Can someone please explain... (trans)

[WednesdayAllTheWay]

So I've been trying to follow this trans situation for a while but now having skin in the game in the form of a child (and also noting through work how more and more people are identifying as the opposite gender) I need to understand it better.
Feel slightly embarrassed asking but:

1. How exactly do the words sex and gender differ in this area?
2. What reasons do trans people give for wanting to change their physical bodies? As in what do people believe they will get from this that they couldn't get in the body they were born with?
3. What are children being taught at school about this?

Thanks!

Indeed, which is why I am a "trans" woman and not a "forbidden word" woman.

'Forbidden word'. See that? I mean it's your own post, hopefully you can see it.

However, if a word is widely enough used for that thing, then that becomes the name of that thing.

Also your own post ^. The same post, in fact.

However, if a word is widely enough used for that thing, then that becomes the name of that thing

I’m tempted to pull a trick used by a well known trans member of the forum and kick off that positrans is referring to women as “things” in this paragraph. I’m sure that’s not the case, but I’m very intrigued by the asymmetry of the debate here in terms of who gets to be upset, what the sort of thing is that it’s reasonable to take issue over, who reports the upset, and what that means for the flow of the conversation here.

I am amazed as always that the poster posting here in glee that they now not only get to use the word woman for themselves but also get to claim female, does not see that their power in taking words from other groups very clearly shows they belong to the class in power and the people losing their words are the class told to shut up and be kind. If you ever want to see who is seen as male by society, see who is protected even when being nasty and entitled.

@EyesOpening

“Almost everyone else uses the latter.” Can you quantify that please, Positrans? I’ve seen many a person not even know if it means MTF or FTM let alone realise that some people use two words and others, one, never mind understand the connotations.

I've seen a lot of comments in newspapers by people who clearly think the term 'trans woman' refers to a woman who identifies as transgender, in other words, a person who was born female and who identifies as a man.

However, if a word is widely enough used for that thing, then that becomes the name of that thing

We still need a word to describe women, and I think women is the best word for describing adult human females.

If someone is an adult human male who thinks he is /believes he is/wants to be a woman, then that needs a different word.

However, if a word is widely enough used for that thing, then that becomes the name of that thing. See your previous point about words defined by usage. "Villain" for example, used to mean something akin to "villager" but now, through common usage, means something more like "scoundrel". You would contend that the first people to use it to mean scoundrel were using it "wrongly", however, they are now using it correctly.

It must be frustrating when women keep telling males that women are not accepting about this change in language. For a change to happen over time, the change has to be widely accepted. As the dehumanising language that is being portrayed as 'inclusive' is being more widely used, more women are disagreeing with this change.

How does it progress the needs for improving the life of a trans person by causing this division? Or are you not aware that everywhere in the world the pushback is growing. All because women disagree with males changing our language.

And let's be honest, it is a push by the males in the population that are the loudest in attempt at changing our language. One also has to recognise misogyny where you see it.

@sanluca

I am amazed as always that the poster posting here in glee that they now not only get to use the word woman for themselves but also get to claim female, does not see that their power in taking words from other groups very clearly shows they belong to the class in power and the people losing their words are the class told to shut up and be kind. If you ever want to see who is seen as male by society, see who is protected even when being nasty and entitled.

It is such an own goal. And illuminating to those quietly reading .....

Positrans is a male person living in a fantasy world of their own making and personally I have had enough of Positrans' delusions.

Time for a bit of Dworkin!

Male supremacy is fused into the language, so that every sentence both heralds and affirms it.... All feminist arguments, however radical in intent or consequence, are with or against assertions or premises implicit in the male system, which is made credible or authentic by the power of men to name. No transcendence of the male system is possible as long as men have the power of naming... As Prometheus stole fire from the gods, so feminists will have to steal the power of naming from men, hopefully to better effect.

The power to name things is generally granted to the powerful. What a lot of power to invest in whether there is or isn’t a space in between two words. Who knew your spacebar could cause you to be a terrible, unspeakable bigot?? What else can it do?

Thankfully my spacebar and I agree: there is no space in transwoman when referring to a male human who transitioned their gender.

Too many posts to answer, but perhaps I can get through a few points:

Most of your arguments are based on the notion that sex is a simple binary purely defined by gametes. It isn't - they are just one of thousands of sex characteristics. Having said that, some of you seem to prioritise gonads rather than gametes whilst others prioritise chromosomes. But that's the point, there are many sex characteristics and the particular ones we use when trying to fit a person into the artificial binary that our culture has constructed vary. You use the above, I prioritise gender identity above all of those.

Changing rooms: eek, I can't imagine why anyone would want to change or shower in a public space, particularly if it's a place where people are just openly wandering around full-frontal naked. If you do that, you're going to see genitals, and as some women have penises, that's going to potentially include a penis on occasion. Your choice.

Did someone imply I'm a rapist? Well, I posted that no trans woman should feel obliged to say she is trans before having intimate relations. Shortly after that the following appeared on the Bunbury thread:

"It is very, very creepy though - to take such obvious delight in outing yourself as a would-be rapist on the feminist section of a very female dominated forum. This is definitely someone who gets off on boundary violations, at the very least in the virtual world. I couldn't possibly speculate about the real world, but let's just say if certain behaviour patterns visible on here carried over, I would not be in the least surprise."

But hey, maybe it's just a coincidence and they were talking about someone else.

"Born in the wrong body"? It's a metaphor - always has been. I use it on occasion myself just as way of telling someone what being trans feels like. It's not literal. People are moving away from it because non trans people (we need a word for that) seem to have difficulty understanding that it's a metaphor.

Referring to infertile women when talking about trans women is only offensive if you think that there is something horrible about being a trans woman.

DSDs are relatively uncommon differences of sexual development. So is being trans, hence the reason both often appear in the same conversation. See previous posts about issues like the pelvic structure of trans men being masculine or genetic issues in trans people like these:

www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/4592/presentation/578abstract

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22810992/

Can a human change sex? Well, I consider trans girls to be female, so they don't have to. Having said that, many of the thousands of sex characteristics are highly mutable, especially if you take cross-sex hormones at puberty, so there's that.

So transition isn't what you think it is - it isn't a change of sex, except in a legal and social sense - physically, it's just a matter of changing physical characteristics that cause you distress. As I said before, it's the same as a non-trans woman having excessive facial hair removed or a non-trans man having breasts removed. Humans are social animals - we don't like to look completely different to the people we identify with - it's the same for trans and non-trans alike.

"Trans race" and "trans age" are red herrings. Your race is defined by your ancestry, your age by chronology, but sex is much more complex and can be defined in various ways from gametes to gender identity and can vary by context. People here have a very narrow definition, people like me, and indeed most biologists acknowledge that it's way more complexed and nuanced.

Hope that helps.

I've seen a lot of comments in newspapers by people who clearly think the term 'trans woman' refers to a woman who identifies as transgender, in other words, a person who was born female and who identifies as a man.

Yes, and I think all the vagueness and obfuscatory language benefits some trans rights activists in silencing women's concerns.

I think you'll find it a lonely room with you and 'most' biologists.

I think all the vagueness and obfuscatory language benefits some trans rights activists in silencing women's concerns

Doesn’t it just? And you only have to look one post up from yours to see a cracking example, which is handy!

I prioritise gender identity above all of those.

Gender identity is entirely a social construct. I know this because you are male and as such cannot become pregnant.

Sex is a biological binary. You need one man and one woman to make a baby.

Much like a person needs two legs to walk. Or do you have trouble understanding that as well?

When did Stonewall change the definition of transsexual to include all sorts of things, including cross dressing?

I think this all started to crystallise in terms of government policy making under two things both in about 2015 - Stonewall deciding to get behind trans issues, and the Maria Miller WESC Trans Inquiry, its recommendations and the subsequent government response, which was to throw a bone allowing TRA organisations to draft guidance for service providers and employers, while refusing to change the EA to remove single sex exemptions, change the language to "gender identity" rather than "gender reassignment" or enshrine "non binary" gender identity into the law.

From then it has been a masterstroke of astroturfing, scope creep, lobbying, lazy virtue signalling for woke points and almost total ideological capture.

@testing987654321

I prioritise gender identity above all of those.

Gender identity is entirely a social construct. I know this because you are male and as such cannot become pregnant.

Sex is a biological binary. You need one man and one woman to make a baby.

Much like a person needs two legs to walk. Or do you have trouble understanding that as well?

Scientists don't agree with you on gender identity being purely a social construct. Nor do I.

www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health

"The medical consensus in the late 20th century was that transgender and gender incongruent individuals suffered a mental health disorder termed “gender identity disorder.” Gender identity was considered malleable and subject to external influences. Today, however, this attitude is no longer considered valid. Considerable scientific evidence has emerged demonstrating a durable biological element underlying gender identity.1, 2 Individuals may make choices due to other factors in their lives, but there do not seem to be external forces that genuinely cause individuals to change gender identity."

If it was a social construct, why am I trans given that I was brought up as a boy? Surely that would have made my gender identity male.

Scroll up for various links about sex not being a simple binary.

Most of your arguments are based on the notion that sex is a simple binary purely defined by gametes. It isn't - they are just one of thousands of sex characteristics. Having said that, some of you seem to prioritise gonads rather than gametes whilst others prioritise chromosomes. But that's the point, there are many sex characteristics and the particular ones we use when trying to fit a person into the artificial binary that our culture has constructed vary. You use the above, I prioritise gender identity above all of those.

I think I was quite clear actually. It is about bodies being built by thousands of years of development to produce the types of gametes. Two types - there is that 'binary' definition again. And again, this involves a system that is complex and varies with each person.

Of course, it is NOT just the production organs of the gametes, it involves all those sex characteristics you talk about (no disagreement with the variation of all these sex characteristics, and yes, some of that variation is about gonads).

However, the result is just the same, your body design will support the production of either of the binary sex gametes if all in working order. Hence, the well known usage of the terms male and female. so yes ...

sex is a simple binary purely defined by gametes - it is! The proof is that a) there is NO third gamete and b) people not producing those gametes will likely not produce a child. Made of those thousands of body characteristics that support this production when working optimally. These body characteristics are where the complexity comes into it.

You can choose and have made clear that you prioritise gender identity above all of those..

Thank you for the acknowledgement.

It becomes clear that you are relying on false premises to describe sex.

It's quite amazing how similarly all these "let me educate you on being trans and then you'll understand why you should support me even at your own cost" interactions with FWR turn out, really.

It becomes clear that you are relying on false premises to describe sex.

And once you realise this, you see there is no point making reasoned, logical arguments, apart from for lurkers to read.

All this poster's "points" involving disorders of sex development and biological sex have been refuted.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It becomes clear that you are relying on false premises to describe sex.

And once you realise this, you see there is no point making reasoned, logical arguments, apart from for lurkers to read.

All this poster's "points" involving disorders of sex development and biological sex have been refuted.

Being trans is a disorder of sex development.

sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

They will just keep on repeating the poundshop sophistry that they read in a shite pomo blog, that there is no such thing as sex. Or that there literally is no category for the class of human being who has the capacity, all being well medically, to produce ova and bear young.

And that even though we are mammals, humans seem to be different to this to rabbits, cats or dogs, who have no requirement for a gender identity and given the opportunity somehow know which sex their partner is in order to successfully reproduce.

I always get lost in the whole spectrum and complex thing of sex and gender identity which is then followed by a statement that they transitioned from one end of the 'spectrum' to the other. That already suggests it is binary even in their own line of thinking.

The other complete gobbledygook is that gender identity is something scientifically proven and reliable when no one can clearly state an objective and externally verifiable definition and measurement for what constitutes a gender identity. It is like trying to define what it means to be happy. Because being happy is so personal and impossible to compare, that when measuring where children are most happy, they measure verifiable stats like education, availability of playgrounds, after school activities, mental health support etc etc. Because being happy, like your gender identity, is an internal state of mind. You cannot legalise based on a state of mind.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

"They will just keep on repeating the poundshop sophistry that they read in a shite pomo blog, that there is no such thing as sex."

That's a bit rude, but let me say yet again - there is such a thing as sex - no one denies it, least of all trans people. However, it is complex and nuanced rather than a simple binary.

"Or that there literally is no category for the class of human being who has the capacity, all being well medically, to produce ova and bear young."

There is such a category, but it's not necessarily just "female".

"And that even though we are mammals, humans seem to be different to this to rabbits, cats or dogs,"

No - it's the same for them too - sex is complicated an nuanced in all mammals, and just as in humans, it's not defined purely by gamete production, gonads or chromosomes.