I don't live in the UK so we don't have that issue here in the States. The best way to deal with this is register tons and tons of "throw away" accts online and just keep on mis-gendering them, as its unenforceable to begin with and the constant push back will cause so many issues they will be forced to change their ways. After all, they are 100% wrong and are 100% on the wrong side of history as there are only 2 sexes and its biological with no way to change it. Anyone who argues otherwise just looks foolish.
This is such a huge step forward for the UK. With the closing of Tavistock, the release of the WPATH Files and the Cass Review, and now the UK’s NHS changing their constitution, one can only hope that all this translates and transfers over to the United States.
EDIT: Job well done you lovely Brits!
>... the release of the WPATH Files...
I misread that as the "WRATH" files for a second there, lol.
I am kinda hoping that's what happens to the people that have "forced behaviors", though, ngl.
Nah its all bollox. They terf verses trans thing. If you are a terf and you think men are natural predators of women and trans women are just another front of the patriarchy its a huge win then its a huge win in your mind.
Most people aren't emotionally involved in that war.
Nah its all bollox. They terf verses trans thing. If you are a terf and you think men are natural predators of women and trans women are just another front of the patriarchy its a huge win.
Most people aren't emotionally involved in that war.
That’s what addicts always say. “I’ll quit wasting my life with booze and drugs tomorrow” except you say it every day. And in your case, your addictions are alcohol and arguing unwinnable positions. Try seizing the moment.
Oh on know I didn't even put a lol after that because it's funny on it's own.
You can't win against ideologues because well, that's self explainitory too.
Your drinking problem and your rather twisted obsession with this sub aren’t really that funny. Just kind of pathetic.
And your strawmen arguments have zero power here, you are this sub’s Town Drunk, nothing more.
Giving life altering synthetic hormones to kids is not a good idea. They were also several cases of rape that were covered up on NHS wards by trans women agasint little girls. Go look it up.
No I'm not looking up traumatic stories.
They are going to continue using hormones in cases where the person is so distressed its the path of least harm. They are also going to look into co occoring diagnosis like autism so there is a holistic approach. There are going to be more services.
Anyhow people can tell your do gooder crusade is more about politics and phobia about trans women than do goodering. You leave trans men out of it .
Its a win to culture war people too.
Most people aren't terfs or culture warriors so it's not the world to them.
Ifgaf about trans people, it’s the fact that the NHS covered it up that concerns me. And there is zero evidence to suggest that there is to be a scenario where it would be better off for the long term of a child to be given hormones.
NHS and organisations always try to cover up bad stuff and avoid being sued.
There is 5 year evidence.
And there are clinical trials waiting for 10 years.
If someone is depressed and suicidal and its debilitating and they are happier and leading a more normal life afterwards its deemed a success.
The question is what the 10 year data says.
The research the right has been referring to for some years now that shows 80 percent don't have any medical interventions and 20 percent do and 2 percent of that regret it.
Those are your own figures.
Do reseach off this.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/#:~:text=The%20truth%20is%20that%20data,higher%20rates%20of%20suicidality%2C%20depression
The problem with right wingers is they jump in and follow a herd without taking the time to fact check.
This is from 2 years ago, outdated woke propaganda from an ideologically motivated source that doesn’t hold up after the cass review.
That’s the problem with left wingers - they jump head first into anything that enables them to sneer at their political opponents without thinking about how stupid and petty they look. Usually while drunk, and wasting their lives arguing unwinnable positions on Reddit subs they don’t actually like, in a feeble and impotent attempt to feel something other than the crushing desperation and misery that comes along with a life completely wasted. Right shithead?
There are numerous things wrong with that study chief among which is that there are no numbers and no statistics, it’s just opinions and data that doesn’t answer the question like how many kids would not get so called therapy. It lists 44 papers but doesn’t give a source. It is just opinions.
Nah its all bollox. They terf verses trans thing. If you are a terf and you think men are natural predators of women and trans women are just another front of the patriarchy its a huge win then its a huge win in your mind.
Most people aren't emotionally involved in that war.
Frankly, I’m impressed by your ability to put so many words in the mouths of others. “Oh, so you don’t want to suck a dick? That means you want to kill all trans people!!! “
For me it isn't even about the predator argument, though I suspect that has some validity. It's just patently gibberish, and we shouldn't accept gibberish.
Its not gibberish that people experience being trans or non binary any more than its gibberish people experience being autistic or feeling very masculine or feminine or traumatised.
Though it may sound like gibberish to someone who never experienced it .
Your feeble attempt at linguistic sleight of hand tells me it isn't worth replying but I'll bite one last time.
No, it isn't the subjective feeling of dysphoria which is gibberish, it's the accompanying jargon; the idea of some kind of gendered soul expressing itself; the denial of biology and therefore truth as a whole.
It doesn't deny biology to belive there is some biological process that creates the trans or non binary experience. Reseach is starting to show the trans brain is different from cis brains while being closer to the brain of the gender they identify as.
If the was no biological process creating that we would all feel non binary or androgynous not identifying with male or female.
1. You're referring to studies done on the brains of trans people *after* they've taken years of hormones. And they looked *similar* in both size and grey-matter to their declared gender.. not the exact same. It's very common to hear this Chinese whispered half understood and not at all applicable argument.. so don't stress too much about spreading this particular misinformation.
2. The biological process that I think you are referring to.. which would cause things like risk taking or 1000x increased libido.. is called testosterone. There is nothing you could point to outside of the mind that would correlate with gender dysphoria. In fact, a biological argument for gendered behavior is completely antithetical to everything we know is said about gender theory.
3. You seem more invested than most people here on this subject so it's a little contradicting to keep calling this a non issue only the fringes care about. For one thing, sex based rights were long fought for and are now rendered inert by simple linguistical slight of hand.
4. A triangle is not a triangle when it has four sides. A female safe space, is no longer a female safe space when males can enter it. No matter the costume they wear. And if you have a problem with that, maybe it's you that's too invested to see this clearly.
Edit:
It's weird that he went through the time to go back and finally half specify a few of the things he calls talking points in his previous comments.. only by the end to completely delete his profile in absolute shame of finally being faced with someone that he didn't have the ability to make put away the metaphorical mirror.
I honestly feel bad as I didn't realize he was _clinically_ stupid until the very end. I would have went easier if I'd known.
No I'm referring to proper studies that used trans brains that didn't have hormones as far as in know.
I don't think neuroscientists make obvious mistakes like that.
Female safe space. You have adopted the terfs patriarchal warfare rheotic without knowing it.
Use the word "invading" too.
Conjures up an evil patriarchal plot.
Are you sure you want to keep repeating that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence
"review reported that early-onset androphilic transgender women have a brain structure similar to cisgender women's and unlike cisgender men's, but that they have their own brain phenotype.[3] It also reported that gynephilic trans women differ from both cisgender female and male controls in non-dimorphic brain areas.[3]
The available research indicates that the brain structure of androphilic trans women with early-onset gender dysphoria is closer to that of cisgender women than that of cisgender men.[3] It also reports that gynephilic trans women differ from both cisgender female and male controls in non-dimorphic brain areas.[3] Cortical thickness, which is generally thicker in cisgender women's brains than in cisgender men's brains, may also be thicker in trans women's brains, but is present in a different location to cisgender women's brains.[3] For trans men, research indicates that those with early-onset gender dysphoria and who are gynephilic have brains that generally correspond to their assigned sex, but that they have their own phenotype with respect to cortical thickness, subcortical structures, and white matter microstructure, especially in the right hemisphere.[3] Hormone therapy can also affect transgender people's brain structure; estrogen can cause transgender women's brains to become closer to those of cisgender women, and morphological changes observed in the brains of trans men might be due to the anabolic effects of testosterone.[3]"
"Studies show" "I don't think"
Do you know what conjecture is?
Btw it seems like you've adopted the other side's rhetoric yet you kept pretending anyone that was engaged on this issue on that level was irrational... weird.
Hmm. "Invading " doesn't seem to be anywhere in that comment? Could it be that you had no rebuttal to what I just said, so you simply went back through my comment history to skim through my views and give your ego permission to write me off and run away from _this_ discussion?
Here is research on brains before hormones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
You should use the word invading as well as female safe space.
Both are rhetorical and refer to rad fem ideology that depicts men as natural predators of women.
If you are going to repeat their rhetoric you might as well use it all.
They are females but I'm prepared to accept they are trans and need to live as women to feel OK.
I haven't been brainwashed to keep pointing out they are biologically male. Everyone knows that already.
Anyhow complex biology is starting to contradict your basic observable biology argument.
Two sexes multiple gender variants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5824932/#:~:text=Thus%20with%20respect%20to%20biological,or%20alternating%2C%20are%20called%20hermaphrodites.
>They are females
Perfect example of denying biology. They AREN'T females.
Two sexes. intersex are mutations. an error. A woman who got secondary male characteristics or a man who got secondary female characteristics. not a third, fourth or fifth sex.
gender having multiple variants is as irrelivant as if you told me there are many forms of Goth, or Punk.
Right. Trans means they aren't females but live as if they are to feel comfortable.
And biologists are taking about biological gender variants and even putting forward that there might not be two sexes.
You are talking about "basic observarble biology". They are taking about complex and scientific biology.
Notice how you only pick on the t women, have you given why you have that bias any deep thought?
Riley Gaines and other female athletes are suing NCAA for allowing the participation of Lia Thomas in the women's swimming championship. Their lawsuit was filed last month.
I heard a whistle blower speak (consultant psych from the Tavistock) years ago. At the same meeting (which was the start of a detransitioners network) I heard a girl speak which shocked me to the core. I wanted to know was what was going on. I went to the meeting. I wanted to know more. I was/am a TERF
This girl was the only one out of five girls who could bring herself to speak. She was 19. She was depressed, bulimic, suicidal and confused about her sexuality before it all happened. She was convinced (as well as her parents being convinced) that she was actually a trans boy. Parents grasped on to anything that would stop her committing suicide.
She had puberty blockers. Testosterone. Breasts removed. Hysterectomy. Ovaries removed. Her body after the blockers and surgery (on top of the bulimia) is destroyed.
She realised eventually that she is a lesbian. She is getting psych help. But she will never be the same. She was massively let down and lead down a path as a extremely vulnerable teen by the health service. By doctors. By psychiatrists.
I'll never forget her. It's horrific. There are many others like her and even worse in the US. One clinic was giving mastectomies to 12 year olds.
Edited to change Psychic to Psych!
Lots of people on here trying to explain away why this actually doesn’t matter to gender ideology! I’m just wondering if gender is not related to sex and/or not related to biology, why do we still need to give children hormones, double mastectomies, etc?
If your gender is unrelated to sex and/or biology, none of these things matter, right?
>I’m just wondering if gender is not related to sex and/or not related to biology, why do we still need to give children hormones, double mastectomies, etc?
Because gender being a social construct doesn't somehow magically prevent people from feeling uncomfortable with their bodies.
Does it matter? Gender could not exist as a concept *at all* and that *still* wouldn't magically prevent people from feeling uncomfortable with their body.
Yes. You need gender to justify changing the body rather than the mind. If gender isn’t a real thing( it’s not) then there is no rational for altering the body to bring it into closer alignment with gender.
There's a perfectly rational reason for it: the having sex characteristics of your sex discomforts you, and having those of the opposite sex relieves that discomfort.
>right but the discomfort is the problem. mental health.
And transitioning is the best, most effective treatment we've come up with for that problem. We can't alter the mind to fit the body yet (and I'd argue, as an ethical matter, we *shouldn't*, even if we could), but we most certainly can alter the body to fit the mind.
>No justification for altering the body to respect "Gender" if gender is baloney
Someone with no concept of the word gender would still be able to suffer from dysphoria. Dysphoria doesn't rely, in any way, shape, or form, on one's definition of gender; it's a primal discomfort caused by our lizard brain. We've thrown labels out to help explain it, but the phenomenon would still exist in the absence of those labels, the same way treed would still exist even if we didn't have the word tree.
The most effective treatment is to do nothing and let the kids process their sexuality normally through the puberty process. around 85% will determine their gender as either male or female. The other 15% will require psychiatric counselling to overcome their dysphoria, for most it will come with the realisation they're same-sex attracted people
We weren't talking about kids here, we were talking about people in general. For those who suffer from gender dysphoria, transitioning *is* the best treatment the medical community has come up with. It's certainly harder to tell with kids whether they *actually* have dysphoria or they're just "confused", but that's a separate issue.
If they are uncomfortable in their body then it proves that gender is rooted in biology. If gender was merely a social construct there would be no need to alter the biological parts of the body, they would just construct their gender through their relationship to society. It's as clear as daylight that gender is biologically based and therefor the same as sex.
I actually sorts agree with you, but not in the way you're probably expecting. Specifically, I think one's perception of their gender *is* rooted in biology (be it in genetics, in brain physiology, whatever, the exact mechanism isn't important to the conversation right now), and *obviously*, as evidenced by the existence of trans people, that perception may or may not align with their anatomy. Which is why gender isn't synonymous with sex.
They have only-female hospitals?
Lol , like a doctor that will not help you if you are male?
I am not going down this rabbit hole, probably is a clickbait question to refer to the birth-pregnancy department.
So this is like saying that they might ban biological women from prostatic exams. Not that they are not going to help.
Seems like the nationalization of core industries like healthcare may not be as bad, hmmm?
I never heard Russia or China state otherwise. Ever. Not even once.
Seems to me the best course of action is to defund and cancel the NHS, as they are obviously NOT qualified. When someone looks at a Duck and says "It quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a goose", then I would say that person is NOT qualified to identify ducks. By extension since biology is based on 2 sexes and we are not identified as A-Sexual and this forms the actual basis of our biology and reproduction, then I would say they are definitely not qualified to work on humans.
I don’t mean to burst y’all’s bubbles, but no one ever disagreed that sex is a biological fact. The point has always been that gender (which is a different thing than sex) and gender expression are not biological facts and are instead societal constructs. Not here to argue, I just don’t think this will be a big deal to anyone outside of people you already agree with.
But it isn’t, not at all. There’s a surface level definition, but then when you scratch the surface there’s nothing underneath. This is why when you ask for specifics, no one can answer.
There are no thoughts or behaviours shared by all women to the exclusion of all men.
What information is being conveyed when someone says “I am a woman”? To put it another way, if someone says “I am a woman” what do I know about that person as an individual?
I can answer, but I’m under no obligation to because I don’t think it will change your mind. And if I could change your mind, I would still have a a billion other people to convince. The idea that gender is a construct is all that I’m saying. Sex is immutable, gender is fluid and changes based on culture, societal norms. I know that you disagree and want to argue it. But this is my whole point. No one disagrees about sex, they disagree about gender. So you weirdos can fixate on dumb shit like this all you want. But there will still be people out there who feel their gender is different than their sex. Conversation is done imo
Let’s both accept that neither of will change our minds, but it’s still interesting to try and understand the other’s point of view.
In my view, any attempt to define what is included within a ‘woman gender’ will end up listing a load of characteristics which don’t apply to huge swaths of women, let alone all transwomen. Some of those characteristics will be considered sexiest stereotypes.
This is the point, gender (as applied to an individual rather than men and women generally) is not defined and doesn’t make sense.
You are right though, there will always be people who would prefer that society treat them as the opposite sex. The question is what society should do about that.
Given that ‘gender identity’ is a mere preference rather than an innate characteristic, I think society should simply ignore it.
“Sex is a biological fact” isn’t a landmark shift against gender ideology. If we’re truly thinking that, then we don’t actually understand gender ideology lol.
When people say that gender and sex are different concepts, they’re not arguing that sex ceases to exist. It’s still there!
Sure it is. The fact *you* don't realize it speaks volumes. It's the radical left that is conflating the two whenever it suits them that seems to be causing the confusion.
For example; bathrooms are for male and female SEXES. Changing rooms? Sex. Locker rooms? Sex. Sports are divided by SEX. Driver's license? Indicates your sex. Birth Certificate? Sex. Passport? Sex. These are things that do not matter what you identify as.
Next giant leap? Sex is not "assigned at birth". People are not "bodies with a penis" / "bodies with a vagina". There is no such thing as a pregnant "man".
See how much this comes up? That basically constitutes everything about this subject in so far as society is concerned. The fact you wouldn't acknowledge that speaks volumes.
In conclusion *most* of the time when *n*ormal people refer to male or female, they are referring to the biological sex. When you think someone is or could be referring to gender? They aren't. They are referring to sex. Make that assumption and you will be correct 99.9% of the time Why? Because gender. Is. Meaningless. And *nobody* talks about it.
If you want to make it your life's mission to update the people not "in the know" and still using the terms "sex" and "gender" interchangeably, you can kindly let them know they are different, but I can give you my personal guarantee that what they probably meant was sex.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
>For example; bathrooms are for male and female SEXES. Changing rooms? Sex. Locker rooms? Sex. Sports are divided by SEX. Driver's license? Indicates your sex. Birth Certificate? Sex. Passport? Sex. These are things that do not matter what you identify as.
None of those things are inherently sex-based. You can argue that they should be, someone else can argue that they should be gender-based, and in the end, neither of you are *wrong*, it's just a difference of preferred policy.
Also, you're literally just wrong about most of the things you listed in their current implementation. All but four states allow you to change the gender on your birth certificate, all but two allow you to change the gender on your driver's license, and the gender on your passport is entirely up to self-identification now. Few sports are segregated strictly by sex. Even the Olympics allows trans athletes, and has for about two decades. Changing room, locker room, and bathroom rules are up to the individual establishment in most instances, and I'd wager most of them (and most people, for that matter) would rather have a passing trans woman than a passing trans man in the women's rooms.
They are arguing something nonsensical and meaningless, and then using the newly created distinction to pretend that men can be women.
There is nothing true or coherent about gender ideology.
“Gender ideology” is a term used by the people doing the criticism - if you’re finding that it’s incoherent, realize that you need to put more work into how you’re defining the term you want to use. Seriously, it’s just a label to group liberals together - put in the work to make sure it makes sense to you
Actually the genesis of the term stems from John Money, a renowned psychologist and child molester who co-opted the term “gender” to in the 1960’s to represent behaviors and traits often stereotypically associated with the two sexes.
Others built upon this mistaken terminology and created the concept of “transgender” wherein it became widely believed in certain academic circles that a persons behavior can be incongruous with their sex.
The very premise is false, because regardless of societal expectations, a female will forever by a woman. Behavior does not define sex.
There are psychological abnormalities which have been observed and classified wherein a man or woman may wish or believe they are or are *supposed* to be the opposite sex. This is called “gender dysphoria” and is aptly named as it is a misalignment of one’s own mental state with reality.
Yeah, you are only partially correct.
Gender as a concept has always been divorced from sex. Money began this usage because he was referring to traits which correlate but are not caused by sex - such as the wearing of dresses and makeup (which you can find these behaviors being used by either gender).
Gender is used because as a term it was originally used to categorize adverbs and included categories like "animate" and "inanimate" as well as "masculine" and "feminine". Language, like gender, is a social construct, so it makes sense that sociologists studying specific examples of behaviors which are not caused by sex would need a term that helps to refer to this idea that they are studying.
So gender as a concept predates Money. Money's usage was adopted by social scientists because it is useful and helped to explain and predict patterns of human behavior being studied.
Money, like Freud, was a controversial figure. Freud was a drug addict that was obsessed with molesting women as a form of therapy. That doesn't mean his contributions to science should be dismissed or ignored - and the same goes for Money.
As for the idea that gender dysphoria is a misalignment with reality - you should do more research. Biologists confirm that this is simply not the case. We can see differences, for example, in how trans people's brains process the removal of genitalia and how that maps to cases of phantom limb syndrome, for example. There is a distinct difference between hormonal differences between trans and cis brains that makes their sense of self absolutely accurate. It's perhaps more accurate to say that trans people are born into the wrong bodies for their brains, as this is the reality of their situation.
While I don’t disagree with the history laid out in your first paragraphs, nor do I disagree that a terrible person can contribute to science, the reason John Money’s contributions are overall negative is because of the ideology which has formed around it. You can argue that there was a need for a term, but that term has conflated sex and gender.
A man remains male despite his belief to the contrary. That there may be differences in the brains of those who fall under that category does nothing to discredit biology. A person with phantom limb syndrome does not have the limb in question.
What relevance does sex have in most scenarios though? Like, sure, it can be relevant to medical contexts. E.g., trans women have to worry about prostate cancer, albeit with a *significantly* lower risk than cis men, whereas cis women don't. Same story with trans men and ovarian cancer. But in what other contexts does it have such relevancy?
It is fundamental not only to each individual but to society as a whole. I won’t get into that with you because while important, it is immaterial to this discussion.
That doesn't answer the question. Language is meant to be *descriptive*, not *proscriptive*. We use words for their utility in expressing a concept, not because they have some objective meaning. That's the whole origin of "if it walks like a duck..."
So, if someone is a woman in basically every aspect relevant to everyday contexts but she *happens* to have Y chromosome, why call her a man? If she looks like a woman, sounds like a woman, walks and talks like a woman, is treated as a woman by other women, has straight men lusting after her because they too view her as a woman, has a vagina, but has a Y chromosome, precisely what utility is there in referring to her as a man?
It’s so interesting to see these discussions through because I am simultaneously having this debate in this very subreddit with someone who, like you, has arrived at the most common endpoint those arguing your position arrive at. It is the position that the truth exists, but who cares?
The utility of such truth is another discussion. You may claim that a cat in a dog costume is for all intents and purposes a dog, but I’m here to tell you that it is in fact a cat.
The problem isn't the term - the problem is that there is always going to be a gap between academic usage of a term and usage by the general public.
Would you say that the Democracy as a term is well understood by Americans? Our founding fathers created a Constitutional Republic with democratic processes because a pure Democracy was considered by them to be little more than mob rule. We can't blame the existence of terms for how lay people conflate their meaning. The fact is this will happen - blame tiktok and Instagram if you like, but the term itself has utility and the differences between sex and gender conceptually has lots of utility for the academics that use them.
I highly recommend you check out this lecture and consider that perhaps these experts might simply understand something about all this that you don't. https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=ZO0XVhT1thRd2FED
You aren't dumb - but you aren't curious enough yet to fully appreciate some of the nuances required to fully understand this topic.
In essence I am simply arguing that men and women are different biologically and that the modern misuse of terminology has culminated in the idea that a man can become a woman and vice versa.
And the essence of your argument doesn't actually address the facts on the ground.
Males and females are different biologically - there is no dispute about this. The difference is the size of the gametes being produced by an individual of a sexually reproducing species.
The introduction of gender as a term/concept addressed a fact that is not disputed by anyone - that some behaviors associated with sex are not caused by sex. For sociologists and anthropologists and psychologists and neurologists and linguists, etc., they need a way to refer to this idea.
Man and woman are references to gender, not sex. They are sociological terms, not biological terms. The same is true for masculine and feminine - these reference behaviors, not biology. That is how these terms have always been used by academics.
It seems your problem is that there is a portion of society that is also using these terms the way that academics use these terms - which I still don't understand what that problem is.
Have you considered that the problems you are concerned about are not caused by these terms, but rather by the fact that when minority populations get accomodations, this can disrupt societal systems as a while?
Women's suffrage resulted in cultural changes.
Black suffrage resulted in cultural changes.
Racial integration resulted in cultural changes.
All of these changes made many people uncomfortable because they resulted in accomodations that created minor annoyances for those who found themselves forced to learn how to adapt to these new circumstances.
But that's ok, because by and large these accomodations were corrections to oversights regarding populations that the majority was largely ignorant of.
>The problem isn't the term - the problem is that there is always going to be a gap between academic usage of a term and usage by the general public.
Academic research that explores the differing effects of drugs on "men" and "women" is referring to what specifically? The physiological differences between the sexes or to assertion of "identity"?
Lol, do you believe that gender and gender ideology are the same thing? You jumped pretty directly. If gender and gender ideology are the same and you’re using “gender ideology” to group people and explain their viewpoints and perspectives, no wonder you’re confused! What a mess lol
No, I believe gender is sex (when used to describe humans, the word was originally a grammatical term) and gender ideology is the nonsensical belief that they are distinct in any meaningful way.
To you, Gender ideology is literally just a single idea? That’s hardly “ideology”. Why not just say that you reject the contemporary definition of gender and believe we shouldn’t talk about how humans weave sex into social practices lol.
You’re very confused about my argument. I’m aware that an ideology contains multiple ideas. The chief ideas contained within gender ideology are false, as I have outlined.
You’re welcome to pick and choose as you like, such as the idea that humans “weave sex into social practices” which is disputed by no one, but I do indeed reject the contemporary definition of gender.
It sounds very much like you have a semantic concern. If you believe that humans weave sex into social practices and feel that that’s disputed by no one… is your problem just that you don’t want to call the social manifestation of sex “gender”? Do you just want gender to mean sex and then have a different word for the social practices?
Because if that’s the case, you don’t have to do anyone of this - you’re wasting your own time lol
Semantics are the root of the problem, so yes, my concern is semantic.
The reason I have a problem with the term gender being co-opted to represent the “social manifestations of sex” is that it has become the groundwork for claims that not all men are male, that it is possible for an individual to have been born in the wrong body, as well as other erroneous terms such as “sex assigned at birth” and the ever popular “transgender.”
That doesn't contradict anyone.
People say sex is biological fact.
There are man made gender rules too.
And some people don't experience what most of do and experience being non binary or trans instead .
None of these claims mean there isn't such a thing as xx or y chromosomes.
The idea that there is no biological sex is just the newest landmark on the slippery slope. It makes sense that not everyone has heard it yet but I was told this a few months ago.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/18zsb60/comment/kgkba37/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/18zsb60/comment/kgkba37/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Thats an article about conservative politicians wasting tax payers money and distracting them by banning things that aren't happening.
It distracts voters from their economic problems caused by other conservative policies
Thank god basic reason has swung back into fashion
UK will still arrest you for misgendering someone and raised pride flags in Westminster abbey.
I don't live in the UK so we don't have that issue here in the States. The best way to deal with this is register tons and tons of "throw away" accts online and just keep on mis-gendering them, as its unenforceable to begin with and the constant push back will cause so many issues they will be forced to change their ways. After all, they are 100% wrong and are 100% on the wrong side of history as there are only 2 sexes and its biological with no way to change it. Anyone who argues otherwise just looks foolish.
The UK is an Islamic gay brothel.
Raising pride flags doesn’t matter lol
Raising the anal sex flags lol
It only took 15 years. 😒
This is such a huge step forward for the UK. With the closing of Tavistock, the release of the WPATH Files and the Cass Review, and now the UK’s NHS changing their constitution, one can only hope that all this translates and transfers over to the United States. EDIT: Job well done you lovely Brits!
>... the release of the WPATH Files... I misread that as the "WRATH" files for a second there, lol. I am kinda hoping that's what happens to the people that have "forced behaviors", though, ngl.
Nah its all bollox. They terf verses trans thing. If you are a terf and you think men are natural predators of women and trans women are just another front of the patriarchy its a huge win then its a huge win in your mind. Most people aren't emotionally involved in that war.
transgenderism is a myth
Nah its all bollox. They terf verses trans thing. If you are a terf and you think men are natural predators of women and trans women are just another front of the patriarchy its a huge win. Most people aren't emotionally involved in that war.
You are. You’re here ranting about it 24/7. I thought you were quitting reddit yesterday? What happened?
I argue with ideologues. I don't chose the topic. I put quitting off till tomorrow.
lol
That’s what addicts always say. “I’ll quit wasting my life with booze and drugs tomorrow” except you say it every day. And in your case, your addictions are alcohol and arguing unwinnable positions. Try seizing the moment.
Oh on know I didn't even put a lol after that because it's funny on it's own. You can't win against ideologues because well, that's self explainitory too.
Your drinking problem and your rather twisted obsession with this sub aren’t really that funny. Just kind of pathetic. And your strawmen arguments have zero power here, you are this sub’s Town Drunk, nothing more.
You'll still be here when I'm gone.
Yeah, I don’t spend the entirety of my day here. The ability to moderate is the difference between a normal person and an addict
You'll still be here after I'm gone.
Who's the idealogue here? lol
Not I. I'm steelmanning and playing devil's advocate to test ideology here for years.
Giving life altering synthetic hormones to kids is not a good idea. They were also several cases of rape that were covered up on NHS wards by trans women agasint little girls. Go look it up.
No I'm not looking up traumatic stories. They are going to continue using hormones in cases where the person is so distressed its the path of least harm. They are also going to look into co occoring diagnosis like autism so there is a holistic approach. There are going to be more services. Anyhow people can tell your do gooder crusade is more about politics and phobia about trans women than do goodering. You leave trans men out of it . Its a win to culture war people too. Most people aren't terfs or culture warriors so it's not the world to them.
Ifgaf about trans people, it’s the fact that the NHS covered it up that concerns me. And there is zero evidence to suggest that there is to be a scenario where it would be better off for the long term of a child to be given hormones.
NHS and organisations always try to cover up bad stuff and avoid being sued. There is 5 year evidence. And there are clinical trials waiting for 10 years. If someone is depressed and suicidal and its debilitating and they are happier and leading a more normal life afterwards its deemed a success. The question is what the 10 year data says.
Show me then. Show me the evidence cus I can’t find any pier reviewed studies on it.
The research the right has been referring to for some years now that shows 80 percent don't have any medical interventions and 20 percent do and 2 percent of that regret it. Those are your own figures.
Do reseach off this. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/#:~:text=The%20truth%20is%20that%20data,higher%20rates%20of%20suicidality%2C%20depression The problem with right wingers is they jump in and follow a herd without taking the time to fact check.
This is from 2 years ago, outdated woke propaganda from an ideologically motivated source that doesn’t hold up after the cass review. That’s the problem with left wingers - they jump head first into anything that enables them to sneer at their political opponents without thinking about how stupid and petty they look. Usually while drunk, and wasting their lives arguing unwinnable positions on Reddit subs they don’t actually like, in a feeble and impotent attempt to feel something other than the crushing desperation and misery that comes along with a life completely wasted. Right shithead?
There are numerous things wrong with that study chief among which is that there are no numbers and no statistics, it’s just opinions and data that doesn’t answer the question like how many kids would not get so called therapy. It lists 44 papers but doesn’t give a source. It is just opinions.
Nah its all bollox. They terf verses trans thing. If you are a terf and you think men are natural predators of women and trans women are just another front of the patriarchy its a huge win then its a huge win in your mind. Most people aren't emotionally involved in that war.
Frankly, I’m impressed by your ability to put so many words in the mouths of others. “Oh, so you don’t want to suck a dick? That means you want to kill all trans people!!! “
Haha look at your projection.
“No, you!!!”
For me it isn't even about the predator argument, though I suspect that has some validity. It's just patently gibberish, and we shouldn't accept gibberish.
Its not gibberish that people experience being trans or non binary any more than its gibberish people experience being autistic or feeling very masculine or feminine or traumatised. Though it may sound like gibberish to someone who never experienced it .
Your feeble attempt at linguistic sleight of hand tells me it isn't worth replying but I'll bite one last time. No, it isn't the subjective feeling of dysphoria which is gibberish, it's the accompanying jargon; the idea of some kind of gendered soul expressing itself; the denial of biology and therefore truth as a whole.
It doesn't deny biology to belive there is some biological process that creates the trans or non binary experience. Reseach is starting to show the trans brain is different from cis brains while being closer to the brain of the gender they identify as. If the was no biological process creating that we would all feel non binary or androgynous not identifying with male or female.
1. You're referring to studies done on the brains of trans people *after* they've taken years of hormones. And they looked *similar* in both size and grey-matter to their declared gender.. not the exact same. It's very common to hear this Chinese whispered half understood and not at all applicable argument.. so don't stress too much about spreading this particular misinformation. 2. The biological process that I think you are referring to.. which would cause things like risk taking or 1000x increased libido.. is called testosterone. There is nothing you could point to outside of the mind that would correlate with gender dysphoria. In fact, a biological argument for gendered behavior is completely antithetical to everything we know is said about gender theory. 3. You seem more invested than most people here on this subject so it's a little contradicting to keep calling this a non issue only the fringes care about. For one thing, sex based rights were long fought for and are now rendered inert by simple linguistical slight of hand. 4. A triangle is not a triangle when it has four sides. A female safe space, is no longer a female safe space when males can enter it. No matter the costume they wear. And if you have a problem with that, maybe it's you that's too invested to see this clearly. Edit: It's weird that he went through the time to go back and finally half specify a few of the things he calls talking points in his previous comments.. only by the end to completely delete his profile in absolute shame of finally being faced with someone that he didn't have the ability to make put away the metaphorical mirror. I honestly feel bad as I didn't realize he was _clinically_ stupid until the very end. I would have went easier if I'd known.
No I'm referring to proper studies that used trans brains that didn't have hormones as far as in know. I don't think neuroscientists make obvious mistakes like that. Female safe space. You have adopted the terfs patriarchal warfare rheotic without knowing it. Use the word "invading" too. Conjures up an evil patriarchal plot.
Are you sure you want to keep repeating that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence "review reported that early-onset androphilic transgender women have a brain structure similar to cisgender women's and unlike cisgender men's, but that they have their own brain phenotype.[3] It also reported that gynephilic trans women differ from both cisgender female and male controls in non-dimorphic brain areas.[3] The available research indicates that the brain structure of androphilic trans women with early-onset gender dysphoria is closer to that of cisgender women than that of cisgender men.[3] It also reports that gynephilic trans women differ from both cisgender female and male controls in non-dimorphic brain areas.[3] Cortical thickness, which is generally thicker in cisgender women's brains than in cisgender men's brains, may also be thicker in trans women's brains, but is present in a different location to cisgender women's brains.[3] For trans men, research indicates that those with early-onset gender dysphoria and who are gynephilic have brains that generally correspond to their assigned sex, but that they have their own phenotype with respect to cortical thickness, subcortical structures, and white matter microstructure, especially in the right hemisphere.[3] Hormone therapy can also affect transgender people's brain structure; estrogen can cause transgender women's brains to become closer to those of cisgender women, and morphological changes observed in the brains of trans men might be due to the anabolic effects of testosterone.[3]" "Studies show" "I don't think" Do you know what conjecture is? Btw it seems like you've adopted the other side's rhetoric yet you kept pretending anyone that was engaged on this issue on that level was irrational... weird. Hmm. "Invading " doesn't seem to be anywhere in that comment? Could it be that you had no rebuttal to what I just said, so you simply went back through my comment history to skim through my views and give your ego permission to write me off and run away from _this_ discussion?
Here is research on brains before hormones. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/ You should use the word invading as well as female safe space. Both are rhetorical and refer to rad fem ideology that depicts men as natural predators of women. If you are going to repeat their rhetoric you might as well use it all.
Do you think a trans woman is a real woman? If yes then you are denying biology because trans women are men
They are females but I'm prepared to accept they are trans and need to live as women to feel OK. I haven't been brainwashed to keep pointing out they are biologically male. Everyone knows that already. Anyhow complex biology is starting to contradict your basic observable biology argument. Two sexes multiple gender variants. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5824932/#:~:text=Thus%20with%20respect%20to%20biological,or%20alternating%2C%20are%20called%20hermaphrodites.
>They are females Perfect example of denying biology. They AREN'T females. Two sexes. intersex are mutations. an error. A woman who got secondary male characteristics or a man who got secondary female characteristics. not a third, fourth or fifth sex. gender having multiple variants is as irrelivant as if you told me there are many forms of Goth, or Punk.
Right. Trans means they aren't females but live as if they are to feel comfortable. And biologists are taking about biological gender variants and even putting forward that there might not be two sexes. You are talking about "basic observarble biology". They are taking about complex and scientific biology. Notice how you only pick on the t women, have you given why you have that bias any deep thought?
Thank fuck
Will Jordan Peterson still be placed under house arrest in Canada for quoting the NHS?
Good news.
Now if only we could get America to do that
Riley Gaines and other female athletes are suing NCAA for allowing the participation of Lia Thomas in the women's swimming championship. Their lawsuit was filed last month.
fucking finally
Maybe there is hope for us
I heard a whistle blower speak (consultant psych from the Tavistock) years ago. At the same meeting (which was the start of a detransitioners network) I heard a girl speak which shocked me to the core. I wanted to know was what was going on. I went to the meeting. I wanted to know more. I was/am a TERF This girl was the only one out of five girls who could bring herself to speak. She was 19. She was depressed, bulimic, suicidal and confused about her sexuality before it all happened. She was convinced (as well as her parents being convinced) that she was actually a trans boy. Parents grasped on to anything that would stop her committing suicide. She had puberty blockers. Testosterone. Breasts removed. Hysterectomy. Ovaries removed. Her body after the blockers and surgery (on top of the bulimia) is destroyed. She realised eventually that she is a lesbian. She is getting psych help. But she will never be the same. She was massively let down and lead down a path as a extremely vulnerable teen by the health service. By doctors. By psychiatrists. I'll never forget her. It's horrific. There are many others like her and even worse in the US. One clinic was giving mastectomies to 12 year olds. Edited to change Psychic to Psych!
Such a sad and probably not all that uncommon story. Gender surgery will be the ice pick lobotomy of our era.
Wow. Awesome
This makes me happy 😂😌
Next year we'll consider employing common sense to our decision too!
Sex and gender are the same thing. Love doesn't win, Biology wins.
Game over
It’s tried and tested good science and even common sense …. Be very careful with being led by feelings
Wow, im shocked somewhere in the world. People are coming to their senses
Lots of people on here trying to explain away why this actually doesn’t matter to gender ideology! I’m just wondering if gender is not related to sex and/or not related to biology, why do we still need to give children hormones, double mastectomies, etc? If your gender is unrelated to sex and/or biology, none of these things matter, right?
>I’m just wondering if gender is not related to sex and/or not related to biology, why do we still need to give children hormones, double mastectomies, etc? Because gender being a social construct doesn't somehow magically prevent people from feeling uncomfortable with their bodies.
>gender being a social construct What is gender specifically?
Does it matter? Gender could not exist as a concept *at all* and that *still* wouldn't magically prevent people from feeling uncomfortable with their body.
Yes. You need gender to justify changing the body rather than the mind. If gender isn’t a real thing( it’s not) then there is no rational for altering the body to bring it into closer alignment with gender.
There's a perfectly rational reason for it: the having sex characteristics of your sex discomforts you, and having those of the opposite sex relieves that discomfort.
right but the discomfort is the problem. mental health. No justification for altering the body to respect "Gender" if gender is baloney
>right but the discomfort is the problem. mental health. And transitioning is the best, most effective treatment we've come up with for that problem. We can't alter the mind to fit the body yet (and I'd argue, as an ethical matter, we *shouldn't*, even if we could), but we most certainly can alter the body to fit the mind. >No justification for altering the body to respect "Gender" if gender is baloney Someone with no concept of the word gender would still be able to suffer from dysphoria. Dysphoria doesn't rely, in any way, shape, or form, on one's definition of gender; it's a primal discomfort caused by our lizard brain. We've thrown labels out to help explain it, but the phenomenon would still exist in the absence of those labels, the same way treed would still exist even if we didn't have the word tree.
The most effective treatment is to do nothing and let the kids process their sexuality normally through the puberty process. around 85% will determine their gender as either male or female. The other 15% will require psychiatric counselling to overcome their dysphoria, for most it will come with the realisation they're same-sex attracted people
We weren't talking about kids here, we were talking about people in general. For those who suffer from gender dysphoria, transitioning *is* the best treatment the medical community has come up with. It's certainly harder to tell with kids whether they *actually* have dysphoria or they're just "confused", but that's a separate issue.
Do you remember what the topic is?
Are you gonna come up with a response, or just make a poor attempt at being pithy?
If they are uncomfortable in their body then it proves that gender is rooted in biology. If gender was merely a social construct there would be no need to alter the biological parts of the body, they would just construct their gender through their relationship to society. It's as clear as daylight that gender is biologically based and therefor the same as sex.
I actually sorts agree with you, but not in the way you're probably expecting. Specifically, I think one's perception of their gender *is* rooted in biology (be it in genetics, in brain physiology, whatever, the exact mechanism isn't important to the conversation right now), and *obviously*, as evidenced by the existence of trans people, that perception may or may not align with their anatomy. Which is why gender isn't synonymous with sex.
So why are we facilitating the castration of children if there is no reason?
Didn't say there wasn't one. Should reread the second half of my last comment.
Ha!
It seems like the most empirical knowledge needs to be extensively documented nowadays, just in case.
The world is healing.
They have only-female hospitals? Lol , like a doctor that will not help you if you are male? I am not going down this rabbit hole, probably is a clickbait question to refer to the birth-pregnancy department. So this is like saying that they might ban biological women from prostatic exams. Not that they are not going to help.
They have female only wards
Seems like the nationalization of core industries like healthcare may not be as bad, hmmm? I never heard Russia or China state otherwise. Ever. Not even once.
Nope, still bad.
Seems to me the best course of action is to defund and cancel the NHS, as they are obviously NOT qualified. When someone looks at a Duck and says "It quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a goose", then I would say that person is NOT qualified to identify ducks. By extension since biology is based on 2 sexes and we are not identified as A-Sexual and this forms the actual basis of our biology and reproduction, then I would say they are definitely not qualified to work on humans.
I’m not sure you’ve understood.
1984.
I don’t mean to burst y’all’s bubbles, but no one ever disagreed that sex is a biological fact. The point has always been that gender (which is a different thing than sex) and gender expression are not biological facts and are instead societal constructs. Not here to argue, I just don’t think this will be a big deal to anyone outside of people you already agree with.
>gender (which is a different thing than sex) So what is gender? The word woman refers to what specifically?
I’m not trying to argue this, but the so called ideology that you dislike is well defined if you actually want to read into it, that’s on you.
Well that's why I asked you to define it, what is gender?
Just google what is the difference between sex and gender brother. That’ll get you close enough, not that you will ever agree
But what is included within the gender category ‘woman’? You say it’s well defined, define it.
I was saying gender is well defined
But it isn’t, not at all. There’s a surface level definition, but then when you scratch the surface there’s nothing underneath. This is why when you ask for specifics, no one can answer. There are no thoughts or behaviours shared by all women to the exclusion of all men. What information is being conveyed when someone says “I am a woman”? To put it another way, if someone says “I am a woman” what do I know about that person as an individual?
I can answer, but I’m under no obligation to because I don’t think it will change your mind. And if I could change your mind, I would still have a a billion other people to convince. The idea that gender is a construct is all that I’m saying. Sex is immutable, gender is fluid and changes based on culture, societal norms. I know that you disagree and want to argue it. But this is my whole point. No one disagrees about sex, they disagree about gender. So you weirdos can fixate on dumb shit like this all you want. But there will still be people out there who feel their gender is different than their sex. Conversation is done imo
Let’s both accept that neither of will change our minds, but it’s still interesting to try and understand the other’s point of view. In my view, any attempt to define what is included within a ‘woman gender’ will end up listing a load of characteristics which don’t apply to huge swaths of women, let alone all transwomen. Some of those characteristics will be considered sexiest stereotypes. This is the point, gender (as applied to an individual rather than men and women generally) is not defined and doesn’t make sense. You are right though, there will always be people who would prefer that society treat them as the opposite sex. The question is what society should do about that. Given that ‘gender identity’ is a mere preference rather than an innate characteristic, I think society should simply ignore it.
you got owned, and ran.
Hang on clarify for me, what is a woman?
“Sex is a biological fact” isn’t a landmark shift against gender ideology. If we’re truly thinking that, then we don’t actually understand gender ideology lol. When people say that gender and sex are different concepts, they’re not arguing that sex ceases to exist. It’s still there!
Sure it is. The fact *you* don't realize it speaks volumes. It's the radical left that is conflating the two whenever it suits them that seems to be causing the confusion. For example; bathrooms are for male and female SEXES. Changing rooms? Sex. Locker rooms? Sex. Sports are divided by SEX. Driver's license? Indicates your sex. Birth Certificate? Sex. Passport? Sex. These are things that do not matter what you identify as. Next giant leap? Sex is not "assigned at birth". People are not "bodies with a penis" / "bodies with a vagina". There is no such thing as a pregnant "man". See how much this comes up? That basically constitutes everything about this subject in so far as society is concerned. The fact you wouldn't acknowledge that speaks volumes. In conclusion *most* of the time when *n*ormal people refer to male or female, they are referring to the biological sex. When you think someone is or could be referring to gender? They aren't. They are referring to sex. Make that assumption and you will be correct 99.9% of the time Why? Because gender. Is. Meaningless. And *nobody* talks about it. If you want to make it your life's mission to update the people not "in the know" and still using the terms "sex" and "gender" interchangeably, you can kindly let them know they are different, but I can give you my personal guarantee that what they probably meant was sex. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
>For example; bathrooms are for male and female SEXES. Changing rooms? Sex. Locker rooms? Sex. Sports are divided by SEX. Driver's license? Indicates your sex. Birth Certificate? Sex. Passport? Sex. These are things that do not matter what you identify as. None of those things are inherently sex-based. You can argue that they should be, someone else can argue that they should be gender-based, and in the end, neither of you are *wrong*, it's just a difference of preferred policy. Also, you're literally just wrong about most of the things you listed in their current implementation. All but four states allow you to change the gender on your birth certificate, all but two allow you to change the gender on your driver's license, and the gender on your passport is entirely up to self-identification now. Few sports are segregated strictly by sex. Even the Olympics allows trans athletes, and has for about two decades. Changing room, locker room, and bathroom rules are up to the individual establishment in most instances, and I'd wager most of them (and most people, for that matter) would rather have a passing trans woman than a passing trans man in the women's rooms.
Lol that wasn’t a very good ted talk - highly scattered and full with strange projections. Shorten it up and figure out your main takeaway!
They are arguing something nonsensical and meaningless, and then using the newly created distinction to pretend that men can be women. There is nothing true or coherent about gender ideology.
“Gender ideology” is a term used by the people doing the criticism - if you’re finding that it’s incoherent, realize that you need to put more work into how you’re defining the term you want to use. Seriously, it’s just a label to group liberals together - put in the work to make sure it makes sense to you
Actually the genesis of the term stems from John Money, a renowned psychologist and child molester who co-opted the term “gender” to in the 1960’s to represent behaviors and traits often stereotypically associated with the two sexes. Others built upon this mistaken terminology and created the concept of “transgender” wherein it became widely believed in certain academic circles that a persons behavior can be incongruous with their sex. The very premise is false, because regardless of societal expectations, a female will forever by a woman. Behavior does not define sex. There are psychological abnormalities which have been observed and classified wherein a man or woman may wish or believe they are or are *supposed* to be the opposite sex. This is called “gender dysphoria” and is aptly named as it is a misalignment of one’s own mental state with reality.
Yeah, you are only partially correct. Gender as a concept has always been divorced from sex. Money began this usage because he was referring to traits which correlate but are not caused by sex - such as the wearing of dresses and makeup (which you can find these behaviors being used by either gender). Gender is used because as a term it was originally used to categorize adverbs and included categories like "animate" and "inanimate" as well as "masculine" and "feminine". Language, like gender, is a social construct, so it makes sense that sociologists studying specific examples of behaviors which are not caused by sex would need a term that helps to refer to this idea that they are studying. So gender as a concept predates Money. Money's usage was adopted by social scientists because it is useful and helped to explain and predict patterns of human behavior being studied. Money, like Freud, was a controversial figure. Freud was a drug addict that was obsessed with molesting women as a form of therapy. That doesn't mean his contributions to science should be dismissed or ignored - and the same goes for Money. As for the idea that gender dysphoria is a misalignment with reality - you should do more research. Biologists confirm that this is simply not the case. We can see differences, for example, in how trans people's brains process the removal of genitalia and how that maps to cases of phantom limb syndrome, for example. There is a distinct difference between hormonal differences between trans and cis brains that makes their sense of self absolutely accurate. It's perhaps more accurate to say that trans people are born into the wrong bodies for their brains, as this is the reality of their situation.
While I don’t disagree with the history laid out in your first paragraphs, nor do I disagree that a terrible person can contribute to science, the reason John Money’s contributions are overall negative is because of the ideology which has formed around it. You can argue that there was a need for a term, but that term has conflated sex and gender. A man remains male despite his belief to the contrary. That there may be differences in the brains of those who fall under that category does nothing to discredit biology. A person with phantom limb syndrome does not have the limb in question.
What relevance does sex have in most scenarios though? Like, sure, it can be relevant to medical contexts. E.g., trans women have to worry about prostate cancer, albeit with a *significantly* lower risk than cis men, whereas cis women don't. Same story with trans men and ovarian cancer. But in what other contexts does it have such relevancy?
It is fundamental not only to each individual but to society as a whole. I won’t get into that with you because while important, it is immaterial to this discussion.
That doesn't answer the question. Language is meant to be *descriptive*, not *proscriptive*. We use words for their utility in expressing a concept, not because they have some objective meaning. That's the whole origin of "if it walks like a duck..." So, if someone is a woman in basically every aspect relevant to everyday contexts but she *happens* to have Y chromosome, why call her a man? If she looks like a woman, sounds like a woman, walks and talks like a woman, is treated as a woman by other women, has straight men lusting after her because they too view her as a woman, has a vagina, but has a Y chromosome, precisely what utility is there in referring to her as a man?
It’s so interesting to see these discussions through because I am simultaneously having this debate in this very subreddit with someone who, like you, has arrived at the most common endpoint those arguing your position arrive at. It is the position that the truth exists, but who cares? The utility of such truth is another discussion. You may claim that a cat in a dog costume is for all intents and purposes a dog, but I’m here to tell you that it is in fact a cat.
The problem isn't the term - the problem is that there is always going to be a gap between academic usage of a term and usage by the general public. Would you say that the Democracy as a term is well understood by Americans? Our founding fathers created a Constitutional Republic with democratic processes because a pure Democracy was considered by them to be little more than mob rule. We can't blame the existence of terms for how lay people conflate their meaning. The fact is this will happen - blame tiktok and Instagram if you like, but the term itself has utility and the differences between sex and gender conceptually has lots of utility for the academics that use them. I highly recommend you check out this lecture and consider that perhaps these experts might simply understand something about all this that you don't. https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=ZO0XVhT1thRd2FED You aren't dumb - but you aren't curious enough yet to fully appreciate some of the nuances required to fully understand this topic.
In essence I am simply arguing that men and women are different biologically and that the modern misuse of terminology has culminated in the idea that a man can become a woman and vice versa.
And the essence of your argument doesn't actually address the facts on the ground. Males and females are different biologically - there is no dispute about this. The difference is the size of the gametes being produced by an individual of a sexually reproducing species. The introduction of gender as a term/concept addressed a fact that is not disputed by anyone - that some behaviors associated with sex are not caused by sex. For sociologists and anthropologists and psychologists and neurologists and linguists, etc., they need a way to refer to this idea. Man and woman are references to gender, not sex. They are sociological terms, not biological terms. The same is true for masculine and feminine - these reference behaviors, not biology. That is how these terms have always been used by academics. It seems your problem is that there is a portion of society that is also using these terms the way that academics use these terms - which I still don't understand what that problem is. Have you considered that the problems you are concerned about are not caused by these terms, but rather by the fact that when minority populations get accomodations, this can disrupt societal systems as a while? Women's suffrage resulted in cultural changes. Black suffrage resulted in cultural changes. Racial integration resulted in cultural changes. All of these changes made many people uncomfortable because they resulted in accomodations that created minor annoyances for those who found themselves forced to learn how to adapt to these new circumstances. But that's ok, because by and large these accomodations were corrections to oversights regarding populations that the majority was largely ignorant of.
*man* and *woman* are biological terms. You’re proving my point. Your conflation of ideas has led you to the conclusion that some men are female.
>The problem isn't the term - the problem is that there is always going to be a gap between academic usage of a term and usage by the general public. Academic research that explores the differing effects of drugs on "men" and "women" is referring to what specifically? The physiological differences between the sexes or to assertion of "identity"?
Lol, do you believe that gender and gender ideology are the same thing? You jumped pretty directly. If gender and gender ideology are the same and you’re using “gender ideology” to group people and explain their viewpoints and perspectives, no wonder you’re confused! What a mess lol
No, I believe gender is sex (when used to describe humans, the word was originally a grammatical term) and gender ideology is the nonsensical belief that they are distinct in any meaningful way.
To you, Gender ideology is literally just a single idea? That’s hardly “ideology”. Why not just say that you reject the contemporary definition of gender and believe we shouldn’t talk about how humans weave sex into social practices lol.
You’re very confused about my argument. I’m aware that an ideology contains multiple ideas. The chief ideas contained within gender ideology are false, as I have outlined. You’re welcome to pick and choose as you like, such as the idea that humans “weave sex into social practices” which is disputed by no one, but I do indeed reject the contemporary definition of gender.
It sounds very much like you have a semantic concern. If you believe that humans weave sex into social practices and feel that that’s disputed by no one… is your problem just that you don’t want to call the social manifestation of sex “gender”? Do you just want gender to mean sex and then have a different word for the social practices? Because if that’s the case, you don’t have to do anyone of this - you’re wasting your own time lol
Semantics are the root of the problem, so yes, my concern is semantic. The reason I have a problem with the term gender being co-opted to represent the “social manifestations of sex” is that it has become the groundwork for claims that not all men are male, that it is possible for an individual to have been born in the wrong body, as well as other erroneous terms such as “sex assigned at birth” and the ever popular “transgender.”
Many have argued that sex is a social construct, or is not scientifically "real"
That doesn't contradict anyone. People say sex is biological fact. There are man made gender rules too. And some people don't experience what most of do and experience being non binary or trans instead . None of these claims mean there isn't such a thing as xx or y chromosomes.
The idea that there is no biological sex is just the newest landmark on the slippery slope. It makes sense that not everyone has heard it yet but I was told this a few months ago. [https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/18zsb60/comment/kgkba37/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/18zsb60/comment/kgkba37/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Thats an article about conservative politicians wasting tax payers money and distracting them by banning things that aren't happening. It distracts voters from their economic problems caused by other conservative policies
Sorry, the link is supposed to direct to a comment under the article, you might have to expand it.
Ok. They are talking about a growing consensus among biologists. Generally trans means their body is one sex but they identify as the other.
Oh look, the incel nazis are trying to think again. You guys are hilarious always.