TERFs, gender, sex, etc.

1111214161719

Comments

  • Grim news that in Hungary trans people may be completely delegitimized, with new proposals defining gender biologically. No doubt Orban is taking advantage of corvid to push through right-wing stuff.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Grim news that in Hungary trans people may be completely delegitimized, with new proposals defining gender biologically. No doubt Orban is taking advantage of corvid to push through right-wing stuff.

    These people. It makes as much sense as persecuting people for being blue eyed or left handed.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Grim news that in Hungary trans people may be completely delegitimized, with new proposals defining gender biologically. No doubt Orban is taking advantage of corvid to push through right-wing stuff.

    These people. It makes as much sense as persecuting people for being blue eyed or left handed.

    Don't give them any ideas.
  • Captain_ValmaniaCaptain_Valmania Shipmate Posts: 33
    KarlLB wrote: »
    But ""If you are a woman, or someone who has a cervix" is inaccurate as not all women have one.

    Pretending that some men can should pass as women, is a brand new phenomenon in human history. As recently as 1977 Grey's Anatomy observed:
    “The female pelvis, looked at as a whole, is distinguished from the male by bones being more delicate but is width being greater and its depth smaller. The whole pelvis is less massive, and its bones are lighter and more slender, and its muscular impressions are slightly marked. … the characteristic difference between the male and female pelvis being distinctly indicated as early as the fourth month of foetal life.”

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    The issue is not men passing as women. It is women having physically male bodies.

    Is it your assertion that transgender individuals do not exist?
  • Captain_ValmaniaCaptain_Valmania Shipmate Posts: 33
    KarlLB wrote: »
    The issue is not men passing as women. It is women having physically male bodies. Is it your assertion that transgender individuals do not exist?

    My assertion is that binary male-female gender is an observable pattern through history and contemporary society.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 4
    KarlLB wrote: »
    The issue is not men passing as women. It is women having physically male bodies. Is it your assertion that transgender individuals do not exist?

    My assertion is that binary male-female gender is an observable pattern through history and contemporary society.

    But one which does not apply to some individuals, which is the subject of this thread.

    We know that most people find their gender corresponds to their physical genitalia. What we're discussing here is people for whom it doesn't. Or, more specifically, the problem of some binary people's attitude to that.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    The issue is not men passing as women. It is women having physically male bodies. Is it your assertion that transgender individuals do not exist?

    My assertion is that binary male-female gender is an observable pattern through history and contemporary society.

    Eunuchs, two-spirit people (accepting that the term itself is a modern catch-all for a variety of different tribal roles), third gender, there are plenty of examples where the binary was blurred or erased in some cases. Not all pleasant, but indicative of the complexity of something you seem to want to be simple.
  • Captain_ValmaniaCaptain_Valmania Shipmate Posts: 33
    KarlLB wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    The issue is not men passing as women. It is women having physically male bodies. Is it your assertion that transgender individuals do not exist?

    My assertion is that binary male-female gender is an observable pattern through history and contemporary society.

    But one which does not apply to some individuals, which is the subject of this thread.

    We know that most people find their gender corresponds to their physical genitalia. What we're discussing here is people for whom it doesn't. Or, more specifically, the problem of some binary people's attitude to that.

    How an individual experiences and expresses gender doesn't change long-term and wide-spread patterns of bone-structure, chromosomes, hormone production, secondary sex characteristics, average physical performance, social roles and tropes.
  • Captain_ValmaniaCaptain_Valmania Shipmate Posts: 33
    KarlLB wrote: »
    The issue is not men passing as women. It is women having physically male bodies. Is it your assertion that transgender individuals do not exist?

    My assertion is that binary male-female gender is an observable pattern through history and contemporary society.

    Eunuchs, two-spirit people (accepting that the term itself is a modern catch-all for a variety of different tribal roles), third gender, there are plenty of examples where the binary was blurred or erased in some cases. Not all pleasant, but indicative of the complexity of something you seem to want to be simple.

    They're called exceptions, and are only observable as anomalies because of the background male-female binary pattern.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    The issue is not men passing as women. It is women having physically male bodies. Is it your assertion that transgender individuals do not exist?

    My assertion is that binary male-female gender is an observable pattern through history and contemporary society.

    Eunuchs, two-spirit people (accepting that the term itself is a modern catch-all for a variety of different tribal roles), third gender, there are plenty of examples where the binary was blurred or erased in some cases. Not all pleasant, but indicative of the complexity of something you seem to want to be simple.

    They're called exceptions, and are only observable as anomalies because of the background male-female binary pattern.

    And?

    What had this got to do with people who are exceptions.

    You seem to be saying "most people fit into the binary pattern" - so what?
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited May 4
    @Captain_Valmania - if you accept that there are exceptions to the binary pattern, which you appear to do, why would you want to do anything other than simply accept that there are exceptions to the binary pattern? What benefit would it bring you to force those people who are exceptions to the binary to conform to that binary?
  • Captain_ValmaniaCaptain_Valmania Shipmate Posts: 33
    Because those exceptions have been turned into an ideology.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Because those exceptions have been turned into an ideology.

    No, their existence and the validity of their existence has been acknowledged.

    If that's an ideology, what's wrong with it? And why does it bother you if you're not yourself trans?
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    hosting
    Captain_Valmania, Epiphanies is a board which exists to discuss matters where issues and identity significantly overlap. It was in part established because misgendering trans people and abusing them by rejecting their valid and equal existence was deemed by admins not to be an acceptable way to treat our trans shipmates but to be something which amounts to a Commandment 3 offence of personal attack on them.

    Attacks by you on the validity of people being trans must stop now or will be treated as C3 offences.

    Under the board guidelines 'certain phrases' can be deemed off limit - there will be no more talk of trans people not being the gender they say they are but being another gender 'passing'.

    For further clairity on the board and its rules see the Styx thread about board set-up
    https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/1777/dead-horses-run-free-to-see-the-light-in-epiphanies

    I have made this post after discussion with the board admins. (Admins. - please let me know if I've misunderstood anything)

    Response to this post does not belong on this board but in the Styx.

    thanks,
    Louise
    Epiphanies Host
    hosting off



  • KarlLB wrote: »
    The issue is not men passing as women. It is women having physically male bodies. Is it your assertion that transgender individuals do not exist?

    My assertion is that binary male-female gender is an observable pattern through history and contemporary society.

    Eunuchs, two-spirit people (accepting that the term itself is a modern catch-all for a variety of different tribal roles), third gender, there are plenty of examples where the binary was blurred or erased in some cases. Not all pleasant, but indicative of the complexity of something you seem to want to be simple.

    They're called exceptions, and are only observable as anomalies because of the background male-female binary pattern.

    Unusual =/= bad. It's perfectly possible to observe than trans and non-binary folk are a minority but nonetheless treat them with respect and dignity.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Because those exceptions have been turned into an ideology.
    Um yeah, but no. Recognition of the phenomenon by the western world, not ideology.
    We advance in understanding all the time, after all, your doctor no longer tries to cure ailments by balancing the humours.
    At least I hope not.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited May 5
    Oh, I don't know. Would you agree to a trace of the choleric in the good Captain? Which, being a fiery humour could be modified by cooling down with a long cold drink of mostly water?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    :lol:
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    hosting
    A reminder to people that this is a more closely hosted board than the rest of the Ship - and not to get personal with other posters. The Hell board is available for that sort of thing, but not here thanks.

    L
    Epiphanies Host
    hosting off
  • How an individual experiences and expresses gender doesn't change long-term and wide-spread patterns of bone-structure, chromosomes, hormone production, secondary sex characteristics, average physical performance, social roles and tropes.

    And what do any of those have to do with how we should treat an individual person?

    Most people are not trans. However you treat trans people, however you think about them - none of this has any effect whatsoever on average or typical properties of populations. Trans is unusual - nobody is claiming otherwise. But being unusual is no reason to treat people poorly.

    (That's a fine rule that you can apply in pretty much every situation - there's nothing trans-specific about it.)
  • Captain_ValmaniaCaptain_Valmania Shipmate Posts: 33
    I'm not savvy enough to know how to navigate responding without violating the Misgendering rule. I think there are valid responses to the various objections raised above, but this thread or board may not be the place for them. Happy to be directed to the relevant thread/board to respond.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 6
    Simple enough - don't imply trans people are "really" their birth genders. It's not hard.

    This is not the place to tell women you think that they don't know their own mind and that you know best and they are really men.
  • Captain_ValmaniaCaptain_Valmania Shipmate Posts: 33
    How an individual experiences and expresses gender doesn't change long-term and wide-spread patterns of bone-structure, chromosomes, hormone production, secondary sex characteristics, average physical performance, social roles and tropes.

    And what do any of those have to do with how we should treat an individual person?

    Most people are not trans. However you treat trans people, however you think about them - none of this has any effect whatsoever on average or typical properties of populations. Trans is unusual - nobody is claiming otherwise. But being unusual is no reason to treat people poorly.

    (That's a fine rule that you can apply in pretty much every situation - there's nothing trans-specific about it.)

    Individual people should be treated respectfully. Remember when Jordan Peterson was challenging the compelled use of pronouns in Bill C-16 and when people asked if he'd be respectful to individual transpeople, he said yes.



  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host

    Individual people should be treated respectfully. Remember when Jordan Peterson was challenging the compelled use of pronouns in Bill C-16 and when people asked if he'd be respectful to individual transpeople, he said yes.



    I'm not sure many posters here would regard Jordan Peterson as an intellectual authority or example of respectful communication.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simple enough - don't imply trans people are "really" their birth genders. It's not hard.

    This is not the place to tell women you think that they don't know their own mind and that you know best and they are really men.

    "I know best what your identity is. I'm not sure how I gained that expertise, oh, well, I'm self-appointed."
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Trans people do not choose their identity. As one I know very well who is early in transitioning said to me recently, "Why should anybody think I would choose an identity which would put me through the immense personal and social challenges of transitioning?"
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate
    I felt very much the same when I was struggling to come to terms with being gay. For years I'd have given almost anything to be straight; the idea that choice was involved was repulsive.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    I'm not savvy enough to know how to navigate responding without violating the Misgendering rule. ...
    Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but are you saying you're "not savvy enough" to refer to a person by their preferred pronouns? I mean, I'll admit I have a terrible memory for names, but it never occured to me to just call people by whatever name I think they should have.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    I'm not savvy enough to know how to navigate responding without violating the Misgendering rule.
    It is pretty simple. Treat people are the gender they say they are. This space allows for the discussion of transgender, but not the offhand dismissal of words like pretending or ideology.
  • It's quite possible to avoid pronouns entirely. I see this all the time in religious inclusive language. You can say "whatever God wills, he will do" or "whatever God wills, God will do". Not very difficult.

    When meeting people in person, being polite and ensuring that you're not dominating the conversation usually takes care of things pretty well.

    Being savvy isn't really required.
  • It's quite possible to avoid pronouns entirely. I see this all the time in religious inclusive language. You can say "whatever God wills, he will do" or "whatever God wills, God will do". Not very difficult.

    But quite clunky. Pronouns are useful. Not using them makes language flow less smoothly, if you're referring to the same person multiple times. Using "God" in place of "He" isn't quite as bad, because "God" is only one syllable, but constructions like "Godself" don't really work.

    But imagine a sentence in which you'd like to refer to a person two or three times without using pronouns. Now imagine that the person is Mr. Chumleigh-Warner.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    They.
  • They.

    Which is a pronoun. NP was wanting to avoid the use of pronouns.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    In my observation of people communicating in general, whenever there is a situation where someone's gender simply isn't known (nothing to do with trans issues, simply a case that there is only a surname on paper, or a name that could be either male or female), people have absolutely no problem referring to the person without assigning a gender - they'll refer to them as 'this person' and 'they', quite naturally. Only when it is specifically a trans issue, an issue of people requesting to be referred to by a pronoun which doesn't match the pronoun that was assigned to them based on their genitalia, or an issue of not assuming gender, do people start saying this is far too difficult for their tiny brains to cope with.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    Comrade is, and has always been, gender neutral.
  • fineline wrote: »
    simply a case that there is only a surname on paper, or a name that could be either male or female), people have absolutely no problem referring to the person without assigning a gender - they'll refer to them as 'this person' and 'they', quite naturally.

    I think that's rather stronger than my experience. I'd divide people into three groups - those that you describe, who use "they" quite naturally, those who use "he" as a pronoun when gender is unknown - either because that's the way they learned English, or because they're making an assumption in a male-dominated area, and those whose instinct (based on the language they learned when younger) is to use "he" but they usually manage to override with "they" because they also know that male-default language is problematic.

    You can usually tell whether someone in the middle group is assuming male-dominance, or is using a learned form of grammar by seeing what pronoun they use about an unknown person where women dominate (nurses, elementary school teachers, stay-at-home parents, ...).


  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited May 6
    I tend to get things wrong, but do try to get things right.

    My kids, in their twenties and thirties, appear to have No problem with referring to someone without assuming gender.

    + the the whole male default thing .....Even I know that is outdated.


    Is this an age thing?

    Do the youngsters get it easier than us older ones?

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    IME, yes. Fewer outdated stereotypes to unlearn. Speaking personally, it's pretty hard to unlearn stuff if you don't know its there.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    edited May 7
    fineline wrote: »
    simply a case that there is only a surname on paper, or a name that could be either male or female), people have absolutely no problem referring to the person without assigning a gender - they'll refer to them as 'this person' and 'they', quite naturally.

    I think that's rather stronger than my experience. I'd divide people into three groups - those that you describe, who use "they" quite naturally, those who use "he" as a pronoun when gender is unknown - either because that's the way they learned English, or because they're making an assumption in a male-dominated area, and those whose instinct (based on the language they learned when younger) is to use "he" but they usually manage to override with "they" because they also know that male-default language is problematic.

    You can usually tell whether someone in the middle group is assuming male-dominance, or is using a learned form of grammar by seeing what pronoun they use about an unknown person where women dominate (nurses, elementary school teachers, stay-at-home parents, ...).

    It tends to be much older people who use 'he' as a generic pronoun. That practice is outdated now, and in educational settings is no longer the norm or considered acceptable, in my experience at least. It was still used and accepted by older male lecturers (though challenged by women lecturers and younger men, who found alternatives) when I studied at uni in the UK at age 18. When I studied in Canada, at age 21, it wasn't accepted. I'm in my 40s now, and work in an educational setting, and it is never used. However, even that usage does not generally apply to what I was talking about - where you have a list of real people and you don't know the gender of one of them. It is used more about a hypothetical person, such as the reader of a novel, who could be male or female,

    But yes, in some settings people do assume a male, particularly for certain professions, and for others they assume a female. However, I was meaning a completely neutral setting where, say, you have a list of people attending something, or a list of students, where there is no particular gender prevalence. My point was that when people know they don't know (and this is key - when they make an assumption, they are generally not conscious of it), it is pretty easy for them to adapt their language, and they tend to do this naturally. The fact that there are of course situations where people make assumptions is a bit of a red herring, and is irrelevant to the point I was making.

  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    I sang in a United Church choir for many years, and we were habituated to change lyrics to inclusive language wherever possible. We were preparing an anthem for a baptism but we didn't know who the baby was. When we got to the pronouns, everyone in the choir - with no hesitation whatsoever - inserted "it" instead of her/him. Of course we all burst out laughing immediately afterwards.
  • Captain_ValmaniaCaptain_Valmania Shipmate Posts: 33
    I'm not savvy enough to know how to navigate responding without violating the Misgendering rule. ...
    Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but are you saying you're "not savvy enough" to refer to a person by their preferred pronouns? I mean, I'll admit I have a terrible memory for names, but it never occured to me to just call people by whatever name I think they should have.

    My response to Leorning from earlier in the thread seems like a good response to your question. I'd also add that it depends on the situation but in most situations it's polite and wise to take people as they.
    How an individual experiences and expresses gender doesn't change long-term and wide-spread patterns of bone-structure, chromosomes, hormone production, secondary sex characteristics, average physical performance, social roles and tropes.

    And what do any of those have to do with how we should treat an individual person?

    Most people are not trans. However you treat trans people, however you think about them - none of this has any effect whatsoever on average or typical properties of populations. Trans is unusual - nobody is claiming otherwise. But being unusual is no reason to treat people poorly.

    (That's a fine rule that you can apply in pretty much every situation - there's nothing trans-specific about it.)

    Individual people should be treated respectfully. Remember when Jordan Peterson was challenging the compelled use of pronouns in Bill C-16 and when people asked if he'd be respectful to individual transpeople, he said yes.

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    The reason for having to have a bill was, I guess, the weaponising of pronouns against transfolk. People appear to be more apologetic about mis-gendering a random dog they've met out on a walk than mis-gendering a person.

    Being allegedly privately respectful to individual trans and non-binary people while simultaneously allowing them to be wilfully publicly misgendered is simply a get-out.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    It's hardly "respectful of individuals" to dismiss them as a group. It's like saying you'd never call a black person the n-word to their face while continuing to use the plural to refer to a group of black persons.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    There appears to be a belief that respect is a psychological state whose presence or absence is reliably available to the individual who feels it by introspection and not otherwise available at all.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    It's hardly "respectful of individuals" to dismiss them as a group. It's like saying you'd never call a black person the n-word to their face while continuing to use the plural to refer to a group of black persons.
    It is just another version of "love the sinner, hate the sin" applied to the LGBTQ+
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited June 7
    Will Rowling not learn just to STFU?
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Will Rowling not learn just to STFU?

    Yep. I was reading through those tweets earlier, trying to make sense of her warped logic that acknowledging that 'people who menstruate' is not synonymous with 'women' somehow erases the existence of her womanhood and womanhood in general. I can't work out to what extent she really believes what she's saying, and to what extent she just likes saying controversial things to get a reaction, and get her name in the news.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Lots of women don't menstruate - for me it's because of menopause, (one of the Creator's better ideas).

    Fineline I don't know why either, but she has gone down in my estimation - not that that would worry her.
  • That was my immediate thought too - that JK Rowling found the "people who menstruate" hit a sore point as she was post-menopause or menopausal and may or may not have found that difficult. Surprisingly some women find the menopause challenging rather than a relief.
Sign In or Register to comment.