?

Also this:

 

[Scaff]

I think this might've been discussed here before but there have been many cases throughout history of men and women having traits from the opposite gender. I know it may sound derogatory today but the "tomboy" was the best example of this. Girls having boyish traits were never really queried to the degree that they are now, and were more or less accepted by society. The most notable example in mainstream media would have to be Peppermint Patty from Peanuts. I watched several episodes of Peanuts when I was younger because it's what mum watched when she was a kid. Based on my understanding, Peppermint Patty was a beloved character that captured the hearts and minds of millions without being preachy. Everyone knew of her boyish traits but that was part of her as a character and no one gave a damn. There was another story that I read where a girl named Edwina was given the name "Eddie" due to her boyish traits. Sure, it was a little strange but I was able to understand why she was called "Eddie" for short.

That would be because of idiots like Matt Walsh, you know, the fascist you like.

So why the hell are soo many people are coming out of the woodwork and calling themselves "experts" on sex and gender now?

Tree'd perfectly by @Daniel

It's like how everyone becomes a horse racing expert during the Spring Racing Carnival when they don't know squat about horse racing. These so-called "experts" spread a lot of BS around and that's exactly whats gong on here.

Look in a mirror, the person here doing this is YOU!

Misinformation is nothing new but the rate at which it can spread and then be echoed by uncultured swine now is scary.

This is the real scourge of social media and we must stamp it out.

Then stop citing the nonsense from the likes of Walsh and co.

To quote Martin Niemoller...

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"

...but you're doing far worse than 'not speak out', you're actively championing those who, given the chance, would do you harm. And you doing it simply because a group of people who have never done you harm, make you feel a bit 'icky' and confused.

 

[ScottPuss20]

That would be because of idiots like Matt Walsh, you know, the fascist you like.

I don’t like him

Look in a mirror, the person here doing this is YOU!

Not anymore

Then stop citing the nonsense from the likes of Walsh and co.

I have stopped

To quote Martin Niemoller...

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"

...but you're doing far worse than 'not speak out', you're actively championing those who, given the chance, would do you harm. And you doing it simply because a group of people who have never done you harm, make you feel a bit 'icky' and confused.

I am not championing people who would harm me. Nor am I confused now.

 

[Scaff]

I don’t like him

Not anymore

I have stopped

I am not championing people who would harm me. Nor am I confused now.

Then you may want to make that a lot clearer when posting, particularly given your past posting history.

 

[Daniel]

I don’t like him

Not anymore

I have stopped

I am not championing people who would harm me. Nor am I confused now.

Can you clarify who you're referring to when you mention the so called "experts" in your previous post? I genuinely can't tell if you're referring to people who post anti-transphobic sentiment and conspiracy theories, or you're referring to those who just try to "exploit the whole transgender thing"?

Are you going to point out that it’s an outdated term or what? Is 'gender-affirming surgery' better? It’s the same thing with a different name.

Pretty much, but the intention behind the meaning is different.

As I've already established here earlier, sex now tends to refer to the more biological categorisation, while gender can refer to either the social categorisation and attribution.

I think the confusion is more of a linguistic issue, not a cultural issue.

Am I correct to assume that the only Czech word that was used for any sort of categorisation of a person from a man/woman/someone in-between, (legal, social, personal or biological) -- it's all "pohlaví"? And if you want to clarify what you mean, then you would use an adjective to use, say, "biología pohlaví"?

If that is the case, then I would probably say that -- English -- "sex" has started to become analogous to "biología pohlaví" while "gender" became analogous to "sociální pohlaví".

So it's more accurate to call it something like gender affirmation surgery, because it supports/affirms the patient's pohlaví that might be in their brain, as well as makes it easier for them to fit in with the sociální pohlaví they've chosen.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Can you clarify who you're referring to when you mention the so called "experts" in your previous post? I genuinely can't tell if you're referring to people who post anti-transphobic sentiment and conspiracy theories, or you're referring to those who just try to "exploit the whole transgender thing"?

When I say "experts", I mean it sarcastically. I'm not referring to trained doctors and biologists but self-proclaimed experts like political commentators such as Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro. That's what the whole horse racing analogy was about.

Yes, I'm bashing Matt Walsh now. How the turn tables.

 

[novcze]

Pretty much, but the intention behind the meaning is different.

Ok, do tell me.

As I've already established here earlier, sex now tends to refer to the more biological categorisation, while gender can refer to either the social categorisation and attribution.

And I’ve already established here that I understand the difference between sex and gender in English—not in detail, but well enough.
Also the context of me mentioning 'gender-affirming surgery' was our legal requirement for a (legal) sex change.

I think the confusion is more of a linguistic issue, not a cultural issue.

Both. If a culture or society doesn’t have a word for something, what does it tell you about the subject.

Am I correct to assume that the only Czech word that was used for any sort of categorisation of a person from a man/woman/someone in-between, (legal, social, personal or biological) -- it's all "pohlaví"? And if you want to clarify what you mean, then you would use an adjective to use, say, "biología pohlaví"?

If that is the case, then I would probably say that -- English -- "sex" has started to become analogous to "biología pohlaví" while "gender" became analogous to "sociální pohlaví".

So it's more accurate to call it something like gender affirmation surgery, because it supports/affirms the patient's pohlaví that might be in their brain, as well as makes it easier for them to fit in with the sociální pohlaví they've chosen.

Do you know what is typed on our ID cards? 'pohlaví/sex,' followed by the letter F or M, which stands for female or male.

The distinction between 'biologické pohlaví' (sex) and 'sociální pohlaví' (gender) is something only very modern sociologists would talk about, hence my earlier remarks about academia. If you have some strong opposition to the idea in English-speaking countries, it would be an absolute disaster here.
We often just use 'gender' in the same way you do, to avoid confusion with 'pohlaví'.

 

[Daniel]

If a culture or society doesn’t have a word for something, what does it tell you about the subject.

Not much. Loanwords are found all across the world and the fact that a word hasn't appeared by itself naturally doesn't give it any less validity.

Just because there isn't an English word for schadenfreude doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.

Do you know what is typed on our ID cards? 'pohlaví/sex,' followed by the letter F or M, which stands for female or male.

And if you wanted to clarify that, it would be legal sex. Because someone's biological sex wouldn't have changed.

What then happens in cases where someone changes their legal sex but doesn't get surgery (like other countries where surgery is not required)?

 

[novcze]

And if you wanted to clarify that, it would be legal sex. Because someone's biological sex wouldn't have changed.

True, but not under our current laws.

What then happens in cases where someone changes their legal sex but doesn't get surgery (like other countries where surgery is not required)?

Don't ask me, I'm not writing these laws. Let's see how the legislation changes. The easiest solution, which might not cause too much fuss, could be adding an "X" option, as is done in some other countries.

 

[novcze]

btw. I'm having a discussion with ChatGPT about gender and it looks like we can agree that focus on gender isn't very helpful. What you guys reckon?


ChatGPT wrote:

"Your perspective highlights a valid concern. Prioritizing personal freedom—the idea that everyone should be able to live authentically without being boxed into rigid categories—seems like a natural progression in societies valuing individuality and equality. Here's a breakdown of how activism around gender identities can be viewed in this context:

The Case for Personal Freedom​

• Focus on Individual Choices: Instead of creating new categories or labels, emphasizing personal freedom allows individuals to live according to their own preferences without needing societal validation or fitting into predefined roles.
• Avoiding Overcomplication: By centering discussions on universal human rights and freedoms, it may be easier to build inclusive frameworks without relying on potentially divisive or overly specific terminology.

Potential Concerns with Identity Activism​

• Reinforcing Labels: While aiming to challenge traditional roles, some activism might inadvertently create new labels and expectations, making identity more complex instead of simplifying it.
• Shifting Focus: Activism that focuses heavily on identity politics might detract from broader societal issues that affect everyone, such as healthcare, education, or economic equality, which could provide a more universally beneficial impact.
• Polarization: Highly visible activism around gender identities can sometimes alienate people who feel it doesn’t resonate with their lived experiences, creating unnecessary tension.

Finding a Balanced Approach​

• Inclusive Personal Freedom: Activism can focus on dismantling barriers and promoting freedom for all, rather than emphasizing specific identities. This approach aligns with the idea that people should have the freedom to express themselves without conforming to any role, whether traditional or newly created.
• Education and Understanding: Instead of pushing for universal adoption of specific frameworks, fostering mutual understanding and respect for individual choices can be more constructive and less polarizing.
• Focus on Core Values: Shifting activism toward issues that affect everyone—such as access to healthcare, anti-discrimination laws, and workplace fairness—might have a broader positive impact while still supporting those who face unique challenges.

In essence, placing personal freedom at the forefront might simplify complex debates around identity, fostering a society where everyone is free to define themselves without excessive focus on categories. It's about striking a balance between respecting individual identities and uniting around shared values."