Ok - another trans thead

[Bambambini]

This is more about logic and free speech than simply Trans issues. A catholic group paid to advertise their message on a bus that Girls have vulvas and boys have penises. Seems it was a reaction to a similar ad promoting that girls have penises and boys have vulvas. Aibu to be concerned that logic and free speech is under attack? Why was one claim allowed and another censored? This seems to be a sign of the times and I'm getting worried. Who is choosing which ideas, agendas are allowed and promoted?

If you want to uphold the model that all people are either simply 'male' or 'female' and those are the only two sexes, you'll need to accept that some females have penises and some men have vulvas.

No we don't. Those born with male genitalia are male. Female genitalia = female. Male can be trans, fine. But not female. Ever.

I'm saying that 'men have penises and women have vulvas' is not a simple, biological fact. There are variences

Those abnormalities do not mean that there are other sexes. Can you name them, if they exist?

That suggestion was made in the 1970s ageingrunner regarding children being able to consent, amongst people who were legitimately producing very similar images to these. It's just being done here in the name of trans* rights rather than sexual liberation.

I think you are right to draw the parallels.

categorise sexes is dependent on the particular model you choose for interpreting the data.

?!??! Can you suggest a model other than the one that divides each type of mammal into the two types (male and female) that you need to have in order for that species to reproduce and thus survive?

Yes I think I've probably seen those pictures actually Cocoa. It's a similar style of drawing isn't it? It was someone on another thread who drew the parallel, I'm sorry I can't remember that poster's name though.

Sexes = involved in sexual reproduction. There are 2 sexes, male and female, producing sperm and eggs.

Regardless of your caveat, Sibys, the effect of your claims is to derail the thread while posters respond to you. That's coining in action.

www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

Fairly good and well-sourced article re. sex not being binary.

I'd have loved to have found an article without the 'T' word in it, but I'm in work so going with a first-page Google result and hoping people will read the science and not quibble over any politics.

Im starting to think the transactivists' agenda doesn't actually have much to do with increasing rights for trans people, but is more to do with ensuring that any man who says he identifies as a woman is able to access women's spaces (not just toilets, prisons, refuges etc).

Yes.
If any man can identify his way into the women's toilets, then feminine looking men will still be beaten up by sexist asshole males, because those sexist asshole males will just walk into the women's toilet after them. Without even so much as donning a dress. After all, no one will dare to challenge them.

Which will make things worse for transwomen who pass and therefore have always been able to use the women's toilets.

And this is even more extreme with prisons. Women's prisons will just become a second kind of prison for men, only with a small minority of actual women whose life will be hell on earth, as most men who identify their way into the women's prison will do so to be able to rape women. Those men will also rape and/or be violent towards the transwomen who went there in the hopes that it would be safer.

So, no one gains any safety, but men gain opportunity to be violent towards women.

There's so much more male prisoners than female ones that the female prisoners will in the minority very, very soon.

VestalVirgin

(and others)

I so agree about the picture

Prawnofthepatriarchy - Yes I appreciate it's caused a derail, but I was responding to people saying penis = male and vulva = female is simple biological fact, when it isn't.

I have no appetite whatsoever to discuss trans issues, but am bothered by the marginalisation of intersex people. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to bear in mind that intersex people exist in a thread about whether children can or cannot be simply classed on their genitals. I think intersex people can and should be acknowledged by people on both sides of the trans debate and that such an acknowledgement doesn't necessarily have any effect on trans politics.

What are these other sexes and what role do they have in human reproduction?

Sibys, what is your answer to this question? Please? Since you are so sure there are more than two sexes ... what are those other sexes and what is their role in human reproduction?

All those who think biology isn't a thing never become farmers, will you?

I don't know, it would make an amusing Reality TV show.

"Oh dear, none of the cattle I bought has an udder! I wonder why that could be?" and "Hm, now I have only cattle that have udders but none produces milk, why would that be?"

And "Okay, I bought all those chickens that were to be killed just because they are male, and none of them lay eggs - what a surprise!"

... I suppose it would be less amusing with plants, though there are some where the two sexes are on separate plants.

I have no appetite whatsoever to discuss trans issues,

why are you derailing this thread then, which is specifically about trans issues? Intersex issues are a valid and legitimate discussion. Why don't you start a threat about them?

I think if you check out what intersex groups say on the topic you'll find that they don't welcome advocacy from non intersex people who assume they know how they are going to feel about things. A parallel might be infertile women who regardless of their personal situation don't object to pregnancy being described as a women's issue. Intersex people don't have a problem with the binary of reproductive biology.

The article in nature talks about intersex conditions and those with chromosomal abnormalities - things that have already been acknowledged on this thread, and should be separate to trans issues.

I struggle with some things in that article, including the statistic that includes hypospadias in intersex conditions.

I think it's sad that the Church is having to enforce science. We are in such an Orwellian time.

As for that picture...it's just creepy. I'm no prude but when do kids in real life run along clasping hands and naked for your perusal? Only in paedophiles' imaginations, I would conjecture.

And sybil you are derailing. HTH.

Trans gender issues aside, I agree with the OP that certain opinions are being censored. In fact the way we are allowed to speak is being censored. I agree with political correctness to an extent. For example I think racist words not being used any more are a positive thing, especially the awful derogatory ones. I think by getting rid of certain language can to some extent change attitudes. I think it's starting to get creepy though, to the point of feeling you have to monitor your own speech. For example on a different forum I was discussing autism, I'd said something along the lines of "I will teach my son he is not abnormal, I will try my best to help him mask over his difficulties, in the form of role play for conversations etc. The amount of abuse I got for being disablist was unreal, somebody said "autism is a life long condition how dare you try to make him fit in, I bet you think black people should whiten up too?" I replied that skin colour has nothing to do with autism. Then about five posters jumped in calling me racist because I had used the words skin colour instead of tone! I was like wtf just happened here? I was only trying to say I was teaching independence, so he can function in the world around him. Next thing im a racist disabled hating bitch!
i feel we are getting to a point in society where we are being told what to think and say. I have nothing against an adult man who feels he is a woman. I would call him by his chosen name and treat with the same respect as any other human being. I don't believe a woman can be born in a mans body, but by voicing that am I transphobic? No I am not, but a lot of people will say I am. I think we are becoming too scared of voicing our opinions for fear of being offensive. I think it's quite a dangerous thing, does it mean laws can be passed because people are too worried to object? Or things being taught in school and classed as "normal" when people are too worried about saying "I don't agree" because of the negative backlash.

I think it's sad that the Church is having to enforce science. We are in such an Orwellian time.

Yeah, you know something is seriously wrong when the Church is the voice of reason.

As for that picture...it's just creepy. I'm no prude but when do kids in real life run along clasping hands and naked for your perusal? Only in paedophiles' imaginations, I would conjecture.

When I was a child, children playing naked on the beach wasn't so unusual.
The hand-clasping makes this look very romanticised, though. Like some falling-in-love-montage from a movie.
That's creepy.

Sibys1 - some people are born with only one leg and yet humans are a bipedal species.

Some people are born intersex and yet we are a binary sex species.

I'm concerned about the marginalisation of visually impaired people but that doesn't mean I think being visually impaired is a normal condition.

Intersex and all the other chromosomal conditions are ABNORMALITIES.

Thats the 3rd time I've seen that article quoted. Its complete and utter bullshit, and doesn't improve if you keep using it.

Prawnofthepatriarchy

This will be my last reply because I can see I'm causing a derail. I do appreciate your comments.

In the last month, we've had a public figure reveal that they are intersex and calling for the taboo on discussing it to be broken. I'm trying to respect that.

If people want to state that chromosomes determine your sex, fine, but genitalia doesn't and i think it's reasonable for that to be flagged in the context of this particular discussion. It doesn't need to be a huge point of debate, just acknowledged (and I think some have).

There is a difference between children playing on the beach naked, and naked children being depicted by an adult. The image comes from the mind of an adult, it focuses on genitalia.

Though, given certain experiences, and the time we live in, I am uncomfortable with children running around naked in public, I understand this happens quite naturally around the world. Drawing an image of naked children focusing on genitalia through adult eyes, for an adult audience is not a naturally occurring thing. It is depicting naked children for public viewing through an adult lens with an adult agenda.

The Catholic message uses recognisable symbols for male and female. Simple.

Utter bullshit, yes.

It might be on the Nature website, but it's just a journalist's opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed scientific article. And Nature frequently publishes shitty journalistic pieces that give actual scientists the rage.

I find it telling that comments are turned off on that page.