The Trans Discussion

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.

Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.

As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer (or something closely resembling it) and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.

Functionally speaking, how is that different from disconnecting gender from sex?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.

Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.

As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.

Big talk for someone with absolutely no control over said behaviors and groups.

On an unrelated note, is it transphobic to not mention trans people at all? I ask because about a week ago, I was informed on Facebook that this was the case.

Depends on whether you're ignoring them despite their presence and relative relevance, or whether you simply have little enough exposure to them that you have no reason to mention them.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.

Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.

As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.

Big talk for someone with absolutely no control over said behaviors and groups.

I never said I had any influence. I'm just saying that I think the people who do seem to be changing things are squandering their influence making an unusually difficult but ultimately minor change to a system that needs a sweeping overhaul. Merely reforming gender norms is like doing detailed cosmetic surgery on a tumor.

Social change, like scientific change, is generally incremental (from a human lifespan perspective). The reason for this is that social change that occurs very rapidly is generally catastrophic.

[Ben Shapiro]

"Transgenderism Kills Feminism

As conservatives and Christians have run away terrified by the prospect of having meaningless words like transphobic tossed at them, it might ultimately be, in a strange twist of fate, the feminists who take down the "transgender" narrative. If they ever figure out that "transgenderism" is a direct assault on their entire worldview, maybe it will prompt a full fledged civil war in the progressive ranks.

After all, according to mainstream feminist wisdom, there is no such thing as a "female brain" or a "female soul" or "feeling like a female." By the words of every liberal who has ever said anything on the subject of women's rights in the past four decades, how you dress, look, think, and feel have nothing to do with your womanhood. Usually it would be offensive and sexist to accuse a woman of acting like, thinking like, or feeling like a woman.

Yet now, suddenly, emotions and looks define a woman so severely that a man can actually become one if he claims to experience feelings that he assumes are feminine?

The whole thing contradicts itself.

Feminism and transgenderism say two opposing things about what it means to be a woman. In fact, feminists have come up with the term "neurosexism" to condemn the misogynistic and "pseudo-scientific" idea that male and females brains are different. But Bruce Jenner claims he has "the brain of a female," so how does this work? Do you mean to tell me that the only people who can have female brains are males?

Meanwhile, feminists regularly insist that the absence of a uterus and a vagina excludes men from having an opinion about things like abortion. So a man can't have ideas about women's issues because he lacks the correct anatomy, but he can actually be a woman despite lacking the correct anatomy?

How does that make any kind of sense?

Transgenderism and feminism cannot coexist. Progressives can't have both.

They'll just have to choose."

What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/

[President Television]

Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.

Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.

As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.

Big talk for someone with absolutely no control over said behaviors and groups.

On an unrelated note, is it transphobic to not mention trans people at all? I ask because about a week ago, I was informed on Facebook that this was the case.

Depends on whether you're ignoring them despite their presence and relative relevance, or whether you simply have little enough exposure to them that you have no reason to mention them.

Hmm. I guess it was the former case. The context was that an image was posted (this one: https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/11392916_934552266615816_812535875114742651_n.jpg?oh=5dbb30621150cfcdb6eadc85764ac167&oe=5608D8B8), and since none of the examples it used to argue its point were trans people, someone got mad. I can't imagine a drag performer(or anyone active in the LGBT community) was unaware of trans people, but at the same time the image was pretty busy as it was and it didn't come across to me as a deliberate effort at silencing anyone. The resulting rage therefore looked to me like an example of DOING IT WRONG perfectionism, but maybe I was wrong about that.

[Sung Low]

If I'm understanding it correctly, when a trans person transitions the name they now go by is their real name. Their previous name is obsolete. They're not using an alias, so referring to trans people in that graphic would probably be offensive to them.

[Cain]

If I'm understanding it correctly, when a trans person transitions the name they now go by is their real name. Their previous name is obsolete. They're not using an alias, so referring to trans people in that graphic would probably be offensive to them.

I would agree...but it could also be the case that the person is pre-transition or only starting to transition, so in the context of the picture, they could also be considered "using an alias" by the ridiculously wide standards of Facebook.

IMO, I wouldn't say such a graphic is transphobic, but it is maybe an example of trans erasure.  That would be a much more suitable way of putting it.  I prefer to reserve terms like transphobia for some kind of active hatred or sentiment, which I don't think that graphic is.  I mean, if that's transphobia, then what do we call Huckabee's recent comments?

[rong]

i'm just trying to digest all this.

it makes sense to separate gender and sex.  that is, a male can choose to identify as man or woman (or, perhaps - certain degrees of man-ness or woman-ness) and a female can also choose to identify as woman or man (again, to certain degrees).

a male (or female) choosing to identify as anything other than man (or woman) is considered to be transgendered.

(i now realize that it might not be appropriate to use the word "choose" as the individual may not really have a choice).

since gender is a social construct, identifying as the "non-socially acceptable" gender should not be considered a medical disorder (although I think you could argue it may be a psychological disorder??  is there such a thing as a sociological disorder??)



also, a male can identify as a female and a female can identify as a male.  this would be considered to be transexual.

again, the individual may or may not have a choice.


given that the mind is an emergent property of the body (a notion i'm not sure I fully agree with  . . .) I would think there is a connection between the body's natural hormone production and the mind's (brain's?) reaction and development.


i guess what i'm having a hard time with is how, in this context, transexualism is still not a disorder.

as Nigel stated, and others agreed with -

2. No, I don't think it's a disorder, outside of the social sense. In other words, it is not a pathology.
3. Yes, I think it is probably biological.

how can it be biological without a pathology?

.
.
.

i haven't read any Jenner interviews, but I imagine the following hypothetical:

Suppose Jenner, being an athlete under tremendous pressure to perform well, began to take large amounts of steroids.
The steroid abuse then caused his body to simultaneously stop producing testosterone and increase it's estrogen production (I believe this is a side effect of steroid abuse).
Olympics are over and steroid abuse stops, however the body never fully resumes "normal" hormone production.
Jenner begins to feel more and more female... transexual.

is this not a disorder?

[Cain]

What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/

Just wait until The Blaze discovers trans-exclusionary radical feminism.  Their minds will explode.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"Transgenderism Kills Feminism

As conservatives and Christians have run away terrified by the prospect of having meaningless words like transphobic tossed at them, it might ultimately be, in a strange twist of fate, the feminists who take down the "transgender" narrative. If they ever figure out that "transgenderism" is a direct assault on their entire worldview, maybe it will prompt a full fledged civil war in the progressive ranks.

After all, according to mainstream feminist wisdom, there is no such thing as a "female brain" or a "female soul" or "feeling like a female." By the words of every liberal who has ever said anything on the subject of women's rights in the past four decades, how you dress, look, think, and feel have nothing to do with your womanhood. Usually it would be offensive and sexist to accuse a woman of acting like, thinking like, or feeling like a woman.

Yet now, suddenly, emotions and looks define a woman so severely that a man can actually become one if he claims to experience feelings that he assumes are feminine?

The whole thing contradicts itself.

Feminism and transgenderism say two opposing things about what it means to be a woman. In fact, feminists have come up with the term "neurosexism" to condemn the misogynistic and "pseudo-scientific" idea that male and females brains are different. But Bruce Jenner claims he has "the brain of a female," so how does this work? Do you mean to tell me that the only people who can have female brains are males?

Meanwhile, feminists regularly insist that the absence of a uterus and a vagina excludes men from having an opinion about things like abortion. So a man can't have ideas about women's issues because he lacks the correct anatomy, but he can actually be a woman despite lacking the correct anatomy?

How does that make any kind of sense?

Transgenderism and feminism cannot coexist. Progressives can't have both.

They'll just have to choose."

What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/

The entire article hinges on first assuming that what the author states about the premises of feminism is true.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

i'm just trying to digest all this.

it makes sense to separate gender and sex.  that is, a male can choose to identify as man or woman (or, perhaps - certain degrees of man-ness or woman-ness) and a female can also choose to identify as woman or man (again, to certain degrees).

a male (or female) choosing to identify as anything other than man (or woman) is considered to be transgendered.

(i now realize that it might not be appropriate to use the word "choose" as the individual may not really have a choice).

since gender is a social construct, identifying as the "non-socially acceptable" gender should not be considered a medical disorder (although I think you could argue it may be a psychological disorder??  is there such a thing as a sociological disorder??)



also, a male can identify as a female and a female can identify as a male.  this would be considered to be transexual.

again, the individual may or may not have a choice.


given that the mind is an emergent property of the body (a notion i'm not sure I fully agree with  . . .) I would think there is a connection between the body's natural hormone production and the mind's (brain's?) reaction and development.


i guess what i'm having a hard time with is how, in this context, transexualism is still not a disorder.

as Nigel stated, and others agreed with -

2. No, I don't think it's a disorder, outside of the social sense. In other words, it is not a pathology.
3. Yes, I think it is probably biological.

how can it be biological without a pathology?

.
.
.

i haven't read any Jenner interviews, but I imagine the following hypothetical:

Suppose Jenner, being an athlete under tremendous pressure to perform well, began to take large amounts of steroids.
The steroid abuse then caused his body to simultaneously stop producing testosterone and increase it's estrogen production (I believe this is a side effect of steroid abuse).
Olympics are over and steroid abuse stops, however the body never fully resumes "normal" hormone production.
Jenner begins to feel more and more female... transexual.

is this not a disorder?

Sexual attraction is biological. Is it a pathology?

Pregnancy is biological. Is it a pathology?

Digestion is biological. Is it a pathology?

Relative absence of melanin in the skin is biological. Is it a pathology?

Biological variation along a spectrum in a normal, otherwise healthy population, can be quite broad but it is only considered a pathology if it has a negative impact on the quality of health of the affected individual. Two conditions are present in the case of the transgender experience that in my opinion make it distinctly not a pathology:

1. The negative impact on quality of life is entirely socially imposed and based on exhibiting certain patterns of behavior.
2. Half the population is not only allowed, but expected, to exhibit those same patterns of behavior.

Can there be social disorders? Yes, they are behaviors exhibited by a society of people. For example, slavery would be an extreme example of a social disorder.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/

Just wait until The Blaze discovers trans-exclusionary radical feminism.  Their minds will explode.

This SERIOUSLY makes me want to start a #notallfeminists campaign.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

I found a chart of symbols which may be helpful

http://i.imgur.com/pTqGqgq.png

[Freeky]

I found a chart of symbols which may be helpful

http://i.imgur.com/pTqGqgq.png

I lol'd at at the 40K and electrical..

[Doktor Howl]

What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/

Just wait until The Blaze discovers trans-exclusionary radical feminism.  Their minds will explode.

This SERIOUSLY makes me want to start a #notallfeminists campaign.

TERFs are great fun on FB.