Feminism and the idea of a man or woman trapped in the wrong body are contradictory ideas

Argh typo - "point about being not binary, but also not spectrum."

Just to clarify the point about being binary but not spectrum =

A light switch is binary, it is either on or off.

Colours exist on a spectrum, a colour can be red, blue, or any degree of variation inbetween.

A line up of: an apple, a chair, a dog etc. is not a binary or a spectrum, but a selection of different things.

HmmThinkingAboutIt

I would agree that sex is not binary, but nor is it a spectrum.

It is also thoroughly biological (has everything to do with physical structures, chemistry, and potential reproductive options), although biological sex also invokes a cultural response.

In the medical world, sex is based on genotype (essentially genetics), but generally it is physically obvious.

Sex is a selection of a few different and distinct combinations of X and Y chromosomes. XX = female, XY = male (and the rare variations, essentially X0, XXX, and XXY) = intersex.

Each of these groups has their own distinct physical features (as massively common to that particular grouping), and each grouping will occasionally have some variation. This is medically called phenotype.

A specific genotype expresses a specific type of phenotype in the vast majority of people. And where this occasionally does not happen, it is due to some part of the biology misfiring as it were (aka receptors not functioning and thus not being receptive to androgen = androgen insensitivity).

Sex = biological
Gender = psychological/social/cultural

WhiteShores, (this could get circular) I didn't mean to suggest that you had suggested ... sorry for the confusion

Can someone provide me with some stats about crimes committed by the transgendered community, including a break down on pre-op and post-op status? Please?

That does not mean individual cases which may or indeed may not be reflective of the community as a whole. I'm like to see some stuff thats a little better researched and studied and reflected.

I'm rather sick of seeing the same old claptrap of how there is a threat here, when I'm left wondering just how much reality there is in that statement and just how much this about pure prejudice. If you are going to say it, how about backing it up?

I have to say that transgendered people are as likely to feel vulnerable in sexed changing rooms as much as men or women might. And thats down to plain old fashioned ignorance.

I have little time for any feminist logic that consistently and repeatedly has an outright refusal to admit that sex is not binary, when all the evidence is that it is quite clearly not, and the whole thing is a social construct. Whilst at the same time harping on about gender being socially constructed and how bad that is.

The reason for the refusal to do this is because it damages the platform from which they argue. Its a pretty shameful oversimplification tbh for this reason. It damages the whole cause.

We DO have a need for safe spaces. But I seriously question just how much they really need to be purely on sex lines and whether we do need to reassess how these are provided. Everything from changing rooms to victim support. We desperately, need to start providing a lot more spaces that suit everyone, not just the conforming majority as this is an issue that effects a surprisingly bigger number of individuals than people might expect - not just those who are actively transgendered.

We need to look at how we can make places safe and reassure people using them that they are safe. Not simply going well they are safe because they are female only. And thereby suggesting in the process that ALL men are ALL a threat on the basis of biology (and is therefore somewhat dangerous in itself), which we have already established, has a habit of not really being consistent and matching our social definitions anyway.

Certain elements of feminism don't like that though, as it interfere too much their manifestos and world vision and with the social constructions they make doing so or want to make. Rather than looking at solutions that might be better for all, they are only interested in women, which is fine to a point, but if you neglect the rest of the world you just end up creating even more problems and inequality.

And thats where those parts of feminism all fall down as, inconveniently for them, men and women and all those inbetween actually do co-exist.

I want a world where every individual can decide for themselves which of their features make up part of their main identity, and which features they wish to share experiences of in groups of commonality.

I want every human being to have the right to express their 'sameness' or their 'uniqueness', depending on which they value more.

I want every human being (no matter what), to be treated as a human being, and not in any way a greater or lesser human being because of their features (chosen or not).

sorry meant to say that a non racist would not place skin colour above other sources of diversity

So heres the thing, the key biological feature that you are talking about is skin colour, other differences: height nose shape, relatiave size of waist to hips etc are seen as secondary to this key difference. A non racist world would i think neither discount skin colour as a source of difference but place it about other sources of diversity.

I think the thing for me is the kind of world you wish to live in. Do you want a world where groups (defined by race or gender) are considered different but equal or which live apart? On the other hand do you want a world where diferences in genitals and the ability to breast feed is considered just one interesting way in which humans differ? .

Bennifer
I'm a honestly a bit stunned as I never implied you were suggesting that (and I'm sorry if my words conveyed that meaning to you).

I agree about the tiny variations in genetic difference, and believe that we are indeed one race (the human race).

However, discrimination against black people is based on their biological features, which means biological features are relevant in a political sense (because they are what cause one to become a target).

I'm not saying it should be this way, but unfortunately this is the way it is. Discrimination against black people is 'triggered' by deciding they are black based on their visible biological features.

WhiteShores, I wasn't suggesting black people "had brought it upon themselves" through their culture, it's just that biologically speaking, the differences between black and white people is terribly small to the point of being non-existent.

I would almost agree Bennifer, except for this:

What has been the 'signal' for black people to be targetted and abused?

Because I would say it is their biological/physical features, and not whether they culturally or even self-identify as being black.

Obviously I do not think this is right, but it illustrates another case where biology has significant repurcussions (based on biological features as the cue).

Perhaps race relations is the reverse of this debate - where we'd agree is that biologically, blacks and whites are the same - race doesn't exist biologically speaking, only culturally.

I would agree that we are not all the same.

As individuals we are, each of us, very different and unique.

Some groups of individuals have certain commonalities (whether that be the colour of their skin, the biology of their sex, their internal self-identity etc.)

All of us have at least one commonality - being human (unless trans-specism becomes accepted reality, in which case we are all biologically human).

We all deserve to be treated equally as human beings, and individually according to preferences.

I think black people might find it quite offensive to say that their blackness was only defined as a history of oppression by white people (not that that hideous oppression doesn't exist of course).

Black identity is very important in the struggle to end white supremacy. "We're all the same" simply isn't true, nor does it have to be to end oppression. Oppressors just have to stop being oppressive. Even if someone isn't the same as them, doens't give them the right to oppress anyone.

But can't you get unity in diversity? I might be a white woman, but I'll be different from another white woman, and might have more in common with a black man, but what unites us is our humanity.

Redefining woman to mean a "gender identity" is a political and misogynistic move to erase women's reality in favour of men's feelings.

A woman is an adult human female. That hasn't changed, whatever the institution of trans claims.

not that black people don't exist but that the classification of people into black and white is arbitary. The key thing that people classified as black have in common is the history of abuse and exploitation across generations not any patterns of genes.

No Bennifer. Valuing diversity is what's important, and getting away from the idea that white middle and upper class men have created that they are the human standard, and that everyone else has to be like them.

Being a woman and proud is good. Being black and proud is good. Women don't have to be the same as men, and black people don't have to be the same as white people to have the right not to be oppressed.

Hullygully

I agree, we essentially need new clarification of definitions, and words to accomodate everybody (gender-orientated and biology-orientated).

I can (personally) see being happy with the following:

female/male = biological (chromosomes main and final determinant, expected recurring biological features and reproductive implications in the vast majority)

man/woman = gender-identity (the name you choose for a feeling in your mind)

In my case (XX female, neutral gender-identity) I would therefore happily be able to say: "I am a female but not a woman."

Hully binaries don't oppress us (certainly not all of us).

Men have created a sex hierarchy (not binary) to oppress women and place themselves above us.

Nyac, isn't that precisely how we combat racism? Not by pretending that black people don't exist, but by accepting "we're all the same really"

"yes just the other day i heard loads of medical professionals harping on about who the biological reality of women was meaningless."

To be a woman in our society now, you don't need to have the biology of a woman. You just need approval from a gender recognition panel. Legally physical biology has no meaning any more.

Do people really not notice how easily trans have been awarded these rights compared to the length of time women have been fighting for ours, and only achieving them incrementally if at all. Trans are a tiny group, yet they were able to change the laws of the land with just a snap of their fingers really. And now women's reality doesn't exist any more thanks to them.

ThatGhastlyWoman, I'd ask you if you spend a lot of time with your head in the sand in response to your question, but I won't because that would be rude and having a go personally, just like your question is rude and having a go personally.

Thanks Whiteshores.

I understand Nyac's pov BUT also feel we need to find a way forward (as per last thread!) to accommodate all human variants. We could see it as something positive, an attempt to break away from the binaries that have oppressed ALL of us?

Witch, you don't erase racism by pretending that black people don't exist, any more than you erase woman-hatred by pretending that women don't exist and we're all the same really.