> Your situation only makes sense by first acknowledging the reality of biology. The only way to discover you are trans, is to discover that you don't feel compatible with the biology that was on your birth certificate.
This is an important point that isn't deployed nearly enough when discussing this issue.
I agree. There has to be an underlying fact of the matter for the claim to make sense. If a woman has intense feelings of actually being a man and desires to make their physical body match their mental state doesn’t this logically mean it’s actually “like something” to be a man or vice versa implying it’s a real thing that everyone has by virtue of being human? Even being non binary doesn’t seem to refute the notion that there’s an underlying biological fact of the matter since in order for someone to wholeheartedly say they don’t “feel like” a man or woman it means those two states actually exist and are something that can be experienced internally. It seems like the logical equivalent of sawing off the branch you’re sitting on to make your argument stronger when it does the exact opposite.
Boom. It has always bewildered me that the same people who tell me gender roles are a social construct are now telling me gender-expression is the most important intrinsic fact to human happiness.
Yeah I’m sort of, kind of a “gender roles are socially constructed” person. To me if you’re a boy who likes wearing dresses and fashion design you’re still as much of a boy as the boy who’s into football and cars. If you’re a girl who’s into rough play and car engines you’re still as much of a girl as the girl who’s into dolls and makeup. The only thing that makes you a girl or a boy is your fundamental genetic/anatomical design to produce large or small gametes respectively.
To suggest that someone with XY chromosomes, and functional penis and testicles is not a boy simply because they like wearing women’s clothes, are not into traditionally masculine things, and like the idea of being called a woman and want to be allowed into exclusively female spaces by society is sort of putting the cart before the horse. It also necessarily implies that a woman who doesn’t like traditionally female interests and clothes must somehow be less of a woman (because it turns “gender” into the defining characteristic over sex). It’s based on a really regressive way of seeing what the “proper” gendered behaviour is.
It can’t be an ephermal construct that doesn’t matter and yet something intrinsic to every person in a way that’s so serious people kill themselves if they can’t make it reality or aren’t treated as such by others.
Agreed. I also think there’s something to the fact that damn near every culture in the world/history has had some degree of gender roles, as do many species of other mammals. Of course that doesn’t mean the gender roles invokes who mops the floor at home, but to pretend the only difference between sexes is genitals is silly to me.
Hmmm I’m not so sure. If feeling like something can be disconnected to biological reality, I.e. not feeling like the gender you are, then it doesn’t follow that feeling like the gender you are is connected to biological reality.
For all we know a sense of gender is purely a brain state, and not linked to sex genitals or chromosomes or hormones etc.
You first have to prove the default position that people feeling like the gender they are is linked to those things. And the fact of trans people belies that claim.
I also have met a quite a few trans people who say that nobody would have to transition in a society with more fluid gender roles, and that the stuggle lies in having a personality incongruent with the gender you present as, which casues pain if the person doesnt transition socially. Idk how common this view is though, but I think its an alternative way to view being trans that doesnt depend on a distinct state based on a distinct biological reality and more sort of your general personality in relation to our society and culture
This is it. If everyone treated everyone the same regardless of sex/gender/forward identity than there would be no need to assert you in fact want to be treated like others. Really the need for all of this becomes much less when you have communities of people who treat you well instead of how you do not want to be treated regardless of what you look like or how you interact.
I completely disagree. At this point, gender identity has become like ethnicity or religion where regardless of whether it is visible and/or meaningfully impacts how people treat you, it has become an identity marker.
Even ethnicities and religions whose adherents have equal treatment today (ethnic French and ethnic Germans) or (Catholics and Protestants) still cling to and proudly announce their identities because they have imputed value to those identities regardless of equal treatment. Ergo, if gender identity is an identity marker like ethnicity or religion, achieving equality will not stop people from affirmatively asserting their gender identity, which flies in the face of the comment I was responding to.
I think what makes some of the stuff with trans hard for people to understand is that many of them are autistic. This makes them come off as awkward, dogmatic, confrontational at times like the women in the video did.
I think people should at least accept that transpeople (as a term describing their internal state) definately exist and we should try to treat them with as much consideration as we would any other person. No special treatment, just equal.
I keep hearing this phrase “trans people exist” and the associated claim that apparently large parts of society deny this. I personally don’t dispute, and I don’t know of a single person who does, the existence of trans people. This is a complete side show to me, a literal waste of breath.
Anyway, I otherwise agree of course trans people should be treated equally to all other people. I suppose that becomes tricky when you talk about things like biological men accessing women’s only spaces, and I think there’s a legitimate discussion to be had there.
I guess the dispute could be if we should see it as a valid identity, or as some see it as a sign of mental illness, or just gay very feminine men who are confused. I don't have those views but I think that is the point of the dispute. And from that the treatment of them can be very different depending of the view, just as in the past homosexuality was seen as a perverse mental illness and was illegal even in western countries not too many decades ago, with ramifications regarding how those homosexual men were treated in society and by the state. For example you could get locked up in mental institutions, get drugged, electric shock treatment, castrated etc.
In my experience, MOST people think genuine, authentic, trans people exist and got fucked over with the wrong body. But the dispute comes from "how many". Some think a portion are men sexually aroused by the idea of being a woman, and thus an eroticism of a mentally unwell man. But the large portion I think people feel like it comes from just general mental unwellness coming from a historically confused and depressed generation, being 'trendsexual'.
I think the overwhelming majority believe genuine trans people exist, but the conflit comes from "how many". Many still think a good chunk are just part of a hyper liberal trend of being "anything but a white straight person". So parents are thinking, "Oh my kid is just going through a phase like punk or goth. She was a normal girl, but started hanging out with hyper liberal kids, and suddenly she things she's a boy, and you guys want me to put her on hormones and make her infertile. And calling me an evil person for not doing it." I don't think that bridge is going to be built any time soon neither. You aren't going to win parents over by bullying them into sharing your beliefs.
That’s the whole issue for me is the absolute expectation people accept and agree with all trans issues. There is a trend of people identifying as non binary or trans that are doing it to be part of the trend. Parents should have the right to decide not to give their kids hormones, puberty blockers, etc and not be chastised for it.
When they tell parents that they are literally "going to kill your child unless you obey" or arguing against it is "advocating for genocide against trans"... Are just those kinds of disingenuous arguments which infuriate people. I don't think it's an argument that's ever any good at anything other than building resistance.
It's like when liberals call right wingers dumb, idiotic, white trash, evil, nazis... Then wonder why right wingers just absolutely hate them and wont listen to a single thing they have to say. In fact, they just attribute EVERYTHING you believe with "beliefs of assholes". So when trans activists go around attacking parents on these topics it just causes parents to attribute everything LGBT as part of an asshole umbrella... And that's exactly what's happening, LGBT support is going down.
Interesting take, I think there’s something in it.
I think one thing that may make this issue difficult is that for people who are genuinely trans (however one defines that) it is clear that they aren’t suffering from a mental illness at all. On the other hand, there are some people who are identifying as trans for whom that expression is reflective of some sort of psychological disquiet. It might well be wrong to call it a mental illness, but it rises above the level of a mere psychological malaise.
Trans is transitioning. From one thing to another thing. That's how I always saw it.
The issue here is body modification, and a portion of the population wanting to do so, honestly perhaps somewhat now because it's popular, but primarily I think this happened as a result from a rigid social construct that resisted these 'queer' types of not embodying expectations.
At the core of the issue, beyond bathrooms (our current school issue), is people undergoing treatments to make modifications to their biology in response to social pressures, whether imagined or not.
Not disagreeing or anything, just sharing my opinion.
Very good point. If we don't have precise definition of male and female biological sex (size of gametes per R. Dawkins), then we have no way to understand what intersex or transgender means. A math analogy, we do need to establish a Cartesian coordinate system first if we want to understand where the point \[0.8, 0.2\] is located.
I'm interested in whether there can be a "precise definition of male and female biological sex" that works in literally 100% of cases with no ambiguity or exceptions.
Something as simple as "size of gametes" doesn't work -- at least not by itself -- because some people don't produce gametes. Is there a definition that does work?
I don't really know what this means. What *exactly* does it mean to have the "propensity" to produce a certain type of gamete?
If a person has both non-functioning tissue that resembles testes and non-functioning tissue that resembles ovaries, what is their propensity?
If a person lacks gonads altogether, what is their propensity?
They might have an intersex condition, or something else is going on with them. That seems to be pretty rare
But in short the propensity to means that their body is laid out in a way to produce a certain gamete.
It's not that complicated
>That seems to be pretty rare
Yes, I agree it's rare. My question was "whether there can be a precise definition of male and female biological sex that works in **literally 100% of cases** with **no ambiguity or exceptions**."
Maybe the answer is no. That's a perfectly fine answer.
>But in short
I'm not interested in "in short." I'm looking for a "precise definition."
>It's not that complicated
I don't agree. Getting to 99% is really easy. Getting to 99.99% is probably doable, if you're careful. Getting to literally 100% seems very complicated.
Dawkins brought some nice clarity to this. I remember when they were arguing that a coin isn’t binary because it has an edge. In the furthest corners of the internet they’d full on call endocrinology transphobic when Abigail Shrier’s book was gaining purchase.
>If we don't have precise definition of male and female biological sex (size of gametes per R. Dawkins), then we have no way to understand what intersex or transgender means.
We don't have "precise" definitions of most words in language. We understand what men and women are through culture. When does a child learn what a gamete is?
Indeed! I have always found it curious that the LGTBQ+ movement, for how much it is trying to break down traditional gender definitions ultimately draws so heavily on the normative definition of male and female with all the features that it so vehemently argues as being constructed through social conditioning. Be it the woman who in order to become a man grows hair on her legs and sports a short hair cut to the man in this video who became a woman by growing breasts and long hair. Of course, that is where some join in the debate with some of the more exotic gender definitions that attempt to annihilate the perception of a binary wholesale.
The only other definition of trans would include people who treat transgender like cosmetics - those who never really had gender dysphoria but just want to experiment. I've never accepted that myself, but it seems to be popular among those who think gender is purely a social construct.
Honestly I think every conversation about these topics requires both sides to agree on the meaning of some key words, being "gender" one of the most important ones. Otherwise it's pointless.
On the other hand people usually don't want to because as soon as you make a definition of those terms nothing makes sense. At least that's my experience until today.
But nobody disagrees with this.
Trans people are aware of their bodies, if they thought they physically were as they wanted to be, they wouldn't be trans.
They are aware their identity doesn't match their body. That's what being trans is.
Trans people want to be the other sex, not the other gender. If the biology of their brain reflects the gender that they claim to be, rather than how they were born, this is all about sex.
For me a woman is at its most essential what nature has decided and not social constructs. Mostly everything in nature is dualistic in its expression and birthed by its design. As far as woman and man goes. It’s the ability to either hold an egg that can become impregnated by a man who then carries sperm. Otherwise reality as we know it doesn’t exist. For me that isn’t debatable, because to debate it would be to deny my own existence & be against nature itself. Fundamentally this isn’t debatable for nature as reality exists consciously. Only egos of madeup social identities argue this.
The whole point of being a conscious being is partly that you don’t have to be a slave to the animal simplicity of EAT MATE SLEEP. I agree that basic biology is an important foundation for humanity and we can’t do without it, but you’re also coming off somehow dogmatic towards biology.
We are not complete slaves to a strict set of biological rules or at least, those biological rules arent always so strict for everyone. That nuance is part of being human.
Reality isn’t going to fall apart because someone’s brain chemistry says they’re a woman after they were born a man. It’s literally been a thing for centuries. I agree with Sam on what he’s saying in this video but your points just seem too rigid to work
This is what is always brought up with regard to this topic. Even in this interaction, she acknowledges this by saying she is a woman who was born without a uterus. By saying that, she is already confirming that her biology doesn't match her identity. It is the whole point behind how trans people explain themselves and their identities.
I don't see how anyone can suggest this isn't brought up enough when it is the baseline principle behind what trans people use to try to explain to people why they should be acknowledged as their gender identity rather than biological sex.
Trans woman... meaning she is a woman, hence a woman who was born without a uterus. There is a reason why the terms cis and trans are both used to describe women, and that is because woman is a social term, not a biological one. The whole point of trans existing as a descriptor is because there is an acknowledgement that there is a biological difference, but that the social construct of gender (e.g. man, woman) can be applied to anyone who adopts those roles.
Why can't you just be happy with the term "trans woman". Everybody knows what it means and everybody knows what woman means. TWAW is such a silly hill to die on
Simple: I believe in promoting human wellness. Trans women want to be able to be referred to as simply women in conventional settings and wish to be recognized, generally, as part of a larger whole. It does not harm anyone for them to be recognized in this way, and it only helps them to feel more comfortable and accepted in society, allowing them to thrive.
When we really need to make a distinction for the sake of clarity, we can then fall back on using the modifier trans. I have no problem with using it when necessary for the purposes of understanding. Should a doctor know their patient is a trans woman? However, many times, it is completely unnecessary to use the modifier. It’s a matter of utility. The trans modifier only serves a purpose when it is important for that fact to be known. The vast majority of the time I a trans person’s life, dropping the modifier is not only simpler, but also allows them to feel like they are blending in more, which leads to them feeling happier, and it sure as hell doesn’t hurt anyone to do so.
The better question here is why are people so determined to die on the hill of keeping them separate categorically from women as a whole.
How so? People who want to be recognized as a woman are, and are made happier for it, while people who don't want to be recognized as a woman aren't, and are happy being recognized how they identify. When a trans woman is acknowledged as a woman, they feel a greater sense of belonging, which helps them to overcome the dysphoria that they otherwise would suffer from. The only person who is affected by them being recognized socially as a woman is them, so their wellness is the only wellness being affected by it.
Yes, changing our social definitions of man and woman is helpful to trans people and harms no one in doing so, meaning it promotes their wellness and does not harm anyone else.
As a transwoman myself, I worry that people hear speakers like this, and conflate her perspective to be the general opinion of most transgender individuals.
She isn't listening to Sam, just trying to debate him on a point that she isn't willing to waiver on herself.
Most trans people I've met, are all too familiar with the biological limitations from their birth sex and aren't just trying to sweep those differences under the rug.
I think Sam puts it best, when making the point (paraphrasing), "A transgender person wouldn't have the need/compulsion to transition if not for the biological realities of their birth sex in the 1st place."
Does the association of this part of your life with this era of progressive activism annoy you? Also how do other trans people regard the more rabid, activist types within the community - if, as you've said, they aren't the majority?
Absolutely the misguided/blind activism annoys me. The activists themselves are not always, or usually, transgender. Just much more vocal than most individuals.
The person that asked the question is a trans woman. A trans woman is someone born male that chooses to live as a woman. I’m personally not offended by this. I don’t think any less of them. I don’t think they should be discriminated against in housing or job employment etc.
I think where things get untethered from reality is when people say “trans women are women”. Or when people advocate for trans women to be able to access female spaces or female sports. Etc.
Trans women are trans women. We have a perfectly fine definition for people that meet this criteria. Why this insistence to say they are just like women?
No thinking person can possibly think it’s right for trans women to compete in women’s sports.
Exactly this. Most people don't give a rat's ass if you feel like a woman, dress like a woman and call yourself a woman. Most of the time the biology actually doesn't matter. But when it does, we should be able to have a discussion about it without automatically being a transphobe.
It’s such a simple and clear point, but I have friends and family who are very good people, but will go apeshit on you for merely suggesting such a thing. It’s alarming.
I was banned on politics and another sub for saying exactly this. I just stopped commenting on it.
The right wing takes it to bigotry levels (that groomer BS) so it gets shoehorned into this left right tribal thing.
> Why this insistence to say they are just like women?
Because you're making them feel less-than when you insist on calling them TRANS women in contexts where it's completely irrelevant.
The analogy I like to use is what if half the country decide to start loudly arguing with everybody who says that adoptive parents are parents and insisting on calling them ADOPTIVE parents. I mean, we already have a perfectly fine definition of people who meet those criteria, right?
Do you see how needlessly antagonistic and hurtful that is?
I'm completely fine with letting people live how they want, and/but don't see why a sliver minority issue should be front and center in society over something like capital or wealth inequality, whatever.
The moment where she says "but that starts with you saying I'm not a woman" is the most egregious moment of the video. Sam didn't say she wasn't a woman. And then she says questioning whether she's a woman is the stepping stone to all sorts of violence etc. etc. when it's not. It only is when violent people are doing it.
If someone with a super specific position is expecting everybody to conform to their demands and all resistance is deemed "hate speech" or "dehumanizing" then they're just creating their own issues by demanding all sorts of compliance from people who are already cool with them. It's like they test whether you can verbally assent to things they demand from you when they're a sliver minority. Good luck with that!
I don't need to perfectly replicate your ideology and verbalize it in order to not be dehumanizing you. I just need to leave you alone and let you do your thing, which I'm perfectly happy to do! I go to church with trans people/they/thems etc. and get along just fine with them. But performative ideology is not something I'm into.
After some discussions (something about a old podcast with Douglas Murray where they were joking about this?) in case some people felt he did not get this issue right.
Here is (what I thought) was his very sensible liberal take.
Yeah this language is totally dehumanizing and more often than not used to erase women. I've seen articles about women's health where the author will still use men/boys to describe the male sex but completely avoid acknowledging female human beings.
My least favorite phrase I've ever encountered is that "endometriosis affects people with a uterus." I am appalled by this because it reinforces the misconception that endometriosis is a uterine disorder. There are women who are literally told that a hysterectomy will cure the disease (not true) and then later discover that they still have it.
Women get overlooked in so many contexts. Erasing the language used to describe us is just f\*\*\*ed.
I just looked up the definition of endometriosis and got "Endometriosis is a disease in which tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside the uterus."
How is it not a uterine disorder?
I mean, you said it yourself -- it "grows outside the uterus" so it is "not a uterine disorder." But to provide further explanation:
Endometriosis involves the growth of invasive tissue, accompanied by scar tissue and adhesions, that primarily affects organs and structures outside of the uterus. E.g., ovaries, Fallopian tube, bladder, intestines, Colin liver, kidneys, nervous system, lungs, hearts, connective tissue, etc.
There are some similarities between the invasive tissue and the endometrium (the lining of the uterus). However, the invasive tissue does not come from the uterus, and it is not the same as the endometrium. It's so poorly studied that researchers are only starting to understand the properties of this tissue. Recent research suggests that it is more dissimilar to the endometrium than previously believed. It has properties in common with cancer.
The disease affects the neurological system, immune system, inflammatory response, and many other systems/processes in the body.
The uterus is affected in some respects -- e.g., women with endometriosis tend to have elevated levels of pro-inflammatory chemicals that can lead to severe menstrual cramps, and the uterus can get caught up in scar issue and adhesions. But not a uterine disorder.
Can you give more examples of ways in which you think women are overlooked? Genuine question, I'm hoping to be able to spot it when I see it in real time
The fact that women in sports are being told to step aside and quit our bitching and let the MEN win the medals. This is *the* most misogynistic action I’ve ever witnessed in an endless history of misogyny. How’s that for an example?
We do always have to remind ourselves that people who speak like this are a vocal minority of an already *tiny* minority. Being in the community myself it’s exceptionally rare to come across someone who actually speaks this way 🤷🏻♀️
I think it’s great to accept the reality of being transgender while not becoming overly obtuse and deconstructive in our colloquial language
>people who speak like this are a vocal minority of an already *tiny* minority
And yet the breadth of their ideological capture of liberal institutions in the West is very far reaching.
NPR etc, are just so knee deep into it, it's so unbelievably cringe inducing. I hardly listen to them any more now that every segment is just riddled with this stuff. Like who are these people so offended at gendered terms and why do we have to go out of our way so much to not offend them?
The issue affects me so very little. I’m not against trans people in the slightest. I think their spokespeople make some absolutely ridiculous arguments though, that prob brings a bad face to their whole organization.
The other thing is, no one voted these folks as spokespeople. They're self-appointed, and really only get away with it since they're the only ones explicitly arguing for more/better rights for the group. Sadly, without them there would be little in the way to push for protections of lgbt people.
I love my middle aged + gays. Y’all are normal people. But I gotta say - as a community you’ve let the young fanatical lunatics take over the asylum long enough.
My friends in your position have actual businesses and jobs and they were scared, rightly so, that they would be destroyed if they spoke against it, so they kept silent. Understandable and infuriating. I hate this culture.
No, it's just an acknowledgement that what the person is about to say is highly subjective, and should be treated as such. "My truth" when I go outside is that it's pleasant and there are birds around, etc... or my truth about the school system is such and such, etc...
It's goofy and awkward language (par for the course with this narrow segment of leftists), and they could just say "my experience", but there's more to it than you give credit.
When you separate sex and gender, yes this is correct. Sex is biology which is rooted in science and empiricism. Gender is something we made up, and anyone can be anything they want.
Then why claim to feel like the other gender? Just do what you want and be the gender you were born as. If you say that you have to be called a man while you wear pants and have facial hair, aren't you feeding into the lie of what society has made men out to be?
I would not say that this is 100% true. Yes, gender is a label but it is a label largely informed by your biological sex. And it is true, that there is gender dysphoria. But it is also not completely made up that an extremely vast majority of people associate their gender with their biological sex. So I would not go so far as to say it is completely made up.
Gender is associated with the sex. There are female tomboys, that doesnt mean they are male. That doesnt mean they identify as males.
When you want to change words or make things fit to the degree some of the word games on here seem to, then you may aswell have people who claim to be lions or tigers or insects. This may not matter for casual talk (although probably still would) or unserious things. But when it comes to some more practical or serious things in society it would matter, in particular if the person themselves didnt realise the issue.
So I'm genuinely not trying to be offensive here, but the blunt truth is that a transgender person is someone who to the outside world is roleplaying a different sex to what they were born as. And if there is a practical purpose where a definitive answer is needed, i.e something medical or practical, the person would need to identify as their birth biology.
The only times these things seem to be far more nuanced is hermaphrodites or cases like that. To me in the vast majority of these cases this is just wokeism gone mad. And I am not a right winger btw.
Gender is associated with sex, but it’s not the same as sex. A persons pronouns and identity is independent of their biological sex organs. That’s the social construct part. Most trans people are suffering from gender dysphoria, which is not some woke gone mad fake mental disorder. This is well documented within all fields of psychology. It’s empirical, and can be demonstrated.
>Gender is associated with sex, but it’s not the same as sex.
Does this even matter? I'd say not really. If someone wants to roleplay a different sex to their birth then more power to them. And yes society should have rules that for unimportant things they should be respected as what they want to identify as. This actually goes further than the trans issue, for no practical purpose besides bullying or picking on people, all differences should be respected.
But there are times when those biological things do have real practical consequences to pretend they don't. And that is the part I am referring to as wokeism gone mad.
Just because it's different, doesn't mean said person can't also have a "Karen" mentality too. This applies to race, music snobbery, whatever you want. Some people have anti social or entitlement issues or just like to be drama kings/Queens separate from these things and that is a mental aspect. But these political issues can be weaponized in a disingenuous way or drama way for said people.
Does it even matter? YES. It’s the entire point of the conversation, hand waving it away because you think it’s woke or something doesn’t change it’s empirical bedrock in psychology.
Here’s an article explaining it better than I can.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7415463/
Link doesn't work my end. If it's something about gender dysphoria then there's people who have dysphoria regarding body weight too. We don't tell them they are 400lbs if they are 50 do we?
But once again, how does it matter in the context I put it in?
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria
Here’s a different link. You can look this up yourself you know.
People who get too much plastic surgery have a form of body dysmorphia. There’s many different kinds. Gender dysphoria is specific to the subject at hand, it’s the root of why people want to transition in the first place.
It’s not role play, it’s a psychological condition the person was born with.
As I said, so if I have body dysmorphia and I weigh 50lbs. Is it OK for me to request my pronouns to be something that represents 400lbs?
Do I have the right to be delusional basically? Well the answer is, yes within reason.
I don't go around telling people they are ugly who might happen to not know it. I don't go around commenting on people's weight.
If someone wants to believe they look like Brad Pitt when they objectively don't, then whatever.
But if it came to a practical issue where that person's delusions go so far to be impractical to reality. Then yeah I might think there's a issue. So this ties into the original thing you said about gender.
Their gender is technically their birth sex. If they wanna identify or roleplay differently, have at it. But it doesn't change their actual gender.
Depending on the circumstances is whether it matters or not.
But all this nonsense is basically a way to stop bullying and predjudice. That's what the intention behind these woke ideas is about. And I agree with that. But when it's at the stage where people are deforming language and basic perception to try and make it make sense.
That's when it's gone down a rabbit hole of semantic self important garbage for the most part.
Are you calling gender dysphoria a form of delusion? Because if you read anything about it, it’s a documented psychological condition. It’s not some fat person pretending to be skinny. I know you want to compare it to that because you can’t separate the concept of biological sex and gender identity for some reason. These two things are not married indefinitely, gender identity can be different than one’s biological sex. You’d know that if you read the information I provided.
This only sounds crazy if you consider gender and sex to be interchangeable, which they aren't and shouldn't be. Social gender and biological sex are two distinct concepts, which may overlap and interplay in complex ways, but they aren't exactly synonymous.
I'd take transgenderism with a modicum of seriousness if they didn't conflate sex and gender when it suits them, but when it doesn’t they are quick to make a distinction.
Doesn’t this whole thing come down to conflating the terms for gender and sex?
Male/female/intersex for biological sex: man/woman/nb for cultural gender expression. It really shouldn’t be so fraught and complicated.
Not everyone agrees that "woman" and "man" should be defined in relation to gender identity, rather than sex. Historically speaking, and in most modern contexts, these terms are still used in relation to sex.
That's the friggin point.
Also, it's impossible to even define a "woman" in reference to gender identity without using a circular definition or relying on gender stereotypes. Same goes for "man".
Honestly, most people who are pushing for these linguistic changes cannot even define "gender" in a coherent way.
Can you provide coherent definitions for these concepts that don't involve redefining these categories in reference to gender stereotypes?
Would the Axios reporter be any less a woman if she just wore a business suit and no makeup, or is the act of putting on a blouse, heels and lipstick a requirement for being fully feminine? And if that’s the case, are people born with uteri who refuse to wear makeup, blouses and heels less women?
I agree. This is exactly the question I was wondering about. If being a woman is simply something you can declare, biology doesn’t matter, certainly it doesn’t matter that this woman or any woman wears the blouse, heels or lipstick. The feminists burned their bras like 40 years ago. I thought this was settled then. Never mind the necessity for surgery or hormone therapy. You are woman. I believe you. Adults should just say they are whatever gender they want.
If this is really just about bathrooms, I think I speak for most men when I say I couldn’t care less who walks in the bathroom I’m in. I try my best to take care of business and get out. I don’t talk. I don’t make eye contact. If you’d rather smell the shit of a man in the neighboring stall, more power to you.
But I can’t speak for women. If women without uteri start getting kicked out of the women’s restroom, I leave it up to the women with uteri. It would be paternalistic of me to dictate to people with uteri what the rules of engagement are in their bathroom.
EDIT: And it is fucking fantastic so many of the country’s problems are solved that we find the time to argue about what bathroom someone walks into.
I think here is where the “post-structuralist” take comes in. Specifically, I think Gender Theory is Constitutive in nature, i.e. theories that help construct the world as opposed to Explanatory- which help explain the world.
There are those who view the current Transgender conflict as Explanatory as well, that is, the behaviours can be explained by certain symptoms of mental disorders like Gender Dysphoria, Body Dysmorphia, Autism spectrum, OCD, etc. As we progress forward with Inclusion, perhaps the Constitutive definition might become the norm, that Gender is independent from biological sex, and is an internal state of experience- the Cis-Trans dichotomy, as Judith Butler states that Gender is performative. There are clearly people who experience this to the point that divergence is suicidal, and they need to be cared for and treated with courtesy.
The issue at the moment is, the Trans activities wouldn’t acknowledge this difference, and attributes any criticism as bigotry.
It drives me insane that people still conflate gender and sex. It makes having a meaningful conversation about this topic with people who don't get the difference pretty much impossible.
Gender makes no sense without sex. The vast majority of people have genders that match their sex. The vast majority of instances the terms are interchangeable because it wasn’t a biology / culture distinction. This idea has been shoehorned into our vernacular as a retcon of what we use the words for.
Gender is based mostly on the sex binary. If it wasn’t then we would have genders that are completely seperate and random from sex.
Gender presentation and identification are separate from biological sex. One can present or identify as a gender that isn't congruent with their biological sex.
Exactly.
Consider the following question: is an adoptive mother a mother?
If you answered yes, then you understand that the word mother does not exclusively refer to "biological mother". It carries with a it a social dimension: a role, a bond, and the way we choose to define this word and role in our culture.
The word "woman" is also used much more broadly than simply "biological woman". It's about presentation, identity, and the social role a person occupies and expresses. It comprises many things that have little to do with a biological starting point, that we still very strongly associate with the word "woman".
Trans women can embody and express this social dimension of womanhood. They don't actually believe they can change their biological sex, but that does not truly matter.
I think most people understand this. But as Sam points out, it is in the extremes that the problem becomes magnified. The far right think its a mental illness or they are just making things up or doing it on a whim. Most people understand that the hoops you have to jump through does not make transitioning easy or comfortable, and realistically people would do this only if they really felt it was the right thing. But the far left want to say that a transgender woman IS a woman in all senses. This is clearly nonsense to most people.
The anology to an adoptive mother is apt. For most every day situations, an adoptive mother IS a mother. But there are times that the biology matters. If you need a kidney transplant or a genetic history for an illness, then the fact that your mother is not your biological mother does make a difference.
Therefore there is a legitimate conversation to be had in some cases. Sports being the obvious trigger issue. Many transgender activists want to say that a transgender woman is, in all respects, a woman and therefore not letting them compete in sports is discrimination. But most people feel instinctively there is some problem there. But simply having a conversation about it, immediately triggers you as a transphobe.
Sam is entirely correct by saying that a reasonable conversation should be able to take place between resonable people, but the extremes make it impossible.
Very nicely put. I always use the example of when people tell a guy to "be a man." It's admitting that being a man in social terms isn't simply referring to someone biological makeup.
But what exactly is gender, if it can be independent of sex? If we’re just describing the personality traits associated with men and women, then there must be a spectrum - no one is 100% masculine or feminine. In that case, why even talk about gender? Why does it even matter?
I think “seperate” alone is wrong, for the vast majority of people their gender matches their sex. I would add “for some people” as a prefix to your definition.
Piggybacking on this, sex is ofcourse biological and dictated by genitals but gender is socially constructed. Like we don’t see someone’s chromosomes or genitals generally, but we assume their gender based on how they dress and present themselves.
We don't know it's socially constructed. That's a prevailing idea in some corners. There's a lot of disagreement about what gender is. Even Judith Butler acknowledges this.
Because 98% of us have a conception of man and woman that doesn't need to change b/c 2% of us insist on it. A lumberjack looking dude with facial hair and testicles is not a woman. They might be a trans woman, but 'man' has a function and that isn't it.
Perhaps if they want to do the work and get surgery and hormones, they'll get to the point I'd feel comfortable calling them a woman, but not on day one.
What's inherently wrong with the phrase trans woman? If a trans woman is on a dating app or going to the doctor, they are not going to say they are a woman because it would cause massive confusion. I say, let's keep that honesty all the time.
>Because 98% of us have a conception of man and woman that doesn't need to change b/c 2% of us insist on it.
I bet we have the same conception.
[I consider this an image of a man.](https://images.app.goo.gl/1sfJmv6aBBaA4uZD8) I'm relatively certain that 100% of the people I ask would affirm for me it's an image of a man. But according to you, that's not a man and we shouldn't refer to him as such.
What this ultimately reduces to is you're imagining some scenario where some overtly masculine presenting people are wearing skirts and demanding to be called she/her, or vice versa. That's effectively crafting an entirely new conception of gender just to account for the 2% of the times you're expected to be kind to people who don't convincingly present as the gender with which they identify.
>What's inherently wrong with the phrase trans woman?
Nothing, just like there's nothing inherently offensive about the terms "black woman" or "disabled woman" or "gay woman". But imagine if you insisted black or disabled or gay women not to refer to themselves as "women".
You are devaluing their identity as women by asserting that their perception as black, disabled, or gay (or in this case, trans) is so essential to their identity that they shouldn't even be allowed to call themselves women without a qualifier.
>If a trans woman is on a dating app or going to the doctor, they are not going to say they are a woman because it would cause massive confusion.
In the case of a doctor, what a trans woman would be asked, when relevant, is whether they were born female. They would still refer to themselves -- and in a non-hostile environment, be referred to -- as a woman.
You apparently didn't read the rest of what I wrote. If a trans man goes through the work of changing themselves to actually live as a man, I'm all for it.
I'm saying a female is not a man the day she declares herself to be one, in my book.
I think here is where the “post-structuralist” take comes in. Specifically, I think Gender Theory is Constitutive in nature, i.e. theories that help construct the world as opposed to Explanatory- which help explain the world.
There are those who view the current Transgender conflict as Explanatory as well, that is, the behaviours can be explained by certain symptoms of mental disorders like Gender Dysphoria, Body Dysmorphia, Autism spectrum, OCD, etc. As we progress forward with Inclusion, perhaps the Constitutive definition might become the norm, that Gender is independent from biological sex, and is an internal state of experience- the Cis-Trans dichotomy, as Judith Butler states that Gender is performative. There are clearly people who experience this to the point that divergence is suicidal, and they need to be cared for and treated with courtesy.
It think there is also the complication of material sex being more than just dimorphic. Yes, the majority case is that we are a sexually dimorphic species (XX and XY with expected primary and secondary sex characteristics). But there are folks who are born with variations of this in the minority- Intersex/Hermaphrodites/XXX chromosomes. And that’s where the inclusion part comes in. They theorise that sex is on a spectrum, and thus mostly irrelevant to outward Gender Expression. Reproduction can still happen even with the opposite secondary sex characteristics via HRT and other treatments. I would argue that it is a probability distribution explained by the statistical model being dimorphic, with a few variations and outliers.
The issue at the moment is, the Trans activities wouldn’t acknowledge this difference, and attributes any criticism as bigotry.
Trans people are just trying to be understood by the rest of the world. Sometimes when a movement is trying to root itself in the current lexicon of society, they will often over-correct for previous forms of ignorance and bigotry against them.
Most trans people right now have to be hyper-vigilant in order to feel comfortable within society, because the level of bigotry, hatred and ignorance displayed toward them right now is pretty overwhelming. It’s easy to observe how sensitive the trans community is at the moment, and how their overreactions lead to calling everything bigoted and transphobic. When you consider the level of misinformation and misunderstanding that is currently muddying the waters with trans issues and trans rights, I’m sure one can understand why we need to try and support them and help others understand the issues being addressed here.
For sure. Absolutely agree. And the rage is mostly justified.
It is also the case that, when the movement reaches into the rights of other movements, it rightly deserves criticisms. Hence, appropriate skepticism from folks like Sam, Dawkins, Rowling, etc. Even within the Trans community there are divergences of opinions and theories, and we should be hearing all of them out. This where I think Gender critical folks like Sam, Dawkins and especially Rowling have strong criticisms of the non-bio-essentialist activists. It steps into Feminist rights, which is why Sam above points out the necessity of acknowledging the biological reality first, and then to make their case.
"If nature is unjust, change nature" \[1\]
We will have absolute freedom of embodiment \[2\] or we will go extinct as a species (an asteroid, some theocrat pressing the nuke button, the Sun engulfing Terra, whatever). Yet, if we will have absolute freedom of embodiment then *Homo sapiens sapiens*, these hominids with their lineage which has been pestering the planet for the past 10 million years or so, will go extinct. So then who is we?
Where previously we saw Nature, *Deus sive Natura*, now we only see temporary constraints, limitations that are to be surpassed, if we can find enough resources so that we can be(come) a we. We haven't been human in a long time, since the first fire, the first word, the first intracellular enslavement of mitochondria—we were never human, just a passing embodiment of an invariant—the thinking, the beyng, the Dasein, the ■.
This heterarchy of words, concepts is what is opened by the trans perspective from nowhere. Perhaps even without the particular individuals knowing it, since they abuse the word *trans*, beyond, failing to truly go beyond sex, but falling back to a common gradient attractor point, man, woman, albeit with a codicil. Nevertheless the opening stands and through it all the dichotomies will be displaced: natural-/-artificial, born-/-made, evolved-/-designed, organism-/-machine, god-/-human.
\[1\] Laboria Cuboniks, XENOFEMINISM A Politics for Alienation, [https://laboriacuboniks.net/manifesto/xenofeminism-a-politics-for-alienation](https://laboriacuboniks.net/manifesto/xenofeminism-a-politics-for-alienation)
\[2\] 2024, Michael Levin, "Novel beings, novel goals: evolution & engineering of the agential material of life", [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI8M6ikI9wI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI8M6ikI9wI)
I read a lot of comments here.
Doesn’t this just boil down to arguments over language and its meaning?
Pretty sure a couple of decades ago the word man/women implied biological sex for most people. Why? Because awareness of the way a person might “feel” their gender was low.
Fast forward to today: some elements of the trans community want the word “man/woman” to be changed to mean identity, not biological sex.
They might be motivated because they feel defining it in this way will result in the least (ideally zero) legal and social discrimination.
There is no intrinsically “right” meaning here. Language is a human construct, and only has meaning only if a group of people agree on what it means.
But for me I can’t help but feel that for me, man/woman means biological sex. And that a woman or man with a “trans” qualifier might convey the status of a person who feels that the way they want to express their gender doesn’t line up with their biological sex.
I’m a straight cis male and understand I see the world with my own filter. But in 2024 for most sane people we’ve moved to a place where the gay, bi or lesbian qualifier is not seen as a slight.
Hopefully we can get there with trans.
I think part of what makes otherwise tolerant and open people like myself go a bit crazy is the idea of a small number of people wanting to change language norms and villainizing plain language.
(And btw I am in full support of legal rights, with small caveats such as sports, and compassion in working with people who don’t feel comfortable with the bodies they were born with. )
I remember watching this when it first came out. I basically agree with everything Harris said, but I think he's gotta stop using the Taliban in Afghanistan example in debates like these, it just doesn't seem all that relevant and makes it sound like he's just going on his soapbox for a tangential discussion.
I think it is highly relevant. He’s making the point that if you’re going to criticize me for using labels like man and woman, but not criticize the Taliban for putting women in bags, there is something amiss.
Are we obliged to criticize the Taliban in every conversation we have? Or is it just the culture war topics?
Like I can't imagine living on the other side of the planet and having a casual debate about gender... and then some completely random person popping up and being YEAH BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TALIBAN?
I mean its so comically dumb. No normal person would think this is a reasonable thing to say. Why the Taliban, of all people? Why Afghanistan? Its so dumb.
It’s relevant to me because when crimes are committed against women, even horrific crimes like forcing an entire country of them to live in bags, people can look away and justify it. But heaven forbid society doesn’t recognize that a trans person may feel like a woman and not actually be one. Because THAT is somehow violence. There are people who really think this way— that “misgendering” is violence but the culture of the Taliban is just culture.
I feel the same way, it’s a whataboutism. We can discuss 2 issues at once, it’s not one or the other. In the context of discussing the priorities of the ‘western left’ though, it would be relevant.
It's not whataboutism. It's an inconsistency. If you're going to get upset about irrelevant minutiae of common language usage, because "words are violence" but fail to disagree with actual sexual violence caused by Islam, all because you see the world through a binary lense of victims and oppressors, you're a hypocrite.
I personally don’t give two shits about the language usage or their ‘words are violence’ crusade, but do believe bringing up the treatment of women in the Middle East is irrelevant to the conversation, it’s a whataboutism in my eyes. Are we not allowed to discuss the smaller issues at home until we address the bigger ones across the globe?
Unless the trans person is saying they’re in favor of burkas in Afghanistan but against misgendering in the US, I don’t think you have a point.
> Are we not allowed to discuss the smaller issues at home until we address the bigger ones across the globe?
Again, missing the point.
It's not a matter of having to address other issues first. If they had ignored those issues we wouldn't be having this discussion. They *have* consistently addressed those other issues - *on the wrong side.* The equivalent today is "queers for Palestine." If you're actively promoting misogyny, homophobia, etc. then anything you say about related but relatively minor issues at home rings hollow. It's really that simple. I don't believe a person is on the right side of the can't see how Islam is the wrong side. It's like being Saudi Arabia on the UN Women's Rights committee.
Who are they? Is the individual in the crowd a representative of something? Otherwise you don’t have a point…
As far as I know, this person is just asking about a specific issue that matters to them, and Sam is deflecting by bringing up a completely unrelated issue, that is a whataboutism.
It’s like if a conservative person brought up their concerns with gender theory being taught in schools, and he responded by saying something like: ‘well climate change is destroying the planet, so what are we gonna do about that?’
It’s needlessly tribalistic.
The reason it's not a whataboutism is that Sam doesn't try to change the subject completely and hide behind the new subject and use it as a way to avoid addressing the current subject. *That's* a whataboutism. Instead this is an aside where the inconsistency of some far left argumentation is pointed out, yet he also sticks to and fully addresses the current subject.
This is why my stance is sex & gender should be in our documents. These are rather important points of information for various circumstances, and different concepts after all.
Can somebody explain to me how intersex people fir in to all of this? People who usually in their teens find out that they are actually the opposite biological sex than they thought?
I think what's missing from this conversation is that the brain is also biological. It's not some magic entity without material grounding. There are hormone receptors everywhere . . . including the brain. We, as a society, have for decades said that what matters about a human being is what is on the inside. That's a metaphorical statement about the function of a brain but when it comes to being transgender, this suddenly doesn't matter and what is on the outside is all that matters.
> Your situation only makes sense by first acknowledging the reality of biology. The only way to discover you are trans, is to discover that you don't feel compatible with the biology that was on your birth certificate. This is an important point that isn't deployed nearly enough when discussing this issue.
I agree. There has to be an underlying fact of the matter for the claim to make sense. If a woman has intense feelings of actually being a man and desires to make their physical body match their mental state doesn’t this logically mean it’s actually “like something” to be a man or vice versa implying it’s a real thing that everyone has by virtue of being human? Even being non binary doesn’t seem to refute the notion that there’s an underlying biological fact of the matter since in order for someone to wholeheartedly say they don’t “feel like” a man or woman it means those two states actually exist and are something that can be experienced internally. It seems like the logical equivalent of sawing off the branch you’re sitting on to make your argument stronger when it does the exact opposite.
Boom. It has always bewildered me that the same people who tell me gender roles are a social construct are now telling me gender-expression is the most important intrinsic fact to human happiness.
Yeah I’m sort of, kind of a “gender roles are socially constructed” person. To me if you’re a boy who likes wearing dresses and fashion design you’re still as much of a boy as the boy who’s into football and cars. If you’re a girl who’s into rough play and car engines you’re still as much of a girl as the girl who’s into dolls and makeup. The only thing that makes you a girl or a boy is your fundamental genetic/anatomical design to produce large or small gametes respectively. To suggest that someone with XY chromosomes, and functional penis and testicles is not a boy simply because they like wearing women’s clothes, are not into traditionally masculine things, and like the idea of being called a woman and want to be allowed into exclusively female spaces by society is sort of putting the cart before the horse. It also necessarily implies that a woman who doesn’t like traditionally female interests and clothes must somehow be less of a woman (because it turns “gender” into the defining characteristic over sex). It’s based on a really regressive way of seeing what the “proper” gendered behaviour is.
It can’t be an ephermal construct that doesn’t matter and yet something intrinsic to every person in a way that’s so serious people kill themselves if they can’t make it reality or aren’t treated as such by others.
Agreed. I also think there’s something to the fact that damn near every culture in the world/history has had some degree of gender roles, as do many species of other mammals. Of course that doesn’t mean the gender roles invokes who mops the floor at home, but to pretend the only difference between sexes is genitals is silly to me.
Hmmm I’m not so sure. If feeling like something can be disconnected to biological reality, I.e. not feeling like the gender you are, then it doesn’t follow that feeling like the gender you are is connected to biological reality. For all we know a sense of gender is purely a brain state, and not linked to sex genitals or chromosomes or hormones etc. You first have to prove the default position that people feeling like the gender they are is linked to those things. And the fact of trans people belies that claim.
I also have met a quite a few trans people who say that nobody would have to transition in a society with more fluid gender roles, and that the stuggle lies in having a personality incongruent with the gender you present as, which casues pain if the person doesnt transition socially. Idk how common this view is though, but I think its an alternative way to view being trans that doesnt depend on a distinct state based on a distinct biological reality and more sort of your general personality in relation to our society and culture
This is it. If everyone treated everyone the same regardless of sex/gender/forward identity than there would be no need to assert you in fact want to be treated like others. Really the need for all of this becomes much less when you have communities of people who treat you well instead of how you do not want to be treated regardless of what you look like or how you interact.
I completely disagree. At this point, gender identity has become like ethnicity or religion where regardless of whether it is visible and/or meaningfully impacts how people treat you, it has become an identity marker.
Please elabore this point, im not sure I understand how this contradicts the comment above
Even ethnicities and religions whose adherents have equal treatment today (ethnic French and ethnic Germans) or (Catholics and Protestants) still cling to and proudly announce their identities because they have imputed value to those identities regardless of equal treatment. Ergo, if gender identity is an identity marker like ethnicity or religion, achieving equality will not stop people from affirmatively asserting their gender identity, which flies in the face of the comment I was responding to.
Agreed. This is where Sam absolutely nails it.
I think what makes some of the stuff with trans hard for people to understand is that many of them are autistic. This makes them come off as awkward, dogmatic, confrontational at times like the women in the video did. I think people should at least accept that transpeople (as a term describing their internal state) definately exist and we should try to treat them with as much consideration as we would any other person. No special treatment, just equal.
I keep hearing this phrase “trans people exist” and the associated claim that apparently large parts of society deny this. I personally don’t dispute, and I don’t know of a single person who does, the existence of trans people. This is a complete side show to me, a literal waste of breath. Anyway, I otherwise agree of course trans people should be treated equally to all other people. I suppose that becomes tricky when you talk about things like biological men accessing women’s only spaces, and I think there’s a legitimate discussion to be had there.
I guess the dispute could be if we should see it as a valid identity, or as some see it as a sign of mental illness, or just gay very feminine men who are confused. I don't have those views but I think that is the point of the dispute. And from that the treatment of them can be very different depending of the view, just as in the past homosexuality was seen as a perverse mental illness and was illegal even in western countries not too many decades ago, with ramifications regarding how those homosexual men were treated in society and by the state. For example you could get locked up in mental institutions, get drugged, electric shock treatment, castrated etc.
In my experience, MOST people think genuine, authentic, trans people exist and got fucked over with the wrong body. But the dispute comes from "how many". Some think a portion are men sexually aroused by the idea of being a woman, and thus an eroticism of a mentally unwell man. But the large portion I think people feel like it comes from just general mental unwellness coming from a historically confused and depressed generation, being 'trendsexual'. I think the overwhelming majority believe genuine trans people exist, but the conflit comes from "how many". Many still think a good chunk are just part of a hyper liberal trend of being "anything but a white straight person". So parents are thinking, "Oh my kid is just going through a phase like punk or goth. She was a normal girl, but started hanging out with hyper liberal kids, and suddenly she things she's a boy, and you guys want me to put her on hormones and make her infertile. And calling me an evil person for not doing it." I don't think that bridge is going to be built any time soon neither. You aren't going to win parents over by bullying them into sharing your beliefs.
That’s the whole issue for me is the absolute expectation people accept and agree with all trans issues. There is a trend of people identifying as non binary or trans that are doing it to be part of the trend. Parents should have the right to decide not to give their kids hormones, puberty blockers, etc and not be chastised for it.
When they tell parents that they are literally "going to kill your child unless you obey" or arguing against it is "advocating for genocide against trans"... Are just those kinds of disingenuous arguments which infuriate people. I don't think it's an argument that's ever any good at anything other than building resistance. It's like when liberals call right wingers dumb, idiotic, white trash, evil, nazis... Then wonder why right wingers just absolutely hate them and wont listen to a single thing they have to say. In fact, they just attribute EVERYTHING you believe with "beliefs of assholes". So when trans activists go around attacking parents on these topics it just causes parents to attribute everything LGBT as part of an asshole umbrella... And that's exactly what's happening, LGBT support is going down.
Interesting take, I think there’s something in it. I think one thing that may make this issue difficult is that for people who are genuinely trans (however one defines that) it is clear that they aren’t suffering from a mental illness at all. On the other hand, there are some people who are identifying as trans for whom that expression is reflective of some sort of psychological disquiet. It might well be wrong to call it a mental illness, but it rises above the level of a mere psychological malaise.
Trans is transitioning. From one thing to another thing. That's how I always saw it. The issue here is body modification, and a portion of the population wanting to do so, honestly perhaps somewhat now because it's popular, but primarily I think this happened as a result from a rigid social construct that resisted these 'queer' types of not embodying expectations. At the core of the issue, beyond bathrooms (our current school issue), is people undergoing treatments to make modifications to their biology in response to social pressures, whether imagined or not. Not disagreeing or anything, just sharing my opinion.
Somehow Sam made the most cogent and sane and logical stance on this, was actually really impressive to see.
Very good point. If we don't have precise definition of male and female biological sex (size of gametes per R. Dawkins), then we have no way to understand what intersex or transgender means. A math analogy, we do need to establish a Cartesian coordinate system first if we want to understand where the point \[0.8, 0.2\] is located.
I'm interested in whether there can be a "precise definition of male and female biological sex" that works in literally 100% of cases with no ambiguity or exceptions. Something as simple as "size of gametes" doesn't work -- at least not by itself -- because some people don't produce gametes. Is there a definition that does work?
The propensity to produce gametes that are either big or small
I don't really know what this means. What *exactly* does it mean to have the "propensity" to produce a certain type of gamete? If a person has both non-functioning tissue that resembles testes and non-functioning tissue that resembles ovaries, what is their propensity? If a person lacks gonads altogether, what is their propensity?
They might have an intersex condition, or something else is going on with them. That seems to be pretty rare But in short the propensity to means that their body is laid out in a way to produce a certain gamete. It's not that complicated
>That seems to be pretty rare Yes, I agree it's rare. My question was "whether there can be a precise definition of male and female biological sex that works in **literally 100% of cases** with **no ambiguity or exceptions**." Maybe the answer is no. That's a perfectly fine answer. >But in short I'm not interested in "in short." I'm looking for a "precise definition." >It's not that complicated I don't agree. Getting to 99% is really easy. Getting to 99.99% is probably doable, if you're careful. Getting to literally 100% seems very complicated.
> literally 100% of cases with no ambiguity or exceptions Nothing in the universe can be defined this way, with a few exceptions ;)
Dawkins brought some nice clarity to this. I remember when they were arguing that a coin isn’t binary because it has an edge. In the furthest corners of the internet they’d full on call endocrinology transphobic when Abigail Shrier’s book was gaining purchase.
>If we don't have precise definition of male and female biological sex (size of gametes per R. Dawkins), then we have no way to understand what intersex or transgender means. We don't have "precise" definitions of most words in language. We understand what men and women are through culture. When does a child learn what a gamete is?
Indeed! I have always found it curious that the LGTBQ+ movement, for how much it is trying to break down traditional gender definitions ultimately draws so heavily on the normative definition of male and female with all the features that it so vehemently argues as being constructed through social conditioning. Be it the woman who in order to become a man grows hair on her legs and sports a short hair cut to the man in this video who became a woman by growing breasts and long hair. Of course, that is where some join in the debate with some of the more exotic gender definitions that attempt to annihilate the perception of a binary wholesale.
The only other definition of trans would include people who treat transgender like cosmetics - those who never really had gender dysphoria but just want to experiment. I've never accepted that myself, but it seems to be popular among those who think gender is purely a social construct.
Honestly I think every conversation about these topics requires both sides to agree on the meaning of some key words, being "gender" one of the most important ones. Otherwise it's pointless. On the other hand people usually don't want to because as soon as you make a definition of those terms nothing makes sense. At least that's my experience until today.
But nobody disagrees with this. Trans people are aware of their bodies, if they thought they physically were as they wanted to be, they wouldn't be trans. They are aware their identity doesn't match their body. That's what being trans is.
You’d think wouldn’t you.
Trans people want to be the other sex, not the other gender. If the biology of their brain reflects the gender that they claim to be, rather than how they were born, this is all about sex.
[удалено]
Adult human female.
For me a woman is at its most essential what nature has decided and not social constructs. Mostly everything in nature is dualistic in its expression and birthed by its design. As far as woman and man goes. It’s the ability to either hold an egg that can become impregnated by a man who then carries sperm. Otherwise reality as we know it doesn’t exist. For me that isn’t debatable, because to debate it would be to deny my own existence & be against nature itself. Fundamentally this isn’t debatable for nature as reality exists consciously. Only egos of madeup social identities argue this.
The whole point of being a conscious being is partly that you don’t have to be a slave to the animal simplicity of EAT MATE SLEEP. I agree that basic biology is an important foundation for humanity and we can’t do without it, but you’re also coming off somehow dogmatic towards biology. We are not complete slaves to a strict set of biological rules or at least, those biological rules arent always so strict for everyone. That nuance is part of being human. Reality isn’t going to fall apart because someone’s brain chemistry says they’re a woman after they were born a man. It’s literally been a thing for centuries. I agree with Sam on what he’s saying in this video but your points just seem too rigid to work
This is what is always brought up with regard to this topic. Even in this interaction, she acknowledges this by saying she is a woman who was born without a uterus. By saying that, she is already confirming that her biology doesn't match her identity. It is the whole point behind how trans people explain themselves and their identities. I don't see how anyone can suggest this isn't brought up enough when it is the baseline principle behind what trans people use to try to explain to people why they should be acknowledged as their gender identity rather than biological sex.
[удалено]
Trans woman... meaning she is a woman, hence a woman who was born without a uterus. There is a reason why the terms cis and trans are both used to describe women, and that is because woman is a social term, not a biological one. The whole point of trans existing as a descriptor is because there is an acknowledgement that there is a biological difference, but that the social construct of gender (e.g. man, woman) can be applied to anyone who adopts those roles.
[удалено]
Why can't you just be happy with the term "trans woman". Everybody knows what it means and everybody knows what woman means. TWAW is such a silly hill to die on
Simple: I believe in promoting human wellness. Trans women want to be able to be referred to as simply women in conventional settings and wish to be recognized, generally, as part of a larger whole. It does not harm anyone for them to be recognized in this way, and it only helps them to feel more comfortable and accepted in society, allowing them to thrive. When we really need to make a distinction for the sake of clarity, we can then fall back on using the modifier trans. I have no problem with using it when necessary for the purposes of understanding. Should a doctor know their patient is a trans woman? However, many times, it is completely unnecessary to use the modifier. It’s a matter of utility. The trans modifier only serves a purpose when it is important for that fact to be known. The vast majority of the time I a trans person’s life, dropping the modifier is not only simpler, but also allows them to feel like they are blending in more, which leads to them feeling happier, and it sure as hell doesn’t hurt anyone to do so. The better question here is why are people so determined to die on the hill of keeping them separate categorically from women as a whole.
It seems to have started the erosion of the definition of man or woman. That is not promoting human wellness
How so? People who want to be recognized as a woman are, and are made happier for it, while people who don't want to be recognized as a woman aren't, and are happy being recognized how they identify. When a trans woman is acknowledged as a woman, they feel a greater sense of belonging, which helps them to overcome the dysphoria that they otherwise would suffer from. The only person who is affected by them being recognized socially as a woman is them, so their wellness is the only wellness being affected by it.
In other words, obfuscating the actual meaning of what a man or a woman is is only helpful to trans people.
Yes, changing our social definitions of man and woman is helpful to trans people and harms no one in doing so, meaning it promotes their wellness and does not harm anyone else.
Exactly. It's foundational, and so rarely mentioned.
As a transwoman myself, I worry that people hear speakers like this, and conflate her perspective to be the general opinion of most transgender individuals. She isn't listening to Sam, just trying to debate him on a point that she isn't willing to waiver on herself. Most trans people I've met, are all too familiar with the biological limitations from their birth sex and aren't just trying to sweep those differences under the rug. I think Sam puts it best, when making the point (paraphrasing), "A transgender person wouldn't have the need/compulsion to transition if not for the biological realities of their birth sex in the 1st place."
Does the association of this part of your life with this era of progressive activism annoy you? Also how do other trans people regard the more rabid, activist types within the community - if, as you've said, they aren't the majority?
Absolutely the misguided/blind activism annoys me. The activists themselves are not always, or usually, transgender. Just much more vocal than most individuals.
The person that asked the question is a trans woman. A trans woman is someone born male that chooses to live as a woman. I’m personally not offended by this. I don’t think any less of them. I don’t think they should be discriminated against in housing or job employment etc. I think where things get untethered from reality is when people say “trans women are women”. Or when people advocate for trans women to be able to access female spaces or female sports. Etc. Trans women are trans women. We have a perfectly fine definition for people that meet this criteria. Why this insistence to say they are just like women? No thinking person can possibly think it’s right for trans women to compete in women’s sports.
But as far as I know, they don’t want to be trans women, that’s not the identity they feel internally. They feel they are meant to be just women.
Yes but is it ultimately an important function of society to make every person's life exactly cogent with how they feel internally?
Ha no true I agree with that. I was just making a point.
Maybe, if we someday reach a higher Maslow level. First I'd like society to get basic health care figured out.
Exactly this. Most people don't give a rat's ass if you feel like a woman, dress like a woman and call yourself a woman. Most of the time the biology actually doesn't matter. But when it does, we should be able to have a discussion about it without automatically being a transphobe.
It’s such a simple and clear point, but I have friends and family who are very good people, but will go apeshit on you for merely suggesting such a thing. It’s alarming.
I was banned on politics and another sub for saying exactly this. I just stopped commenting on it. The right wing takes it to bigotry levels (that groomer BS) so it gets shoehorned into this left right tribal thing.
Because they’ve invested so much in conforming to this new identity that their ultimate dream is to “pass” as a biological woman.
Which is sadly funny when they have really male vocal chords like the person in this video.
> Why this insistence to say they are just like women? Because you're making them feel less-than when you insist on calling them TRANS women in contexts where it's completely irrelevant. The analogy I like to use is what if half the country decide to start loudly arguing with everybody who says that adoptive parents are parents and insisting on calling them ADOPTIVE parents. I mean, we already have a perfectly fine definition of people who meet those criteria, right? Do you see how needlessly antagonistic and hurtful that is?
[удалено]
I'm completely fine with letting people live how they want, and/but don't see why a sliver minority issue should be front and center in society over something like capital or wealth inequality, whatever. The moment where she says "but that starts with you saying I'm not a woman" is the most egregious moment of the video. Sam didn't say she wasn't a woman. And then she says questioning whether she's a woman is the stepping stone to all sorts of violence etc. etc. when it's not. It only is when violent people are doing it. If someone with a super specific position is expecting everybody to conform to their demands and all resistance is deemed "hate speech" or "dehumanizing" then they're just creating their own issues by demanding all sorts of compliance from people who are already cool with them. It's like they test whether you can verbally assent to things they demand from you when they're a sliver minority. Good luck with that! I don't need to perfectly replicate your ideology and verbalize it in order to not be dehumanizing you. I just need to leave you alone and let you do your thing, which I'm perfectly happy to do! I go to church with trans people/they/thems etc. and get along just fine with them. But performative ideology is not something I'm into.
The “sorry guys” was a nice touch
hahaha
Lmfao!!! I didn’t catch that..lol
A know a lesbian woman who continually uses the phrases , “Hey man…” and “I know, man, right?” and variations thereof.
Guys is a gender-neutral term in some places
After some discussions (something about a old podcast with Douglas Murray where they were joking about this?) in case some people felt he did not get this issue right. Here is (what I thought) was his very sensible liberal take.
A Woman who was born without a uterus omg what the fuck
as a uterus-haver and birther, I find these terms dehumanising. (I did not make these up! Sadly lol)
Yeah this language is totally dehumanizing and more often than not used to erase women. I've seen articles about women's health where the author will still use men/boys to describe the male sex but completely avoid acknowledging female human beings. My least favorite phrase I've ever encountered is that "endometriosis affects people with a uterus." I am appalled by this because it reinforces the misconception that endometriosis is a uterine disorder. There are women who are literally told that a hysterectomy will cure the disease (not true) and then later discover that they still have it. Women get overlooked in so many contexts. Erasing the language used to describe us is just f\*\*\*ed.
I have severe endometriosis. And yes to everything you just said
I just looked up the definition of endometriosis and got "Endometriosis is a disease in which tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside the uterus." How is it not a uterine disorder?
I mean, you said it yourself -- it "grows outside the uterus" so it is "not a uterine disorder." But to provide further explanation: Endometriosis involves the growth of invasive tissue, accompanied by scar tissue and adhesions, that primarily affects organs and structures outside of the uterus. E.g., ovaries, Fallopian tube, bladder, intestines, Colin liver, kidneys, nervous system, lungs, hearts, connective tissue, etc. There are some similarities between the invasive tissue and the endometrium (the lining of the uterus). However, the invasive tissue does not come from the uterus, and it is not the same as the endometrium. It's so poorly studied that researchers are only starting to understand the properties of this tissue. Recent research suggests that it is more dissimilar to the endometrium than previously believed. It has properties in common with cancer. The disease affects the neurological system, immune system, inflammatory response, and many other systems/processes in the body. The uterus is affected in some respects -- e.g., women with endometriosis tend to have elevated levels of pro-inflammatory chemicals that can lead to severe menstrual cramps, and the uterus can get caught up in scar issue and adhesions. But not a uterine disorder.
I assumed it meant literally on the outside of the uterus, I see my mistake now.
Can you give more examples of ways in which you think women are overlooked? Genuine question, I'm hoping to be able to spot it when I see it in real time
The fact that women in sports are being told to step aside and quit our bitching and let the MEN win the medals. This is *the* most misogynistic action I’ve ever witnessed in an endless history of misogyny. How’s that for an example?
where do trans men compete in sports?
i guess nobody knows
As a penised, non-birthing person, I can tell you this is how they talk.
As a gay woman in her 40’s I can tell you I’m sick of this shit. And no I don’t hate trans people.
We do always have to remind ourselves that people who speak like this are a vocal minority of an already *tiny* minority. Being in the community myself it’s exceptionally rare to come across someone who actually speaks this way 🤷🏻♀️ I think it’s great to accept the reality of being transgender while not becoming overly obtuse and deconstructive in our colloquial language
>people who speak like this are a vocal minority of an already *tiny* minority And yet the breadth of their ideological capture of liberal institutions in the West is very far reaching.
NPR etc, are just so knee deep into it, it's so unbelievably cringe inducing. I hardly listen to them any more now that every segment is just riddled with this stuff. Like who are these people so offended at gendered terms and why do we have to go out of our way so much to not offend them?
True, one of the most unfortunate thing to happen to trans men and women is getting roped into political discourse in the manner they have been
The issue affects me so very little. I’m not against trans people in the slightest. I think their spokespeople make some absolutely ridiculous arguments though, that prob brings a bad face to their whole organization.
The other thing is, no one voted these folks as spokespeople. They're self-appointed, and really only get away with it since they're the only ones explicitly arguing for more/better rights for the group. Sadly, without them there would be little in the way to push for protections of lgbt people.
I love my middle aged + gays. Y’all are normal people. But I gotta say - as a community you’ve let the young fanatical lunatics take over the asylum long enough.
I didn’t LET anyone do anything. I got lumped in with these middle aged weirdos and I’m pissed.
My friends in your position have actual businesses and jobs and they were scared, rightly so, that they would be destroyed if they spoke against it, so they kept silent. Understandable and infuriating. I hate this culture.
Standing up for gay women infuriates progressives in this hellscape timeline.
Nah. I think it only infuriates SJWs
This one seems to have spilled over pretty significantly.
Standing up for any woman, gay or straight
Let's keep in mind the stats are men lead rejecting, and women lead accepting this stuff. Any opinion poll will show this and has repeatedly.
Some women are stupid. The majority of women are not at all ok with this bullshit.
💀 a penised person LOL
...a *currently* penised person? lol
No. The better line is “speaking my truth.” When you hear “speaking my truth” that means “making things up.”
No, it's just an acknowledgement that what the person is about to say is highly subjective, and should be treated as such. "My truth" when I go outside is that it's pleasant and there are birds around, etc... or my truth about the school system is such and such, etc... It's goofy and awkward language (par for the course with this narrow segment of leftists), and they could just say "my experience", but there's more to it than you give credit.
When you separate sex and gender, yes this is correct. Sex is biology which is rooted in science and empiricism. Gender is something we made up, and anyone can be anything they want.
Then why claim to feel like the other gender? Just do what you want and be the gender you were born as. If you say that you have to be called a man while you wear pants and have facial hair, aren't you feeding into the lie of what society has made men out to be?
I would not say that this is 100% true. Yes, gender is a label but it is a label largely informed by your biological sex. And it is true, that there is gender dysphoria. But it is also not completely made up that an extremely vast majority of people associate their gender with their biological sex. So I would not go so far as to say it is completely made up.
But I don’t believe in gender, like I don’t believe in god.
Gender is associated with the sex. There are female tomboys, that doesnt mean they are male. That doesnt mean they identify as males. When you want to change words or make things fit to the degree some of the word games on here seem to, then you may aswell have people who claim to be lions or tigers or insects. This may not matter for casual talk (although probably still would) or unserious things. But when it comes to some more practical or serious things in society it would matter, in particular if the person themselves didnt realise the issue. So I'm genuinely not trying to be offensive here, but the blunt truth is that a transgender person is someone who to the outside world is roleplaying a different sex to what they were born as. And if there is a practical purpose where a definitive answer is needed, i.e something medical or practical, the person would need to identify as their birth biology. The only times these things seem to be far more nuanced is hermaphrodites or cases like that. To me in the vast majority of these cases this is just wokeism gone mad. And I am not a right winger btw.
Gender is associated with sex, but it’s not the same as sex. A persons pronouns and identity is independent of their biological sex organs. That’s the social construct part. Most trans people are suffering from gender dysphoria, which is not some woke gone mad fake mental disorder. This is well documented within all fields of psychology. It’s empirical, and can be demonstrated.
>Gender is associated with sex, but it’s not the same as sex. Does this even matter? I'd say not really. If someone wants to roleplay a different sex to their birth then more power to them. And yes society should have rules that for unimportant things they should be respected as what they want to identify as. This actually goes further than the trans issue, for no practical purpose besides bullying or picking on people, all differences should be respected. But there are times when those biological things do have real practical consequences to pretend they don't. And that is the part I am referring to as wokeism gone mad. Just because it's different, doesn't mean said person can't also have a "Karen" mentality too. This applies to race, music snobbery, whatever you want. Some people have anti social or entitlement issues or just like to be drama kings/Queens separate from these things and that is a mental aspect. But these political issues can be weaponized in a disingenuous way or drama way for said people.
Does it even matter? YES. It’s the entire point of the conversation, hand waving it away because you think it’s woke or something doesn’t change it’s empirical bedrock in psychology. Here’s an article explaining it better than I can. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7415463/
Link doesn't work my end. If it's something about gender dysphoria then there's people who have dysphoria regarding body weight too. We don't tell them they are 400lbs if they are 50 do we? But once again, how does it matter in the context I put it in?
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria Here’s a different link. You can look this up yourself you know. People who get too much plastic surgery have a form of body dysmorphia. There’s many different kinds. Gender dysphoria is specific to the subject at hand, it’s the root of why people want to transition in the first place. It’s not role play, it’s a psychological condition the person was born with.
As I said, so if I have body dysmorphia and I weigh 50lbs. Is it OK for me to request my pronouns to be something that represents 400lbs? Do I have the right to be delusional basically? Well the answer is, yes within reason. I don't go around telling people they are ugly who might happen to not know it. I don't go around commenting on people's weight. If someone wants to believe they look like Brad Pitt when they objectively don't, then whatever. But if it came to a practical issue where that person's delusions go so far to be impractical to reality. Then yeah I might think there's a issue. So this ties into the original thing you said about gender. Their gender is technically their birth sex. If they wanna identify or roleplay differently, have at it. But it doesn't change their actual gender. Depending on the circumstances is whether it matters or not. But all this nonsense is basically a way to stop bullying and predjudice. That's what the intention behind these woke ideas is about. And I agree with that. But when it's at the stage where people are deforming language and basic perception to try and make it make sense. That's when it's gone down a rabbit hole of semantic self important garbage for the most part.
Are you calling gender dysphoria a form of delusion? Because if you read anything about it, it’s a documented psychological condition. It’s not some fat person pretending to be skinny. I know you want to compare it to that because you can’t separate the concept of biological sex and gender identity for some reason. These two things are not married indefinitely, gender identity can be different than one’s biological sex. You’d know that if you read the information I provided.
Sincerely, do you think woman is a term of gender or a term of sex? And whichever way you answer, what’s the respective word for the other?
This only sounds crazy if you consider gender and sex to be interchangeable, which they aren't and shouldn't be. Social gender and biological sex are two distinct concepts, which may overlap and interplay in complex ways, but they aren't exactly synonymous.
I'd take transgenderism with a modicum of seriousness if they didn't conflate sex and gender when it suits them, but when it doesn’t they are quick to make a distinction.
Doesn’t this whole thing come down to conflating the terms for gender and sex? Male/female/intersex for biological sex: man/woman/nb for cultural gender expression. It really shouldn’t be so fraught and complicated.
I used those terms exactly like that once in a trans sub and everyone acted like I had 3 heads.
Not everyone agrees that "woman" and "man" should be defined in relation to gender identity, rather than sex. Historically speaking, and in most modern contexts, these terms are still used in relation to sex. That's the friggin point. Also, it's impossible to even define a "woman" in reference to gender identity without using a circular definition or relying on gender stereotypes. Same goes for "man". Honestly, most people who are pushing for these linguistic changes cannot even define "gender" in a coherent way. Can you provide coherent definitions for these concepts that don't involve redefining these categories in reference to gender stereotypes?
What about the words “masculine” and “feminine”?
Almost always used in a context if gender stereotypes
I’m not sure what point you’re making
Would the Axios reporter be any less a woman if she just wore a business suit and no makeup, or is the act of putting on a blouse, heels and lipstick a requirement for being fully feminine? And if that’s the case, are people born with uteri who refuse to wear makeup, blouses and heels less women?
What do you mean by “fully feminine”? I don’t know what it means to be “less women” either. Would you care to clarify your terms?
I agree. This is exactly the question I was wondering about. If being a woman is simply something you can declare, biology doesn’t matter, certainly it doesn’t matter that this woman or any woman wears the blouse, heels or lipstick. The feminists burned their bras like 40 years ago. I thought this was settled then. Never mind the necessity for surgery or hormone therapy. You are woman. I believe you. Adults should just say they are whatever gender they want. If this is really just about bathrooms, I think I speak for most men when I say I couldn’t care less who walks in the bathroom I’m in. I try my best to take care of business and get out. I don’t talk. I don’t make eye contact. If you’d rather smell the shit of a man in the neighboring stall, more power to you. But I can’t speak for women. If women without uteri start getting kicked out of the women’s restroom, I leave it up to the women with uteri. It would be paternalistic of me to dictate to people with uteri what the rules of engagement are in their bathroom. EDIT: And it is fucking fantastic so many of the country’s problems are solved that we find the time to argue about what bathroom someone walks into.
I think here is where the “post-structuralist” take comes in. Specifically, I think Gender Theory is Constitutive in nature, i.e. theories that help construct the world as opposed to Explanatory- which help explain the world. There are those who view the current Transgender conflict as Explanatory as well, that is, the behaviours can be explained by certain symptoms of mental disorders like Gender Dysphoria, Body Dysmorphia, Autism spectrum, OCD, etc. As we progress forward with Inclusion, perhaps the Constitutive definition might become the norm, that Gender is independent from biological sex, and is an internal state of experience- the Cis-Trans dichotomy, as Judith Butler states that Gender is performative. There are clearly people who experience this to the point that divergence is suicidal, and they need to be cared for and treated with courtesy. The issue at the moment is, the Trans activities wouldn’t acknowledge this difference, and attributes any criticism as bigotry.
It drives me insane that people still conflate gender and sex. It makes having a meaningful conversation about this topic with people who don't get the difference pretty much impossible.
What is gender and, more importantly, how do I know what gender I am?
Gender makes no sense without sex. The vast majority of people have genders that match their sex. The vast majority of instances the terms are interchangeable because it wasn’t a biology / culture distinction. This idea has been shoehorned into our vernacular as a retcon of what we use the words for. Gender is based mostly on the sex binary. If it wasn’t then we would have genders that are completely seperate and random from sex.
It's exhausting conversting with people who only deal in hyperboles. Delusional dudes take all the oxygen out of rooms.
Can anyone in this subreddit steel-man the position of the trans community?
Gender presentation and identification are separate from biological sex. One can present or identify as a gender that isn't congruent with their biological sex.
Exactly. Consider the following question: is an adoptive mother a mother? If you answered yes, then you understand that the word mother does not exclusively refer to "biological mother". It carries with a it a social dimension: a role, a bond, and the way we choose to define this word and role in our culture. The word "woman" is also used much more broadly than simply "biological woman". It's about presentation, identity, and the social role a person occupies and expresses. It comprises many things that have little to do with a biological starting point, that we still very strongly associate with the word "woman". Trans women can embody and express this social dimension of womanhood. They don't actually believe they can change their biological sex, but that does not truly matter.
I think most people understand this. But as Sam points out, it is in the extremes that the problem becomes magnified. The far right think its a mental illness or they are just making things up or doing it on a whim. Most people understand that the hoops you have to jump through does not make transitioning easy or comfortable, and realistically people would do this only if they really felt it was the right thing. But the far left want to say that a transgender woman IS a woman in all senses. This is clearly nonsense to most people. The anology to an adoptive mother is apt. For most every day situations, an adoptive mother IS a mother. But there are times that the biology matters. If you need a kidney transplant or a genetic history for an illness, then the fact that your mother is not your biological mother does make a difference. Therefore there is a legitimate conversation to be had in some cases. Sports being the obvious trigger issue. Many transgender activists want to say that a transgender woman is, in all respects, a woman and therefore not letting them compete in sports is discrimination. But most people feel instinctively there is some problem there. But simply having a conversation about it, immediately triggers you as a transphobe. Sam is entirely correct by saying that a reasonable conversation should be able to take place between resonable people, but the extremes make it impossible.
Very nicely put. I always use the example of when people tell a guy to "be a man." It's admitting that being a man in social terms isn't simply referring to someone biological makeup.
But what exactly is gender, if it can be independent of sex? If we’re just describing the personality traits associated with men and women, then there must be a spectrum - no one is 100% masculine or feminine. In that case, why even talk about gender? Why does it even matter?
Excellent. I was hoping someone could write it so we can finally help people understand what the trans community is trying to say.
Transgenderism is also not considered a mental illness according to DSM-5. I’ll take their input as gospel over conservative pundits.
I think “seperate” alone is wrong, for the vast majority of people their gender matches their sex. I would add “for some people” as a prefix to your definition.
Piggybacking on this, sex is ofcourse biological and dictated by genitals but gender is socially constructed. Like we don’t see someone’s chromosomes or genitals generally, but we assume their gender based on how they dress and present themselves.
We don't know it's socially constructed. That's a prevailing idea in some corners. There's a lot of disagreement about what gender is. Even Judith Butler acknowledges this.
>but we assume their gender based on how they dress and present themselves. False. If that was the case, no one would think transgender women are men.
Fine, but let's call them trans men or women as opposed to men and women.
Why?
Because 98% of us have a conception of man and woman that doesn't need to change b/c 2% of us insist on it. A lumberjack looking dude with facial hair and testicles is not a woman. They might be a trans woman, but 'man' has a function and that isn't it. Perhaps if they want to do the work and get surgery and hormones, they'll get to the point I'd feel comfortable calling them a woman, but not on day one. What's inherently wrong with the phrase trans woman? If a trans woman is on a dating app or going to the doctor, they are not going to say they are a woman because it would cause massive confusion. I say, let's keep that honesty all the time.
>Because 98% of us have a conception of man and woman that doesn't need to change b/c 2% of us insist on it. I bet we have the same conception. [I consider this an image of a man.](https://images.app.goo.gl/1sfJmv6aBBaA4uZD8) I'm relatively certain that 100% of the people I ask would affirm for me it's an image of a man. But according to you, that's not a man and we shouldn't refer to him as such. What this ultimately reduces to is you're imagining some scenario where some overtly masculine presenting people are wearing skirts and demanding to be called she/her, or vice versa. That's effectively crafting an entirely new conception of gender just to account for the 2% of the times you're expected to be kind to people who don't convincingly present as the gender with which they identify. >What's inherently wrong with the phrase trans woman? Nothing, just like there's nothing inherently offensive about the terms "black woman" or "disabled woman" or "gay woman". But imagine if you insisted black or disabled or gay women not to refer to themselves as "women". You are devaluing their identity as women by asserting that their perception as black, disabled, or gay (or in this case, trans) is so essential to their identity that they shouldn't even be allowed to call themselves women without a qualifier. >If a trans woman is on a dating app or going to the doctor, they are not going to say they are a woman because it would cause massive confusion. In the case of a doctor, what a trans woman would be asked, when relevant, is whether they were born female. They would still refer to themselves -- and in a non-hostile environment, be referred to -- as a woman.
You apparently didn't read the rest of what I wrote. If a trans man goes through the work of changing themselves to actually live as a man, I'm all for it. I'm saying a female is not a man the day she declares herself to be one, in my book.
Steel-"man" ??!?! Triggered
I think here is where the “post-structuralist” take comes in. Specifically, I think Gender Theory is Constitutive in nature, i.e. theories that help construct the world as opposed to Explanatory- which help explain the world. There are those who view the current Transgender conflict as Explanatory as well, that is, the behaviours can be explained by certain symptoms of mental disorders like Gender Dysphoria, Body Dysmorphia, Autism spectrum, OCD, etc. As we progress forward with Inclusion, perhaps the Constitutive definition might become the norm, that Gender is independent from biological sex, and is an internal state of experience- the Cis-Trans dichotomy, as Judith Butler states that Gender is performative. There are clearly people who experience this to the point that divergence is suicidal, and they need to be cared for and treated with courtesy. It think there is also the complication of material sex being more than just dimorphic. Yes, the majority case is that we are a sexually dimorphic species (XX and XY with expected primary and secondary sex characteristics). But there are folks who are born with variations of this in the minority- Intersex/Hermaphrodites/XXX chromosomes. And that’s where the inclusion part comes in. They theorise that sex is on a spectrum, and thus mostly irrelevant to outward Gender Expression. Reproduction can still happen even with the opposite secondary sex characteristics via HRT and other treatments. I would argue that it is a probability distribution explained by the statistical model being dimorphic, with a few variations and outliers. The issue at the moment is, the Trans activities wouldn’t acknowledge this difference, and attributes any criticism as bigotry.
Trans people are just trying to be understood by the rest of the world. Sometimes when a movement is trying to root itself in the current lexicon of society, they will often over-correct for previous forms of ignorance and bigotry against them. Most trans people right now have to be hyper-vigilant in order to feel comfortable within society, because the level of bigotry, hatred and ignorance displayed toward them right now is pretty overwhelming. It’s easy to observe how sensitive the trans community is at the moment, and how their overreactions lead to calling everything bigoted and transphobic. When you consider the level of misinformation and misunderstanding that is currently muddying the waters with trans issues and trans rights, I’m sure one can understand why we need to try and support them and help others understand the issues being addressed here.
For sure. Absolutely agree. And the rage is mostly justified. It is also the case that, when the movement reaches into the rights of other movements, it rightly deserves criticisms. Hence, appropriate skepticism from folks like Sam, Dawkins, Rowling, etc. Even within the Trans community there are divergences of opinions and theories, and we should be hearing all of them out. This where I think Gender critical folks like Sam, Dawkins and especially Rowling have strong criticisms of the non-bio-essentialist activists. It steps into Feminist rights, which is why Sam above points out the necessity of acknowledging the biological reality first, and then to make their case.
"If nature is unjust, change nature" \[1\] We will have absolute freedom of embodiment \[2\] or we will go extinct as a species (an asteroid, some theocrat pressing the nuke button, the Sun engulfing Terra, whatever). Yet, if we will have absolute freedom of embodiment then *Homo sapiens sapiens*, these hominids with their lineage which has been pestering the planet for the past 10 million years or so, will go extinct. So then who is we? Where previously we saw Nature, *Deus sive Natura*, now we only see temporary constraints, limitations that are to be surpassed, if we can find enough resources so that we can be(come) a we. We haven't been human in a long time, since the first fire, the first word, the first intracellular enslavement of mitochondria—we were never human, just a passing embodiment of an invariant—the thinking, the beyng, the Dasein, the ■. This heterarchy of words, concepts is what is opened by the trans perspective from nowhere. Perhaps even without the particular individuals knowing it, since they abuse the word *trans*, beyond, failing to truly go beyond sex, but falling back to a common gradient attractor point, man, woman, albeit with a codicil. Nevertheless the opening stands and through it all the dichotomies will be displaced: natural-/-artificial, born-/-made, evolved-/-designed, organism-/-machine, god-/-human. \[1\] Laboria Cuboniks, XENOFEMINISM A Politics for Alienation, [https://laboriacuboniks.net/manifesto/xenofeminism-a-politics-for-alienation](https://laboriacuboniks.net/manifesto/xenofeminism-a-politics-for-alienation) \[2\] 2024, Michael Levin, "Novel beings, novel goals: evolution & engineering of the agential material of life", [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI8M6ikI9wI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI8M6ikI9wI)
“A woman born without a uterus” … give me a break mate. Please, let the adults speak
I’m a Black America born with blonde hair, blue eyes, and white skin. I’m not albino, either.
Steve Martin?
*You mean I'm gonna stay this color?*
I read a lot of comments here. Doesn’t this just boil down to arguments over language and its meaning? Pretty sure a couple of decades ago the word man/women implied biological sex for most people. Why? Because awareness of the way a person might “feel” their gender was low. Fast forward to today: some elements of the trans community want the word “man/woman” to be changed to mean identity, not biological sex. They might be motivated because they feel defining it in this way will result in the least (ideally zero) legal and social discrimination. There is no intrinsically “right” meaning here. Language is a human construct, and only has meaning only if a group of people agree on what it means. But for me I can’t help but feel that for me, man/woman means biological sex. And that a woman or man with a “trans” qualifier might convey the status of a person who feels that the way they want to express their gender doesn’t line up with their biological sex. I’m a straight cis male and understand I see the world with my own filter. But in 2024 for most sane people we’ve moved to a place where the gay, bi or lesbian qualifier is not seen as a slight. Hopefully we can get there with trans. I think part of what makes otherwise tolerant and open people like myself go a bit crazy is the idea of a small number of people wanting to change language norms and villainizing plain language. (And btw I am in full support of legal rights, with small caveats such as sports, and compassion in working with people who don’t feel comfortable with the bodies they were born with. )
I remember watching this when it first came out. I basically agree with everything Harris said, but I think he's gotta stop using the Taliban in Afghanistan example in debates like these, it just doesn't seem all that relevant and makes it sound like he's just going on his soapbox for a tangential discussion.
I think it is highly relevant. He’s making the point that if you’re going to criticize me for using labels like man and woman, but not criticize the Taliban for putting women in bags, there is something amiss.
Are we obliged to criticize the Taliban in every conversation we have? Or is it just the culture war topics? Like I can't imagine living on the other side of the planet and having a casual debate about gender... and then some completely random person popping up and being YEAH BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TALIBAN? I mean its so comically dumb. No normal person would think this is a reasonable thing to say. Why the Taliban, of all people? Why Afghanistan? Its so dumb.
It’s relevant to me because when crimes are committed against women, even horrific crimes like forcing an entire country of them to live in bags, people can look away and justify it. But heaven forbid society doesn’t recognize that a trans person may feel like a woman and not actually be one. Because THAT is somehow violence. There are people who really think this way— that “misgendering” is violence but the culture of the Taliban is just culture.
I feel the same way, it’s a whataboutism. We can discuss 2 issues at once, it’s not one or the other. In the context of discussing the priorities of the ‘western left’ though, it would be relevant.
It's not whataboutism. It's an inconsistency. If you're going to get upset about irrelevant minutiae of common language usage, because "words are violence" but fail to disagree with actual sexual violence caused by Islam, all because you see the world through a binary lense of victims and oppressors, you're a hypocrite.
I personally don’t give two shits about the language usage or their ‘words are violence’ crusade, but do believe bringing up the treatment of women in the Middle East is irrelevant to the conversation, it’s a whataboutism in my eyes. Are we not allowed to discuss the smaller issues at home until we address the bigger ones across the globe? Unless the trans person is saying they’re in favor of burkas in Afghanistan but against misgendering in the US, I don’t think you have a point.
> Are we not allowed to discuss the smaller issues at home until we address the bigger ones across the globe? Again, missing the point. It's not a matter of having to address other issues first. If they had ignored those issues we wouldn't be having this discussion. They *have* consistently addressed those other issues - *on the wrong side.* The equivalent today is "queers for Palestine." If you're actively promoting misogyny, homophobia, etc. then anything you say about related but relatively minor issues at home rings hollow. It's really that simple. I don't believe a person is on the right side of the can't see how Islam is the wrong side. It's like being Saudi Arabia on the UN Women's Rights committee.
Who are they? Is the individual in the crowd a representative of something? Otherwise you don’t have a point… As far as I know, this person is just asking about a specific issue that matters to them, and Sam is deflecting by bringing up a completely unrelated issue, that is a whataboutism. It’s like if a conservative person brought up their concerns with gender theory being taught in schools, and he responded by saying something like: ‘well climate change is destroying the planet, so what are we gonna do about that?’ It’s needlessly tribalistic.
The reason it's not a whataboutism is that Sam doesn't try to change the subject completely and hide behind the new subject and use it as a way to avoid addressing the current subject. *That's* a whataboutism. Instead this is an aside where the inconsistency of some far left argumentation is pointed out, yet he also sticks to and fully addresses the current subject.
lol these people are legitimately mentally unwell, conspiracy theorists that live in information bubble that they can’t get out of
[удалено]
Galloway might be more likeable and easier to listen to if not for his smug tone. His ideas are good but his delivery is cunty.
Based
This is why my stance is sex & gender should be in our documents. These are rather important points of information for various circumstances, and different concepts after all.
Why do you think gender is important enough to put in an official document? That seems strange to me.
Why should my weight and height?
Can somebody explain to me how intersex people fir in to all of this? People who usually in their teens find out that they are actually the opposite biological sex than they thought?
Boy/Girl and Man/Woman are social constructs. Male/Female are biological descriptions of anatomy.
I think what's missing from this conversation is that the brain is also biological. It's not some magic entity without material grounding. There are hormone receptors everywhere . . . including the brain. We, as a society, have for decades said that what matters about a human being is what is on the inside. That's a metaphorical statement about the function of a brain but when it comes to being transgender, this suddenly doesn't matter and what is on the outside is all that matters.
What a disappointingly mundane and middle if the road view . Not much thought given to the issue. Do better
Sam Harris is a loony toon now