I like how the art style is mocking a certain comic artist
The fact we can’t even agree that sex and gender are two different things is the final proof to me that the Right is arguing in bad faith. It’s such a simple concept to grasp.
One podcaster was suggesting we use male/female/intersex to refer to biological sex, and man/woman/etc. to refer to gender identity. Such an obvious and non-controversial idea, yet it’ll never fly with the transphobes.
With whom are you arguing? Who is the right? Did the right say anything about gender and sex being a different thing? Why are you assuming that some kind of people thinks differently on that matter?
This has nothing to do with the right. If you want to argue with people, you should do so instead of posting and pretending that someone made a claim. I know it is something a lot of people do online but I think it doesn’t really help making sens of things and it mostly serve the purpose to divide from each other by picturing some kind of boogeyman out of a group of people.
In general, conservatives claim that sex and gender are the same thing. It’s probably not true of all conservatives, but when most conservative pundits and influencers have made this claim at some point, it’s fair to say that it is the view of the conservative movement. It’s not a strawman, it’s not made up, it’s a claim regularly made by the conservative movement, and if you think “the right” means “all right-wingers” in this scenario, that’s you’re problem because noone else but you thought that.
Oh. I see.
So which party is it that’s passed over 70 anti-trans bills in 15 states? Are you saying the left did that?
Or are you saying the right has seen the error of their ways and are reversing course?
I took a psychology class for collage and one think that I found interesting is how scientist can actually find a difference in brain structure in trans individuals that correlate with their gender identity
It’s so much more fascinating than just that!
So the most well-known of these structures is the bed nucleus of the striae terminalis. The size and number of a specific type of neuron in that region is highly predictive of the gender of the individual, with very high reliability. Postmortem, you can count these neurons and be very close to sure what the sex of the dead person was.
Not only do trans individuals have the structure of the gender they identify as, but there were several interesting controls done to double-check.
First, they looked both at trans people who had undergone different stages of reassignment and compared them to trans people who had not initiated treatment at all. There was no difference, so HRT, etc, is not the cause of the structural differences.
Then they went to a sample of men who were sufferers of specific types of penile/testicular cancers that required a large number of feminizing hormones during the treatment process. Still no change in the striae terminalis.
And then they went back a couple years later and repeated the same experiment, with the same result.
This was all done close to 20 years ago. We’ve known this for a long time.
Fun addendum: there are a couple types of penile cancer that, sadly, requires the penis to be excised. In 70% of these cases, the men involved experienced phantom penile sensations (phantom limb syndrome). So what’s the rate of phantom penile sensations in MTF post-operation trans people? Almost 0%.
Hey can you share some sources on this I’d love to know more.
This is the part I have a problem with:
Gender is a category assigned by the individual
Gender isn’t assigned by the individual. Gender is assigned by parents, doctors, the community, and society broadly. Gender is an inherently social construction. Some people have misconstrued this to mean that gender is an individual construction. It is not. How you see yourself is only part what makes you, you. You are also defined by how others see you. I understand that some people don’t identify with the gender that has been assigned to them, and thus want to change their gender assignment, and I empathize with those people, but whether or not they are able to do this is at least partially out of their control. Just because you see yourself a certain way, doesn’t mean others will see you that way, and, again we are defined not only by how we perceive ourselves, but how others perceive us.
Umm, people can definitely change how others view them. And if person A refuses to accept person B for who they are, that doesn’t define person B. It defines person A as an asshole.
And if person A refuses to accept person B for who they are, that doesn’t define person B. It defines person A as an asshole.
Agree. And that sentence is not only valid for gender, it’s for any other cultural label (like genders are).
If I say that I’m a gamer, or a fan of star wars, or whatever, and you’re spending your energy trying to convince the world I’m not what I said… it says much more about you than about me.
that sentence is not only valid for gender, it’s for anything other cultural label (like genders are).
How about race? Can white people elect to be Black?
This is a bad faith argument, and at best a whataboutism. They aren’t remotely related.
Using the original comment’s delineation as a guide: Nationality and ethnicity are cultural; i.e., akin to gender. Race is phenotypic; i.e., akin to sex. So, no.
But what kind of people put so much energy into trying to show person A that it is indeed the case? Person A may be an asshole to refuse the evidence, but person B could also be selfish to take a lot of energy into convincing person A of something that might not be apparent or even might not even reflect reality. It doesn’t mean that one is more right than the other or being disrespectful. Truth hurts after all. But then, if someone keep repeating the truth, maybe that person becomes an asshole. Or maybe we should ask this person if it is indeed an asshole to not misslabel them an asshole and hurt its feeling.
Describing intentionally misgendering someone as “truth” is simply transphobia. Be better.
Unless it’s reasonable for me to address you in business dealings as “smegma John” it seems we might put more emphasis on how someone identifies and wants to be called than what anyone else wants to impose on them
You’re thinking in the right direction, but you’re not quite there. Yes, gender gets assigned at birth as your biological phenotype (because the overwhelming majority of humans identify as cis gender). Humans become individuals and eventually realize that maybe their assigned gender does not fit them. At this point it becomes their own choice and it overrides any gender assignment given at birth. Depending on the individual, gender changes from something that’s assigned to something you assign yourself.
This is such a weird take. You’re sort of conflating gender assignment with gender perception, while sort of denying gender identity exists, while sort of asserting that gender perception should be authoritative (here lies the bigotry, IMO)
Firstly, the half-denial of gender identity existing / gender applying to individuals
I understand that some people don’t identify with the gender that has been assigned to them[…]
Unless your intended tone was mocking and there are some heavy use of air quotes that you did not write, you already accept that a person has their own perception of their gender.Gender is an inherently social construction. Some people have misconstrued this to mean that gender is an individual construction. It is not. How you see yourself is only part what makes you, you. You are also defined by how others see you.
But how others see you is not “gender assignment”. How the community sees you is not “gender assignment”. It is gender perception.The purpose of gender assignment is equally for recordkeeping and for practical purposes in early childhood. Gender is typically assigned by the doctor attending to childbirth, and it’s done in accordance to biological sex characteristics because as another commenter mentioned, the majority of individuals are cisgender so it’s a sensible default. There are some differences in how you might use the bathroom depending on your genitalia, and (for better or for worse) many social norms, like modesty, are imposed/reflected through gender as well. I think parents of a child also have the authority to choose how they present their child’s gender to the world, but this is not something to be done trivially or without the child’s best interests in mind, e.g. for attention. It’s important to note that one’s understanding of their own gender identity is something that develops over time, and will develop differently for everyone.
Just because you see yourself a certain way, doesn’t mean others will see you that way, and, again we are defined not only by how we perceive ourselves, but how others perceive us.
Not really. It is more accurate to say that the importance of the balance of others’ vs. our own perception is itself a spectrum that will be different for everyone and can change fluidly over time. The battle between how much to value each is in fact a core component of many trans experiences.On gender perception:
How you see yourself is only part what makes you, you. You are also defined by how others see you.
Have you ever heard the expression “we are not our thoughts, we are our reaction to our thoughts?” The simplest way to put it is that mere perception is not enough to be a definition. The only authority on someone’s gender identity is that person. Gender expression is a cognitive shortcut. Sometimes gendered expressions are intentional, sometimes not. There are also agender people who place little or no value on gendered expression in general. If you’re interacting with someone in good faith and you are genuinely unsure how you should refer to them, it takes no time at all to simply ask if they have preferred pronouns. It should go without saying that it’s not your business to dispute anyone’s gender identity, whether they’re strangers or otherwise. You are free to think however you want, the problem is expressing those thoughts in ways that cause harm. Like, just don’t be a dick?That doesn’t change much; just means people should place more value in what a person themself identifies with. Some people being inconsiderate doesn’t mean others should be too.
Gender isn’t assigned by the individual. Gender is assigned by parents, doctors, the community, and society broadly. Gender is an inherently social construction.
Social/cultural construction doesn’t mean that it has to be a collective construction.
Your gender is not different from something like… being a nerd, or being a fan of star wars. Someone might call you a nerd, but ultimately it’s up to you to embrace that label or not.
And anyway, cultural things like gender, being a nerd, etc is absolutely unrelated to biology.
Social/cultural construction doesn’t mean that it has to be a collective construction.
It absolutely does mean that. We just live in this age of hyper individualism, where people attempt to atomize the individual from the collective, as though the individual is something wholly its own, but it isn’t. It’s not possible to separate the individual from the collective.
It’s not possible to separate the individual from the collective
Maybe you have a hard time having your opinion.
But it’s not fair to pin that on everywhere else in the world just because it’s like that for you. Lots of people have their own opinions, their own identities.
Just like, for example… EVERY SINGLE TRANS PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. They have a majority of the collective saying they’re of the genre they don’t identify with at all, and they have their own individual opinion separate from the collective anyway.
So you either:
a) have an extreme case of social anxiety and can’t muster the courage to have an opinion that differs from the collective, and thinks everyone else in the world is like you (having a hard time understanding that different people have different opinions is also a psychological problem that is not rare).
or
b) your prejudice/homophobia/genderphobia is leaking.
It’s not possible to separate the individual from the collective.
What’s it like, being from a planet with a hive mind?
That’s not a biology book. Sex is a biology thing, Gender is a social concept.
Printed books in universities are scams. They print new versions of book that is the same as it was, sometimes they just change the order and then teachers mention you need that very version to be able to follow the course but it really is the same book in a different order. So of course if there is a popular movement that advocates replacing the word woman for a meaningless terms they will jump on the occasion to print new books. Then when people realise that this gender affirmation doesn’t (for most of them) make them any happier or actually make them worse, it will be another great opportunity to print another version of their books.
Here’s a documentary about the gender affirmation made ~10 years ago. I think there is 6 parts to it. It is also available on Youtube but I recommend using Invidious
Do you understand how ridiculous it sounds when you say “a gender dysphoria concept that has been around for hundreds of years is fake because colleges need to reprint books”?
This is the very essence of a disingenuous argument. A book does not dictate the absolute meaning of a concept, and likewise the motivation of printing a book does not invalidate the information therein.
Haven’t made that claim sorry. I haven’t been clear enough. There’s an obvious trend to remove the word woman from books to be replace with people with such organs. Doesn’t make gender disphoria false.
Why are you the way that you are?
So you’re having a problem with clearer, more specific language?
Here’s a fun game: Define “woman” in such a way as to include only the people you believe should count as women that also excludes anyone else. I’ll even give you some hints—
-
Going with “people who menstruate” means post-menopausal women, women on birth control, and women with certain types of infertilities are now “men”.
-
Going with “people with XX chromosomes” means men born 46,XX (de la Chapelle syndrome) are now “women”. It’ll be news to them; most of them never know unless they have some other occasion to look at their chromosomes! I guess that big biker-looking beared motherfucker is going to the women’s room. 5-alpha-reductase deficiency causes a lot of problems for this definition, too… they’re XY, but all their external sex characteristics are female, which may or may not change with the onset of puberty. Oh, and XY complete androgen insensitivity is going to cause an issue with this one, too. No secondary male sex characteristics at all, but you’re sending them over to the dangerous men’s bathroom after finding a micropenis on the Mandatory Small-Goverment Pre-Bathroom Crotch Check.
-
“People who were born with vaginas” means every intersex person ever born is a “woman”, regardless of what call the doctors made at birth. Including, again, those with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, who are now “women”, when, under the above definition, they were “men”.
-
“People with female brain structures” isn’t one I’ve heard often, but it’s come up, and the problem with that is the sexually dimorphic nucleus (the INAH) is “female” in gay men and “male” in lesbians, and the bed nucleus of the striae terminalis is “male” in trans men and “female” in trans women. So a lot of big, burly, hairy dudes are now going into the women’s bathroom. And it’s not like we just noticed this; we’ve known about the INAH for almost 40 years, and the striae terminalis for close to 20.
-
“It’s just obvious! Women are women! Stop making it complicated!” Ok, but we’re talking about both science and policy, both of which have to be written very specifically. You can’t pass a bill that says “Only women are allowed to do X” and then define “women” as “you know what we’re talking about”. It’s not the rest of the world’s fault that this shit is too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker.
-