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."

 

[Daniel]

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 will agree with you if you tell it to. If you're saying "we" in regards to the participants in this thread, then I would disagree; I don't think there is necessarily a "focus" on gender identity and sex any more than there is a focus on age, class, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexuality, political affiliation or disability. Those are all attributes that people are born with, have assigned to them or choose to have. And like it or not, society uses them descriptively or prescripively.

We're obviously focusing on gender here because it's the thread topic.

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:

That would be great if we lived in societies that valued individuality and equality.

Too bad we don't.

I am gay. If we got rid of the label "gay" then I am still at risk for getting beaten up if I hold my boyfriend's hand in public.

Remove the label "transgender" and someone who would have had that label is still going to face more discrimination than I ever will. And certainly more discrimination than anyone straight & cisgender.

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.

This is contradictive. People create new labels to more accurately describe how they feel. That is the opposite of pre-defined.

• 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.

See my point above regarding discrimination. There aren't currently universal rights and freedoms. You need labels to help define who is lacking rights and how they can get them. Also 'avoiding complication'? LOL just learn a new word. It's not that hard.

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.

The goal isn’t to "simplify" identity—it’s to allow people to define themselves on their own terms. Traditional roles already impose expectations. New labels exist to push back against that.

• 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.

I've already said that LGBTQ+ people face more discrimination. This includes higher rates of homelessness, suicide, healthcare discrimination, and poverty because of their existence.

I will say it again: remove the label and that will still happen.

• Polarization: Highly visible activism around gender identities can sometimes alienate people who feel it doesn’t resonate with their lived experiences, creating unnecessary tension.

This sounds like a long way of saying, "Some cis people feel uncomfortable when trans people exist visibly."

If you feel alienated about someone's gender identity then maybe get over it?

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.

Perfect! Let’s start with the people who face more barriers and have fewer freedoms. What words should we use to describe them?

Right—labels.

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."

----

I have a label on my coffee that says it's "coffee". It tells me about it and lets me know what it is.

I'm not going to ask someone, "would you like cup of near-boiling water pushed through gounded up seeds of a plant that have been roasted for about 10 minutes at 215°C"?
I'm going to ask them, "would you like a cup of coffee?"

Labels help describe who we are, and don't necessarily define who we are.

I am gay. I am a cis man (that is: I was assigned 'male' at birth and continue to identify as a man). I have ADHD. I am white. These are all labels that help describe me and how I navigate the world. They also let me unite and let me know that I share values and experiences with those who have similar values.

Having labels are not what puts me into boxes, what puts me into boxes is how society sees those labels.

 

[novcze]

ChatGPT will agree with you if you tell it to.

That would be pointless.

If you're saying "we" in regards to the participants in this thread,

I mean It and I.

That would be great if we lived in societies that valued individuality and equality.

Too bad we don't.

It's possible that I'm projecting.

I am gay. If we got rid of the label "gay" then I am still at risk for getting beaten up if I hold my boyfriend's hand in public.

Remove the label "transgender" and someone who would have had that label is still going to face more discrimination than I ever will. And certainly more discrimination than anyone straight & cisgender.

People can face violence or discrimination for any number of reasons. However, if it’s not systemic, there’s often little we can do about it at a societal level.

People create new labels to more accurately describe how they feel. That is the opposite of pre-defined.

I have nothing against adopting new labels—quite the opposite. However, new labels within the gender category, which are not truly a social construct as they are not widely recognized by society, feel like an attempt to redefine a concept with significant historical roots. And that’s why I think you’re getting some opposition.

Having labels are not what puts me into boxes, what puts me into boxes is how society sees those labels.

Right? So, why redefine something with a new meaning instead of creating a new label? For example, 'marriage'—I would be fully in favor of changing this in the law to 'partnership,' while 'marriage' could still be used in social or religious contexts, maintaining its historical and cultural significance for those who value it in the traditional sense. By separating the legal and social aspects, this could prevent conflicts between different belief systems while ensuring that everyone has equal legal standing.

btw. I’m just trying to think of a better strategy to move toward a more equal and inclusive future, where we respect both individual beliefs and shared legal rights. This isn’t a pissing contest from my side.

 

[Daniel]

That would be pointless.

That's what ChatGPT does. Your whole reply looks a lot like a ChatGPT message as well.

However, new labels within the gender category, which are not truly a social construct as they are not widely recognized by society

The overall concept of gender is what's socially constructed. Those labels are just define someone's gender identity and experience within the whole concept.

Who cares if someone's gender identity isn't widely recognised? It's their own gender. What ever happened to personal freedom that you so lovingly talked about several posts ago? Are people not free to label their gender identity the way they want to?

Or is personal freedom only okay when the rest of society says it's okay? That doesn't seem very free.

feel like an attempt to redefine a concept with significant historical roots.

Gender was still socially constructed years ago. Just because the concept wasn't fleshed out until the 1980s doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

So, why redefine something with a new meaning instead of creating a new label? For example, 'marriage'—I would be fully in favor of changing this in the law to 'partnership,' while 'marriage' could still be used in social or religious contexts, maintaining its historical and cultural significance for those who value it in the traditional sense.

It seems to me you're okay with redefining marriage to be only social and religious.

But redefining gender from (essentially the same thing as) sex to the more nuanced social and cultural definition it has taken on now is not okay?

And it seems you're okay with creating new labels, but only if it's widely used? How do you suppose these new labels go from 'new' to 'widely used'?"

Be more consistent please.

 

[novcze]

That's what ChatGPT does. Your whole reply looks a lot like a ChatGPT message as well.

I'm using it for a grammar check to make it easier on the eyes for you (native English speakers).

The overall concept of gender is what's socially constructed. Those labels are just define someone's gender identity and experience within the whole concept.

The roles within that social construct must also be socially constructed; otherwise, the concept doesn’t make sense.

Who cares if someone's gender identity isn't widely recognised? It's their own gender. What ever happened to personal freedom that you so lovingly talked about several posts ago? Are people not free to label their gender identity the way they want to?

Or is personal freedom only okay when the rest of society says it's okay? That doesn't seem very free.

I was trying to point out why some people are not exactly on board with new genders. Has nothing to do with what I believe or not.

It seems to me you're okay with redefining marriage to be only social and religious.

It was about creating a new label for marriage under the law. Instead of redefining marriage and its historical and cultural connotations, a new label could be adopted, and tensions with traditionalists could be avoided.
It's an example; I personally don't mind marriage for all.

 

[Famine]

Instead of redefining marriage and its historical and cultural connotations, a new label could be adopted, and tensions with traditionalists could be avoided.

Perhaps the "traditionalists" ought to not have stolen the meaning of marriage - which predates all current religions by so far it's closer to the first recorded written human language than it is even to Jesus, never mind now - if they didn't want tensions.

Keep religion out of marriage.

 

[Daniel]

The roles within that social construct must also be socially constructed; otherwise, the concept doesn’t make sense.

Gender encompasses behaviours, cultural expectations, social roles, aesthetics and also psychological aspects too.

Gender roles is one aspect.
Gender expression is another aspect.
And gender identity is yet another aspect.

Gender identity does not need approval or the input from society as it's your personal experience of your gender. It can be as simple as "man", "woman" or "non-binary". Or there might be a word within the umbrella of "non-binary" that more accurately describes ones gender identity.

I was trying to point out why some people are not exactly on board with new genders. Has nothing to do with what I believe or not.

In a nutshell people either ignorant about the whole thing, or willingly refuse to understand that there a pointed differencea between sex and gender, or they get confused by the they/thems.

 

[novcze]

Perhaps the "traditionalists" ought to not have stolen the meaning of marriage - which predates all current religions by so far it's closer to the first recorded written human language than it is even to Jesus, never mind now - if they didn't want tensions.

Keep religion out of marriage.

I didn’t even consider religious people—that’s almost a given that they would have an issue with marriage for all.
But I know people who are not religious—maybe spiritual in a sense—but they are hell-bent on the idea that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. And they’re in their 30s, so not that old.

Gender encompasses behaviours, cultural expectations, social roles, aesthetics and also psychological aspects too.

Gender roles is one aspect.
Gender expression is another aspect.
And gender identity is yet another aspect.

Gender identity does not need approval or the input from society as it's your personal experience of your gender. It can be as simple as "man", "woman" or "non-binary". Or there might be a word within the umbrella of "non-binary" that more accurately describes ones gender identity.


In a nutshell people either ignorant about the whole thing, or willingly refuse to understand that there a pointed differencea between sex and gender, or they get confused by the they/thems.

This is gender studies-level stuff, no wonder regular people don’t understand it. I had to ask ChatGPT how this is supposed to work together, and it kinda makes sense.

I still personally believe it would be more helpful to discard gender entirely and treat everyone as an individual. However, I'm aware that for some people, the use of gender is important, and I’m not trying to impose my view on anyone. The use of gender might also be more significant in some cultures than in others.

 

[Famine]

But I know people who are not religious—maybe spiritual in a sense—but they are hell-bent on the idea that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

And still wrong. Polygynous marriage predates known religion too, in several cultures.

Again, it's the "traditionalists" who think their incredible recent definition of marriage is right, and they are the ones who are at odds with "historical and cultural connotations" and causing "tensions" as a result. How's about they **** off out of it rather than getting pandered to?

 

[novcze]

And still wrong. Polygynous marriage predates known religion too, in several cultures.

Again, it's the "traditionalists" who think their incredible recent definition of marriage is right, and they are the ones who are at odds with "historical and cultural connotations" and causing "tensions" as a result. How's about they **** off out of it rather than getting pandered to?

Don't tell me, I already stated that I have no problem with same-sex marriage. The problem is that they are part of society too, and they create pushback, which may lead to the rise of extremism that can mess everything up for everyone. So I was thinking about ways to sugarcoat it for them, because '**** off, numbwit' doesn't usually work.

 

[Famine]

The problem is that they are part of society too, and they create pushback

Might doesn't make right - and in this situation you've already determined that their new definition of marriage is the one that should be honoured to prevent conflicts:

So, why redefine something with a new meaning instead of creating a new label? For example, 'marriage'—I would be fully in favor of changing this in the law to 'partnership,' while 'marriage' could still be used in social or religious contexts, maintaining its historical and cultural significance for those who value it in the traditional sense. By separating the legal and social aspects, this could prevent conflicts between different belief systems while ensuring that everyone has equal legal standing.

Their definition of marriage as one man/one woman or anything religious denies the historical and cultural meaning of marriage. They're wrong to cling to it.

So why do the "traditionalists" get to redefine it and then everyone else has to get "a new label" to "prevent conflicts"?

 

[novcze]

Might doesn't make right - and in this situation you've already determined that their new definition of marriage is the one that should be honoured to prevent conflicts:

Their definition of marriage as one man/one woman or anything religious denies the historical and cultural meaning of marriage. They're wrong to cling to it.

So why do the "traditionalists" get to redefine it and then everyone else has to get "a new label" to "prevent conflicts"?

Oh, I meant omitting the word 'marriage' from the law altogether for everyone and instead adopting a new label, btw. It was hypothetical, and I think it would make everyone mad.

 

[Danoff]

Oh, I meant omitting the word 'marriage' from the law altogether for everyone and instead adopting a new label, btw. It was hypothetical, and I think it would make everyone mad.

This was tried with civil union, and yea, most people got mad.