Transgender

1272830323346

Comments

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    quetzalcoatl: Well, in some ways it hinges on that. Do I get to describe myself, or do you? Your 'indeed' conceals a whole mass of ideas, about 'who, whom?'
    Fair comment. Let me put it like this: There are frequent references in these posts to individuals identified as "transphobic". I have no doubt that some of them are. Would they, however, describe themselves as such? If they say they are not and that some of their best friends are trans, who is to tell them they are mistaken?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Once again I'm left wondering why people have such a problem here. Unless you're involved directly it doesn't concern you. Why can people not let other people just be? I don't get why people like hip-hop but I don't insist they must be mistaken and actually need to spend a weekend at a rock festival to understand what they really like.

    I think sex and gender are important parts of human identity. The face I present to the world is partly made up of sexual and gender signs.

    These things are pretty stable, and some people don't like change. For example, equal marriage upsets some, cos it's not what we always did.

    Whether or not sex and gender identity need to be stable, I don't know. (Darwinian arguments start here, we need babies, sex makes babies, sex is aided by whatever). But also, I don't think we control them, this is also frightening for some.
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    There are reports that the Scottish govt has abandoned plans for self ID, after a considerable backlash. I wonder if there will be any scheme, or will they stick with medical oversight? It will be seen as a defeat for trans people.

    It hasn't been abandoned, just delayed pending further reports. Possibly considerably delayed. It's controversial, and we're in the throes of Brexit etc, so I suspect that it won't be high priority. But it definitely hasn't been abandoned.

    Meanwhile the Church of Scotland produced a 30 page booklet, with the personal stories of several transpeople, and sent a copy to every congregation in Scotland last year.

    https://churchofscotland.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/48256/Web_PDF_Diverse_Gender_Identities_and_Pastoral_Care.pdf

    I think it's worth reading.

  • NEQ, thanks for that, I was reading Scottish Legal News, (online), so maybe they are jumping the gun. Will read the booklet, cheers.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Once again I'm left wondering why people have such a problem here. Unless you're involved directly it doesn't concern you. Why can people not let other people just be? I don't get why people like hip-hop but I don't insist they must be mistaken and actually need to spend a weekend at a rock festival to understand what they really like.

    I think sex and gender are important parts of human identity. The face I present to the world is partly made up of sexual and gender signs.

    These things are pretty stable, and some people don't like change. For example, equal marriage upsets some, cos it's not what we always did.

    Whether or not sex and gender identity need to be stable, I don't know. (Darwinian arguments start here, we need babies, sex makes babies, sex is aided by whatever). But also, I don't think we control them, this is also frightening for some.

    Yebbut no-one's asking *them* to change. Someone *else* being trans or gay or whatever has no bearing on *my* gender identity as a cishet man.

    It just seems like busybodying to me, with a side order of wanting a group to despise.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Let me put it like this: There are frequent references in these posts to individuals identified as "transphobic". I have no doubt that some of them are. Would they, however, describe themselves as such? If they say they are not and that some of their best friends are trans, who is to tell them they are mistaken?

    I know I've referred to organisations as being transphobic or transphobic stories in the media on this thread. Here I am using that as a shorthand for organisations or media articles that are either querying the existence of transgenderism or producing information that casts transgender people in a bad light. An example is the TransCrime website which has been referenced earlier on the thread. This site aims to collate "media reports of crimes committed by transgender individuals in the UK" as part of a campaign to "inform" the discussion around the changes in the GRA. Lists of crimes as described by the media, not always known for their accuracy, because often sensationalist stories sell, are not necessarily the best source of research. Also a list of dubiously gathered stories in isolation without any comparators doesn't really tell us anything other than the compiler is trying to cast transgender people in a bad light.
  • .
    Kwesi wrote: »
    quetzalcoatl: It will be seen as a defeat for trans people.

    Maybe so, but there are wider issues regarding the important distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Despite regarding himself/herself as an ugly duckling the subject was, indeed, a swan.

    You have this inside-out. He thought he was an ugly duckling because he was TOLD he was an ugly duckling. Later he discovered for himself he was not, and rejected what he had been told.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    .
    Kwesi wrote: »
    quetzalcoatl: It will be seen as a defeat for trans people.

    Maybe so, but there are wider issues regarding the important distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Despite regarding himself/herself as an ugly duckling the subject was, indeed, a swan.

    You have this inside-out. He thought he was an ugly duckling because he was TOLD he was an ugly duckling. Later he discovered for himself he was not, and rejected what he had been told.

    Spot on. It could be used as an emblem of trans identity, or in fact, many LGBT identities. I'm not who you say I am.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    I don't really wish to belabour the point, but the reality of the ugly duckling being a swan does not rest upon the opinion of the 'duck' or anyone else but on his/her/trans objective genetic make-up, which is indisputable proof to any reasonable person.

    We all make all sorts of claims for ourselves but it is not unreasonable for others to request we substantiate our claims with evidence, is it?
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    I don't really wish to belabour the point, but the reality of the ugly duckling being a swan does not rest upon the opinion of the 'duck' or anyone else but on his/her/trans objective genetic make-up, which is indisputable proof to any reasonable person.

    We all make all sorts of claims for ourselves but it is not unreasonable for others to request we substantiate our claims with evidence, is it?

    You're arguing a god-of-the-gaps argument. We don't have a scientific way of determining who is trans. Therefore we never will.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    mousethief: We don't have a scientific way of determining who is trans. Therefore we never will.

    So what are we talking about?

    How is it defined?

    How do we know it when we see it?
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    mousethief: We don't have a scientific way of determining who is trans. Therefore we never will.

    So what are we talking about?

    How is it defined?

    How do we know it when we see it?

    At the moment we have to trust the word of those who say they have it.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Kwesi wrote: »
    I don't really wish to belabour the point, but the reality of the ugly duckling being a swan does not rest upon the opinion of the 'duck' or anyone else but on his/her/trans objective genetic make-up, which is indisputable proof to any reasonable person.

    We all make all sorts of claims for ourselves but it is not unreasonable for others to request we substantiate our claims with evidence, is it?

    If it doesn't affect them, then yes, it is unreasonable.

    And I'm sure it wasn't that long ago that everyone was telling me it's unreasonable to expect objective evidence for subjective experience of God. Can someone explain which subjective experiences require evidence and for which that would be a ridiculous request?
  • So, if I am gay, how do I demonstrate that? By shagging guys?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    KarlLB: And I'm sure it wasn't that long ago that everyone was telling me it's unreasonable to expect objective evidence for subjective experience of God

    The existence or otherwise of God is not a function of your subjective experience. If you are fortunate to have a subjective experience of her then you are deeply blessed. If you claim God has given you a message to pass on to others then the recipients might wish to test the authenticity of your claim or call.
    quetzalcoatl: So, if I am gay, how do I demonstrate that? By shagging guys?

    In a society that is hostile to gays it may well be necessary for an individual "coming out" to have a means of demonstrating such an identity to become accepted by that community. Perhaps a more common problem is persuading individuals subjectively presenting as heterosexual that they really are not and would feel much better were they to recognise the fact.


    Human being have a great capacity for self-deception. Indeed, some of you may think that despite any protestations on my part to the contrary my posts demonstrate I'm transphobic. There are those who are racists but completely unaware of it and insist they are not, though the evidence indicates otherwise. There are those who believe they don't have a drink problem but are clearly alcoholic. Perhaps these deceptions are necessary to defend our integrity, but dangerously so, and often with tragic consequences for themselves (ourselves) and others.

    My concern is that Western culture has increasingly defended the unquestioned rightness of subjective experience as a consequence of post modernity, and has become resistant to questioning scepticism. Perhaps the most dangerous of phobias is the reluctance to ask the question, 'What do we know and how do we know it?' By and large such explorations are more likely to promote understanding and a progressive approach to the kind of issues being discussed here.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Kwesi wrote: »
    KarlLB: And I'm sure it wasn't that long ago that everyone was telling me it's unreasonable to expect objective evidence for subjective experience of God

    The existence or otherwise of God is not a function of your subjective experience. If you are fortunate to have a subjective experience of her then you are deeply blessed. If you claim God has given you a message to pass on to others then the recipients might wish to test the authenticity of your claim or call.

    Except that in threads passim it was established that providing objective evidence for subjective claims was actually impossible. Yet here you are demanding it of trans people. Who have no message to pass on to you beyond "we exist, stop saying we don't."

    Said threads also established that your last paragraph should kill religion stone dead since it was established - at length - that such knowledge is and can only be entirely subjective which boils down to taking people's word for it.
  • We do know that some people have been reporting that they are transgender for some time. Gender reassignment surgery is first recorded in 1931 in the UK, some years before Harry Benjamin started treating people with hormones in SF in 1949.

    There are records of women living as men through history, for example Marina the Monk, Albert Cashier or James Barry. So this is not unknown. Historically women have been more successful at disguising themselves as men.

    When I was evidencing the Mermaids stance yesterday the document I quoted (pdf) is full of anecdotes of young people convinced their gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth. A 7 year old I know of is over the moon that she is going to be able to live as a girl from September when she changes from Infant to Junior schools. She has been having psychological support since she first tried hacking her penis off aged 3. This is the first time it has been agreed she can socially transition after showing a persistence in belief. She is being moved schools into a far more unisex environment where all students wear the same uniform, trousers or shorts, short sleeved or long sleeved shirt, school jumper and tie.

    The Church of Scotland pdf document, Diverse Gender Identities and Pastoral Care has more anecdotal evidence.

    From this reference GIRES The Number of Gender Variant People in the UK - Update 2011 (pdf),
    Gender variant people present for treatment at any age. The median age is 42.

    The adults who present emerge from a large, mainly invisible, reservoir of people, who experience some degree of gender variance.
    <snip>
    Few younger people present for treatment despite the fact that most gender dysphoric adults report experiencing gender variance from a very early age. Social pressure, in the family and at school, inhibits the early revelation of their gender variance. Only 100 or so children and adolescents are referred annually to the UK's sole specialised gender identity service, compared to 1,500 referred to the adult clinics. Nonetheless, presentation for treatment among youngsters is also growing rapidly and has the potential to accelerate if young people feel increasingly able to reveal their gender variance and undertake transition while still young

    The evidence from organisation such as GIRES (Gender Identity Research and Education Society) is showing a long history and persistence of people whose gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth (SAAB). Because you or I are cisgendered does not mean that others are not transgendered, just as because I am heterosexual, I have no right to insist someone else is not homosexual.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    It pulled me up short to realise I would probably never have started interacting with her had I known she was transgender, through sheer phobia, in the proper sense of the term: an irrational fear.

    Feel free to join me in Hell @Eutychus

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Curiosity killed: We do know that some people have been reporting that they are transgender for some time. Gender reassignment surgery is first recorded in 1931 in the UK, some years before Harry Benjamin started treating people with hormones in SF in 1949.......etc........

    Couldn't agree more that the evidence argues very strongly, if not overwhelmingly, that trans is a condition or state of being that can be objectively established and identified. In other words, an individual claiming to be trans can verify or have verified the claim or not. The genuine case can be distinguished from, say, a male seeking a better berth in a female prison.
  • That Karen White case shows up a lot of challenging issues: that the review boards considering a petition from a transgender person needs to consider all the evidence when considering transfers; that a violent woman is not well managed in women's prisons and that violence in women's prisons is not well managed. Assault should not be possible inside a prison, where inmates are supposedly supervised. There were also mistakes made by the Ministry of Justice, the case board considering her case failed to consider all the evidence.

    The policy on accommodation of transgender prisoners changed in 2017:
    the Ministry of Justice updated its policy “on the care and management of transgender prisoners” after the death of two trans prisoners in male prisons.

    The new 60-page policy introduced in January 2017 emphasised the right of prisoners to “self-identify” and to be treated “according to the gender in which they identify”. Previously, prisoners requiring such treatment would have needed a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) or to have had a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

    The Karen White transfer happened shortly after this policy was put in place. That doesn't mean that because there has been one highly publicised botched case, it means that all transitioning prisoners should be prevented from moving prisons, but those decisions need to be properly scrutinised and all the evidence taken into account before allowing a transfer.
  • There are records of women living as men through history, for example .... James Barry. So this is not unknown. Historically women have been more successful at disguising themselves as men.

    In the case of James Barry, assuming a male identity enabled him to rise from poverty, support his mother financially, have a career etc. With so many incentives, it is hard to assume that James Barry was transgender. Historically, there are a number of cases of women living as men in order to earn male -level wages. At a more mundane level, women writers often assumed a male name on the basis that a female name might reduce sales.

    Historically, where there was a clear financial motive in a woman assuming a male identity, I would be wary of suggesting they were transgender.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    When I looked, several of the women who lived some of their life as a man to achieve male status reverted to living as women later in life, but James Barry maintained his male persona to death. It's why I chose him as one of the examples.

    Could it be possible that the historians chose to write the history in that way rather than allow for James Barry to be transgender?
  • It's possible, but Barry was such a high profile figure until his retirement that it would have been difficult to revert to living as a woman - and by time of his retirement he had been living as a man for 54 years. For Barry, living as a man was overwhelmingly positive; it enabled him to have a university degree, a career, a good standard of living, prestige; at the time he assumed a male identity (with his mother's connivance) he faced a precarious future as a female from an impoverished family, who had possibly suffered sexual assault and born a child.

  • I agree about many women living as men so they could get opportunities that were forbidden to women.

    And some women writers still use either male pen names or their own initials. JK Rowling comes to mind. And IIRC she used a male pen name for some non-HP books, at least until a "fan" outed her.

    There may well be men doing the reverse--possibly to publish romance novels.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    There may well be men doing the reverse--possibly to publish romance novels.

    I can confirm that there are men who are writing romance novels under female pen-names.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    George Eliot
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    I don't really wish to belabour the point, but the reality of the ugly duckling being a swan does not rest upon the opinion of the 'duck' or anyone else but on his/her/trans objective genetic make-up, which is indisputable proof to any reasonable person.

    We all make all sorts of claims for ourselves but it is not unreasonable for others to request we substantiate our claims with evidence, is it?

    It would be reasonable if the claim had some relevance to their relationship with you. If you hired a plumber it would be reasonable to confirm their qualifications and experience before letting them loose on your heating system. Similarly, if you are in a romantic relationship with someone it would be reasonable to know something about their emotional and sexual preferences and previous romantic history.

    We are naturally curious about each other but requiring people to substantiate their claims with evidence is taking curiosity to an extreme level.
  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    Kwesi wrote: »
    I don't really wish to belabour the point, but the reality of the ugly duckling being a swan does not rest upon the opinion of the 'duck' or anyone else but on his/her/trans objective genetic make-up, which is indisputable proof to any reasonable person.

    We all make all sorts of claims for ourselves but it is not unreasonable for others to request we substantiate our claims with evidence, is it?

    If a transwoman were claiming to have been born with a vagina and a genome with two X chromosomes, in circumstances where it were obvious that she was not, then that would be a fair analogy. However I strongly suspect that most transwomen are claiming no such thing. They are far more likely to be claiming to have a female self-identity, and that claim is usually about as firmly established as any other objective fact about her is likely to be for a reasonable person to accept it as valid.

    Your position seems to me to be based on deliberately misinterpreting what transpeople are saying in a way that would be demonstrably untrue, ignoring the fact that they didn't intend it that way, and then accusing them of unreality. I do not understand why anyone would think that a kind or a useful approach.



  • Kwesi wrote: »
    mousethief: We don't have a scientific way of determining who is trans. Therefore we never will.

    So what are we talking about?

    How is it defined?

    How do we know it when we see it?

    You appear to want someone who claims to be trans to offer proof that they are trans. Can you offer proof of your claim to be a Christian? How would someone know that you are a Christian when they meet you? Sure, you might talk the talk, but how would they know you are not lying or self-deceived?
  • An objective personal identity is an oxymoron, isn't it?
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Once again I'm left wondering why people have such a problem here. Unless you're involved directly it doesn't concern you. Why can people not let other people just be? I don't get why people like hip-hop but I don't insist they must be mistaken and actually need to spend a weekend at a rock festival to understand what they really like.

    I think part of the problem is the way sex/gender is so intimately woven into our self-identity and interactions with the people around us, in a way that musical preferences simply aren't.

    For my part, I admit that I find it incredibly difficult to fully - never mind unquestioningly - accept that someone who has a penis is a woman, because "having a penis" is quite literally how I define malehood. I've worked very hard over my adult life to get to that point instead of using such secondary (some would say irrelevant) aspects as partner preference, clothing choices, attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. To have that final biological factor removed is to lose any and all definition of what "being a man" actually means, and that strikes to the very deepest heart of my own self-identity and self-awareness. How can I claim to be a man if there is no reliable objective yardstick by which to measure that claim? How can I know who I am if I only have my own unreliable subjective experience on which to base that identity? How do I know I'm not really a woman with a penis who merely thinks she's a man?

    As an addendum, the more observant among you will already have noted that this means I don't have any problem with post-op transsexual people or people who want to transition/are in the process of doing so. If a man wants to be a woman (or vice versa) then that's fine, but surely that should mean wanting to have the surgery to actually become that sex? I just don't understand how one could want to be a woman but retain a penis, or to be a man but continue to lack one.

    I have no doubt that this honest examination of my emotional reaction to this issue will have some of you clamouring to denounce me as some kind of evil bigoted monster not fit for human society, but I guess that's the world we live in these days.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    An objective personal identity is an oxymoron, isn't it?

    Quite so. Which is why so many of us use objective external factors as the bedrock of our self-identity, as per my previous post.
  • I think part of the problem is the way sex/gender is so intimately woven into our self-identity and interactions with the people around us, in a way that musical preferences simply aren't.

    For my part, I admit that I find it incredibly difficult to fully - never mind unquestioningly - accept that someone who has a penis is a woman, because "having a penis" is quite literally how I define malehood. I've worked very hard over my adult life to get to that point instead of using such secondary (some would say irrelevant) aspects as partner preference, clothing choices, attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. To have that final biological factor removed is to lose any and all definition of what "being a man" actually means, and that strikes to the very deepest heart of my own self-identity and self-awareness. How can I claim to be a man if there is no reliable objective yardstick by which to measure that claim? How can I know who I am if I only have my own unreliable subjective experience on which to base that identity? How do I know I'm not really a woman with a penis who merely thinks she's a man?

    As an addendum, the more observant among you will already have noted that this means I don't have any problem with post-op transsexual people or people who want to transition/are in the process of doing so. If a man wants to be a woman (or vice versa) then that's fine, but surely that should mean wanting to have the surgery to actually become that sex? I just don't understand how one could want to be a woman but retain a penis, or to be a man but continue to lack one.

    I have no doubt that this honest examination of my emotional reaction to this issue will have some of you clamouring to denounce me as some kind of evil bigoted monster not fit for human society, but I guess that's the world we live in these days.

    I think the problem is that you want/need some kind of objective evidence (a penis in this case) of something that is wholly subjective (in this case the belief that one is male).

    For a parallel, that's like the kind of Christian who needs Genesis to be objectively factual and who then feels their beliefs are under attack from science with its rival claim of a non-theist origin for the universe, the earth, life, and humankind.

    Or for another parallel, that's like being against same-sex marriage because you believe that allowing same-sex couples to marry undermines your own sense of being married to your opposite sex partner.
  • An objective personal identity is an oxymoron, isn't it?

    Quite so. Which is why so many of us use objective external factors as the bedrock of our self-identity, as per my previous post.

    That seems fine to me. However, if you go on and tell me that that's how I should define my personal identity, I would say, thanks, but no thanks. This isn't because I'm trans, by the way.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    @Marvin the Martian several points come out of what you are saying. Firstly that many people who do think long and hard about their gender identity after exploring those ideas are beginning to identify as non-binary, gender-fluid or other expressions that convey a more varied approach to gender than binary.

    Secondly, often treatment is not offered until after social transition - so maybe that socially transitioned person is on a waiting list or too young to be offered treatment - for example the 7 year old I mentioned earlier who is being allowed to transition socially this year after attempting to remove her penis aged 3. She has had psychiatric treatment in the intervening years.

    Thirdly, surgical transition involves a number of major surgeries - see towards the bottom of the NHS page and not everyone is in a position to undergo these operations. Many trans people do not go on to surgery but are content to stop at hormonal treatment for a number of reasons, which will is observed to cause the:
    penis and testicles getting smaller
    That reduction in size may be enough for the person involved to feel more womanly because the construction of the urethra and vagina to replace the penis is very complicated surgery. Or the mastectomy and hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries) is enough in the case of a transman without the more complicated and not always satisfactory construction of a penis.
  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    edited July 2019
    For my part, I admit that I find it incredibly difficult to fully - never mind unquestioningly - accept that someone who has a penis is a woman, because "having a penis" is quite literally how I define malehood.

    I have a male self identity and a penis. If I were to lose my penis due to some tragic accident or disease, I'm extremely confident that I would retain a male self identity. I'm not sure whether, and in what circumstances, I would choose to have a prosthetic penis permanently attached to my body, were that to be an option. Depending on the likely consequences of surgery, I might conceivably choose to forgo that, and would still consider myself to be a man.

    That may not be how you conceive of maleness, and it may not describe how you would see yourself in the event of an unfortunate dismemberment, but would you not agree that by saying "If I lost my penis I'd still consider myself to be a man" I'm not using an especially idiosyncratic definition of "man", and I'm saying something that has meaning - that is capable of being true or false?

    If so, it seems to me that transmen are saying something not that dissimilar. They are claiming to have a personal male identity that is not dependent on the possession of one particular organ. Transmen who lack penises are quite obviously not using the word "man" with the same definition (human-with-penis) that you are, but you don't need to use the word "man" in the same way yourself to recognise that they are using it in a different, but still meaningful way.

    It seems to me that that's how we use language most of the time - words have different meanings and can be used with different intentions in different contexts. Usually we can live with the fact that our preferred definitions don't exactly match someone elses's, especially if we can avoid gross misunderstandings. If people were to drop the idea that there's a single universally right definition for some words (man, woman, Christian, marriage...) that everyone else ought to be using exclusively, in a way that it would never occur to them to do for 99.9% of their vocabulary, the discussion would likely be far more constructive.

  • It amazes me how much attention is focused on trans women, rather than trans men. I was thinking about Freud, who said many interesting things about the penis, but one of them was about fear of losing it, to wit, castration. So maybe the media are obsessed with trans women, because of that fear. How could someone give up the great privilege of being male?
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    I think the problem is that you want/need some kind of objective evidence (a penis in this case) of something that is wholly subjective (in this case the belief that one is male).

    One thing I'd love to ask a transgender person (if any are still around) is what they mean by "male" or "female". What are the characteristics they perceive themselves as having that define them thusly?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Colin Smith You appear to want someone who claims to be trans to offer proof that they are trans. Can you offer proof of your claim to be a Christian? How would someone know that you are a Christian when they meet you? Sure, you might talk the talk, but how would they know you are not lying or self-deceived?

    How do I know I'm not lying or self-deceived? I suspect others are in a much better position than myself to answer the question.

    "What do they know of England who only England know?"

    “O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!"

  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Eliab wrote: »
    It seems to me that that's how we use language most of the time - words have different meanings and can be used with different intentions in different contexts. Usually we can live with the fact that our preferred definitions don't exactly match someone elses's, especially if we can avoid gross misunderstandings. If people were to drop the idea that there's a single universally right definition for some words (man, woman, Christian, marriage...) that everyone else ought to be using exclusively, in a way that it would never occur to them to do for 99.9% of their vocabulary, the discussion would likely be far more constructive.

    That all sounds a bit "Humpty Dumpty" to me. How can we possibly have a discussion if we don't even have a shared understanding of what words mean?

    The reason we don't have this problem with 99% of our vocabulary is that 99% of our vocabulary already has a single universally right definition (homonyms notwithstanding). For example, very few people try to claim that the word "table" actually means "large aquatic mammal".
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eliab wrote: »
    It seems to me that that's how we use language most of the time - words have different meanings and can be used with different intentions in different contexts. Usually we can live with the fact that our preferred definitions don't exactly match someone elses's, especially if we can avoid gross misunderstandings. If people were to drop the idea that there's a single universally right definition for some words (man, woman, Christian, marriage...) that everyone else ought to be using exclusively, in a way that it would never occur to them to do for 99.9% of their vocabulary, the discussion would likely be far more constructive.

    That all sounds a bit "Humpty Dumpty" to me. How can we possibly have a discussion if we don't even have a shared understanding of what words mean?

    The reason we don't have this problem with 99% of our vocabulary is that 99% of our vocabulary already has a single universally right definition (homonyms notwithstanding). For example, very few people try to claim that the word "table" actually means "large aquatic mammal".

    But it can also mean 'grid drawn on a piece of paper'.
  • I think the problem is that you want/need some kind of objective evidence (a penis in this case) of something that is wholly subjective (in this case the belief that one is male).

    One thing I'd love to ask a transgender person (if any are still around) is what they mean by "male" or "female". What are the characteristics they perceive themselves as having that define them thusly?

    Well, what do you mean by "male" and "female" and what are the characteristics you perceive yourself as having that define you as male?

    I'll bet you everything you cite is either subjective or culturally defined.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    quetzalcoatl: So maybe the media are obsessed with trans women, because of that fear. How could someone give up the great privilege of being male?

    ISTM the reason is that (cis) men are pretty relaxed about the whole business. It's amongst (cis) women that the issue is more contentious, as the posts on Mumsnet and the feminist divisions over Germaine Greer would seem to demonstrate.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    edited July 2019
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Eliab wrote: »
    It seems to me that that's how we use language most of the time - words have different meanings and can be used with different intentions in different contexts. Usually we can live with the fact that our preferred definitions don't exactly match someone elses's, especially if we can avoid gross misunderstandings. If people were to drop the idea that there's a single universally right definition for some words (man, woman, Christian, marriage...) that everyone else ought to be using exclusively, in a way that it would never occur to them to do for 99.9% of their vocabulary, the discussion would likely be far more constructive.

    That all sounds a bit "Humpty Dumpty" to me. How can we possibly have a discussion if we don't even have a shared understanding of what words mean?

    The reason we don't have this problem with 99% of our vocabulary is that 99% of our vocabulary already has a single universally right definition (homonyms notwithstanding). For example, very few people try to claim that the word "table" actually means "large aquatic mammal".

    But it can also mean 'grid drawn on a piece of paper'.

    Like I said, homonyms notwithstanding. But when we talk on this thread about "being a man (or woman)" we're not using a homonym.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Like I said, homonyms notwithstanding. But when we talk on this thread about "being a man (or woman)" we're not using a homonym.

    Those two uses of table are not homonyms. They an example of a word spreading in meaning.

  • That all sounds a bit "Humpty Dumpty" to me. How can we possibly have a discussion if we don't even have a shared understanding of what words mean?

    The reason we don't have this problem with 99% of our vocabulary is that 99% of our vocabulary already has a single universally right definition (homonyms notwithstanding). For example, very few people try to claim that the word "table" actually means "large aquatic mammal".

    I suspect that most of our vocabulary has layers of meanings. One can table a motion or bring something to the table. Whale can be used to describe an animal or it can be used as an adjective, as in "we had a whale", meaning a whale of a time. I doubt three people could even agree conclusively on what "right" means.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Well, what do you mean by "male" and "female" and what are the characteristics you perceive yourself as having that define you as male?

    I define it by physical biological characteristics, primarily genitalia.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Eliab wrote: »
    It seems to me that that's how we use language most of the time - words have different meanings and can be used with different intentions in different contexts. Usually we can live with the fact that our preferred definitions don't exactly match someone elses's, especially if we can avoid gross misunderstandings. If people were to drop the idea that there's a single universally right definition for some words (man, woman, Christian, marriage...) that everyone else ought to be using exclusively, in a way that it would never occur to them to do for 99.9% of their vocabulary, the discussion would likely be far more constructive.

    That all sounds a bit "Humpty Dumpty" to me. How can we possibly have a discussion if we don't even have a shared understanding of what words mean?

    The reason we don't have this problem with 99% of our vocabulary is that 99% of our vocabulary already has a single universally right definition (homonyms notwithstanding). For example, very few people try to claim that the word "table" actually means "large aquatic mammal".

    But it can also mean 'grid drawn on a piece of paper'.

    Like I said, homonyms notwithstanding. But when we talk on this thread about "being a man (or woman)" we're not using a homonym.

    The words "man" and "woman" are objectively meaningless. Male and female are biological terms and have objective meanings. Man and woman do not. Both terms are culturally defined and subjectively experienced.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Eliab wrote: »
    It seems to me that that's how we use language most of the time - words have different meanings and can be used with different intentions in different contexts. Usually we can live with the fact that our preferred definitions don't exactly match someone elses's, especially if we can avoid gross misunderstandings. If people were to drop the idea that there's a single universally right definition for some words (man, woman, Christian, marriage...) that everyone else ought to be using exclusively, in a way that it would never occur to them to do for 99.9% of their vocabulary, the discussion would likely be far more constructive.

    That all sounds a bit "Humpty Dumpty" to me. How can we possibly have a discussion if we don't even have a shared understanding of what words mean?

    The reason we don't have this problem with 99% of our vocabulary is that 99% of our vocabulary already has a single universally right definition (homonyms notwithstanding).
    Um, what language do you think we are using? 'Cause it sure ain't English.
  • Well, what do you mean by "male" and "female" and what are the characteristics you perceive yourself as having that define you as male?

    I define it by physical biological characteristics, primarily genitalia.

    Okay. That works. But what role does genitalia have in defining you as a person?
Sign In or Register to comment.