Can you all just lay off trans people

Hi Italiangreyhound, for the most part we agree!

I think gender doesn't define us and indeed it should not.

I think the external social construct of gender should not define us. I don't let it define me, in fact I revel in defying it :D

But being part of a biological sex class does have a material reality.

It does; sex it a way of classifying a particular physical reality. It's immutable, I agree.

If society says that father's take their sons to football, and mothers their daughters to the beautify parlour. That is stereotypical idea based on stereotypes of sex, which our society calls gender.

What I'm putting to you is that yes, our society calls stereotypes based on sex "gender", but that there is another thing that is a part of one's internal "sense of self" that is ALSO called "gender".

So you can be of the biological sex of female, have a sense of yourself as a woman, and defy "woman" stereotypes. BUT there is also the possibility - as evidenced by hundreds of thousands of trans people worldwide - that you can be of the biological sex of female, defy the stereotypes of "woman", but ALSO be very sure of yourself as a man. A very real, very palpable sense of self which is distinct from the question of social constructs.

(Disclaimer: not saying all trans people feel this way)

Daily

Well I have a more feminine outlook. I dress like a woman, talk like a woman, think and feel like a woman.

Far too many feminists emulating men and masculinity out there.

I have done very well as a woman, it has helped that my man is a real man and we both respect each other's roles.

How do YOU relate to feminists? Genuine curiosity.....

"plants have organs which have a sex....they don't appear to have genders"

Some may disagree, rat...

Larrygylls Thank you for your links, I will give them a read. There is so much to read and such little time. I do try to be open-minded but I find with questions surrounding sex and gender no matter how much research is done it is always those who are arguing against the orthodoxy that women are inferior by biology to men that are asked to be open-minded. No matter how many years or how widely I read unless I agree with the orthodox position I must see this or that.

The same happens across academia, look at the way Prof. Beard is treated, her expertise in her subject is disregarded for the mere fact that she is a woman. It is the same in my subject.

Your statement that ‘most scientists agree’ leads to my next point which is significant when it comes to research. I’m unsure of your university position and apologise if I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs so to speak. Funding restrictions mean that external forces dictate the questions which can be asked. Also, the REF means that the University places extreme pressure of output and impact on academics thus if one does research into an area which the press will write articles about, normally that which supports a dominant worldview, it is good for the REF and therefore supported by the University. It is these boring practicalities of research which skew what is being asked and thus what is being found, not a conspiracy theory.
The sex of the authors is of little matter regarding whether a work upholds, or seeks to uphold, sexist principles. Women can be just as sexist as men. Also, our positions are just as, if not more precarious, and we are working in a world which still seeks to underpin and support male privilege. Alongside this, we too have experienced a life of grooming into these ideas and structures.
With the toxic atmosphere surrounding gender at the moment I feel it is important to acknowledge that scholars who support gender ideology can draw extra authority from their institutions whereas dissenting voices must remain anonymous.

Just like the dollar bill, face tattoos, strappy dresses, neck rings and lip plates have no sense of self.

No they do not. We know them as gender. Some people (me) think there is something internal - within the mind - that we also know as "gender". But they are not the same thing. And the social construct is not the ONLY gender.

The author is not comparing people with dollar bills, she(?) is comparing the trappings of gender with dollar bills.

Sex, and sex organs, have existed for bajillionty years before conscious organisms with a sense of self evolved. Even plants have them.

Yep, sex is sex is sex, plants have organs which have a sex; they don't have a "sense of self", but equally they don't appear to have genders. Best not to get sidetracked by this though as I suspect it's by the by. Sex is sex, we agree

All social constructs exist within minds

I don't think that's right; social constructs are recognisable phenoma, they do not "exist within minds" in any sense other than that we know about them! Social constructs are external phenomena.

Money is both real and a social construct.

The word "money" refers to both the physical object AND the social construct.

So is gender.

The word gender refers to both the social construct AND the state within the mind.

But they get their reality from the shared meanings we give them, not from the physical stuff they are made from or the way they physically function.

The external social constructs of gender get their reality from the meanings we give them.

The internal sense of one's gender gets it's reality from simply being real and present as an experience within the mind. As is the case with ALL things within the mind.

Naturally inclined... I mean

I am all woman though, much more than woman than every single feminist that I have met.

What does this even mean? I'm a feminist, i was born with XX chromosomes, oh, and I use female pronouns.

What do you have/do that makes you "more" woman than me?

@RatRolyPoly I think PencilsInSpace has answered the question better than I could ever hope to do.

However, to add my 2p worth. I think gender doesn't define us and indeed it should not.

But being part of a biological sex class does have a material reality. If I am part of the sex class whose bodies can usually produces eggs not sperm, I cannot biologically be a father.

If I am part of the sex class whose bodies can usually produce eggs I may, under the right conditions, become a mother.

If society says that father's take their sons to football, and mothers their daughters to the beautify parlour. That is stereotypical idea based on stereotypes of sex, which our society calls gender.

It can be challenged.

I can take my son to the football and the beauty parlour. I can take my daughter to football and the beauty parlour.

Because ideas about wjo likes football and who likes beauty parlours are socially constricted and can change. (Neither of my kids like either!)

But who belongs to a sex class that produces sperm or eggs is biology, and applies to the animal kingdom (who have need of neither football or beauty parlours) and that is not socially constructed.

I can see that finding 'gender stereotypes' appealing could be because a male just likes some things associated with females (and vice versa) or because a person feels naturally incminded to the opposite sex and so wishes to 'buy into' things society associates with that thing. The former may be very happy to be gender non-confirming, the later may want to identify as trans.

Does that agree with your statements @PencilsInSpace ?

Hang on, I'll take your latest post...

Hi pencils, you're right that the angle the I'm coming at this from is different from the angle intended by the author. I just wrote a long reply picking up on your points but then deleted it because my intention is not to debate the intention of the"rightness" of the author (although I think they've conflated various issues); moreover I wanted to use it as a opener to where I think the big difference in perspective is coming from.

I don’t give a shit who anyone wants to be, as long they aren’t an arsehole I’m not bothered. I am sure if people want to perv they’ll watch on a beach, pool from a far etc.

Pests are male and female, also in a changing room I’d be locked away because I wouldn’t get changed in front of anyone male or female.

If you are happy to go out in public and be who you want to be even if you know you’re going to be judged I rate you and I got your back because if I saw anyone picking on another for being themselves I’d give you a mouthful.

Just like the dollar bill, face tattoos, strappy dresses, neck rings and lip plates have no sense of self.

The author is not comparing people with dollar bills, she(?) is comparing the trappings of gender with dollar bills.

Sex, and sex organs, have existed for bajillionty years before conscious organisms with a sense of self evolved. Even plants have them.

All social constructs exist within minds and are 'real' inasmuch as they have real world effects. Money is both real and a social construct. So is gender. But they get their reality from the shared meanings we give them, not from the physical stuff they are made from or the way they physically function.

I gotta say the mic drop bit signaling #nodebate really is out of place, authoritarian and rude, on a talk forum, OP.

How does one become 'more woman'? Surely you are either a woman or a man?

Do you mean more feminine? As in a walking stereotype of make-up, hair extensions and padded bras? That doesn't make you more woman, it just makes you feminine.

Not to worry, Sally. Lots of people are opposed to women's liberation, and in fact that is the very matter under discussion. Women being secure in their person. Though I dare say that word, pander, does not mean what you think it means.

Done = some

Nope, 'fraid it's not Lang, it's rather "done feminists are determined that they know best about something that has been acknowledged and discussed FOR CENTURIES because they've bought into some reductionist logical fallacy".

People have bodies. People exist within social constructs. People also have minds.

I'm not talking crazy stuff here.

I am all woman though, much more than woman than every single feminist that I have met

Wow

Have said that you did say 'met' so you might not have met many

Plus whats all woman...is it the tits?

Rat - that is just a lot of waffle which could easily be written thus:

Gender Identity is a dualist religion which transactivists are campaigning to have enshrined in law. Feminists disagree.

And the idea is that that's the same for people; we have a particular physical reality and then there's an external social construct that applies "gender" to our physical "sex", right?

No that's not what I understand from the article. The author is saying that:

Sex is not a social construct because it functions regardless of collectively agreed meanings. This is different from the dollar bill which only functions (as money) because of collectively agreed meaning. Otherwise it's just a bit of paper.

Gender, on the other hand, is a social construct because it is entirely reliant on collectively agreed meanings of masculinity and feminity which differ across place and time.

The relationship between the physical dollar bill and 'money' is not the same as the relationship between sex and gender. The analogous thing to the dollar bill in this example is the face tattoo, the strappy dress, the neck rings or the lip plate. Not sex.

So here's the problem...

I see I didn't finish that paragraph with the actual problem, I just segueed into clarifying the assertion.

So the problem is that that works for a dollar bill. There are only two things for that dollar bill, certainly, but there is something quite crucial that a dollar bill does not have. It doesn't have a mind. It doesn't have a consciousness, it doesn't have a "sense of self". This is why people are not comparable to dollar bills, or indeed to disembodied sex organs as these are actually a part of a conscious organism with a sense of self.

The thing is if I sound like I'm talking millennial mumbo-jumbo about "feelz" I assure you I'm not. The question of the mind and its distinctness from the physical body has been a problem in philosophy for centuries! It's really very widely written on; mind brain identity theory, mind body duality.

Anyway, I ramble, can you see where I'm going with this? What I'm saying is that yes, gender refers to a social construct, but there's a very good argument to say that it also refers to something very real within the mind (NOT the brain, but the mind), and it's just a confusing shame that we only have the one word to describe the two!

As for 'trans' - they are just living out their fetishes. Pure and simple.

If only that were true.

The whole reason women are protesting this shit is because they are trying to getting it enshrined in law - which will erase women's rights against sex discrimination.

The result will be that a man with a sexual fetish will be legally indistinguishable from an actual biological woman.

I am not a 'feminist', have never been a feminist and NEVER will be. I refuse to pander to them in the slightest

What does this even mean? You do not beleive women should have equal rights to men? You believe we our rights should be inferior?

Is that really what you intended to post? Or are you confused as to what the definition is of feminism?

Sally, could you explain why you consider yourself to be "more woman" than any feminist ?

Just realised my first paragraph may have seemed snippish, I didn't mean it that way, I meant it to be reassuring! I really was pleased for the insight.