Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Well, 3 is just true.  When someone's contribution is "I'm skeptical of your identity, and the burden of proof is on you to prove you are who and what you say you are", I'm going to go on guard.

Sure it's technically true!  You can doubt basically everything, maybe you're a brain in a jar or the only self-aware mind etc.  Yet expressing one's doubt about *certain* things can be telling.  If I keep "just asking questions" about the shape of the earth, I might expect some reasonable pushback whenever I bring up the topic.  If I keep "expressing doubt" about whether a certain president was born in America, people might wonder if I'm really *just* exercising skepticism.

People might find it rude to express such skepticism specifically towards a highly-politicized minority.  It often turns out to be a passive-aggressive way to deny people's identities without actually making the case.  "I'm only skeptical- the burden of proof is still on you!  I'm not claiming you aren't a man/woman/etc, I simply don't believe you".  That's not a neutral statement.

This tactic is necessary because it's impossible to argue someone else's gender, and yet people feel compelled to try.  We're taught that being cis is normal, so being trans isn't normal, which means it must be confronted and "questioned" until it goes away.  That's a self-perpetuating taboo, not anything rational or good.  It is not natural, it was learned and taught by media and society.

The acceptance of trans people is a cultural revolution that rejects that brainwashing.  It's a more natural position, and it's analogous to how we culturally accepted that homosexuality is natural too.  This is the meaning behind "Born this way" or "We're here, we're queer" etc: This isn't *new*.  People have always been trans and/or gay.  It's the oppression that is unnatural: drilled into us and used by the elite to distract us from wealth disparity.  Fear as a tool.

[EuchreJack]

Points two and three strike me as.... condescending and gatekeeping, I suppose? Is the onus of proof on the believer, or the sceptic?

I heard variations of that calculus analogy so many times from... religious people. "You are a child in spiritual matters and try discussing things you can't possibly understand."

It should be "We are children in spiritual matters, and try discussing things that we can't possibly understand."
Anyone that says "You" is an unrepentant prick and should be excommunicated.

[Strongpoint]

This tactic is necessary because it's impossible to argue someone else's gender, and yet people feel compelled to try. 

It is impossible to argue someone's gender if it is defined in a certain way. If this word is defined differently - it is absolutely possible.

Also, If I identify myself in a certain way (let's say an atheist) and someone doubts my self-identification I am not going to be insulted. I'll simply say - I am an atheist because of A, B, and C. If the person will disagree with me saying that A, B, and C are not enough (or irrelevant), I'll simply make a conclusion that we have different definitions\understandings and move on.

Other people have no obligation to agree with my self-identification. After all, I may be mistaken, missusing words, or lying.

[voliol]

This tactic is necessary because it's impossible to argue someone else's gender, and yet people feel compelled to try. 

It is impossible to argue someone's gender if it is defined in a certain way. If this word is defined differently - it is absolutely possible.

Also, If I identify myself in a certain way (let's say an atheist) and someone doubts my self-identification I am not going to be insulted. I'll simply say - I am an atheist because of A, B, and C. If the person will disagree with me saying that A, B, and C are not enough (or irrelevant), I'll simply make a conclusion that we have different definitions\understandings and move on.

Other people have no obligation to agree with my self-identification. After all, I may be mistaken, missusing words, or lying.

There's some context missing here, in that doubting trans people's self-identified gender is often done in conjunction with denying them healthcare they could die without. Trans people are touchy about gender for a reason, that being a great deal of oppression.

Gender and sexuality both has lots of nuances, which we could learn about from each other, in and outside of this thread. At the same time there can be hardships in such a discussion, because LGBTQ+ people face a lot of unfair treatment, and the lot of us sadly bring with us some bias from the world we were brought up in. Going into that difficult discussion, hedging on the other person lying won't lead to anything constructive. Please don't.

[Rolan7]

Also, If I identify myself in a certain way (let's say an atheist) and someone doubts my self-identification I am not going to be insulted. I'll simply say - I am an atheist because of A, B, and C. If the person will disagree with me saying that A, B, and C are not enough (or irrelevant), I'll simply make a conclusion that we have different definitions\understandings and move on.

Other people have no obligation to agree with my self-identification. After all, I may be mistaken, missusing words, or lying.

"I wouldn't be insulted" is such a fascinating argument.
First off, while atheists are certainly not a monolith, I think most are offended in that situation.  Presuppositionalists (deists who believe that everybody *actually* knows their god, most people just lie about it) get very indignant responses.  Simply for having that belief!  It's a very rude idea to express.

But "I would simply present a reasonable and structured defense of my identity"...
That is easy to say when religion isn't as omnipresent in small talk as it used to be, whereas gender comes up in every in-person interaction.  Usually explicitly via gendered language, and often confrontationally when it's a trans (or trans-suspected) person.

You are hypothetically accepting the burden of patiently justifying yourself if someone happens to *doubt you're an atheist*, and implying that we should accept that same burden every time someone *doubts we're our gender*.  That's an enormous burden

Furthermore both are impossible.  You cannot demonstrate you are an atheist.  I cannot demonstrate that I'm non-binary.  Not only do neither of have a responsibility to do so, we *can't*.  There's some outside chance we could justify the existence of atheists or trans people to this random offensive person, but we cannot prove who we are.  We don't need to.  The burden is on them to, IDK, make whatever case they're actually making when they "express doubt".  I think that's why presuppositionalists are so annoying: there's not even anything to argue against, they're simply rude.  Same with someone who "doubts" my gender, and demands that I "prove" it.  There's nothing to say.

This tactic is necessary because it's impossible to argue someone else's gender, and yet people feel compelled to try. 

It is impossible to argue someone's gender if it is defined in a certain way. If this word is defined differently - it is absolutely possible.

Yeah, I mean, I could define womanhood as "being me" and I'd be pretty set I guess.  Though I guess I still couldn't prove it to anyone else...  Radical skepticism is funny that way.

Here comes a simple problem. We don't even have a unified definition of the word "gender"

I regularly encounter variations of 4 major definitions.

1) Gender is exactly the same thing as sex but when talking about humans. It is binary. Can be either male or female.

This definition is plainly useless (redundant), very new (reactionary), and presupposes that sex is binary when there are obvious counterexamples.  There are male traits and female traits, sure, and even one person with both destroys this definition.

There exist people who do believe sex and gender are linked, and go on to change their sex and thus gender.  These are "transmedicalists" and I'm not a fan, frankly.

2) Gender is a biochemically determined behavioral pattern that usually matches sex but not always. It is also a spectrum. Can be male, female, both(or neither).

This sounds like that "gendered brains" theory.  I don't know what to make of it, but the data didn't sound conclusive.  I'm very skeptical but I'm interested.

3) Gender is (quoting WHO) characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed.  This includes norms, behaviors and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other.

4) Gender is an internal feeling of being X. Usually it is male or female but can be both, neither, fluid, and more.

My problem is... those 4 are absolutely incompatible.

Yeah, these last two make the most sense!
Technically 3 is more accurate, though slightly incomplete.  Genders are socially constructed and subjective.  "Manhood" means very different things in different cultures, and often changes decade by decade.  There are common ideas but the details evolve (or just change ).  Womanhood too.  And other genders as well.

These social constructs are just as real as states, or money: very real, just subjective and transitory.  They DO have the value that we invest in them.

So that's manhood.  So what is a man?  _{A MISERABLE PILE OF- *cough* sorry}
Is a man someone who fits into the local definition of manhood more than other genders?
NO!  We go by part 4.  A man need not perform any masculinity whatsoever.  He must simply identify as a man.  Typically that means he wants to be manly, at least in some ways, but there is no requirement whatsoever.

This may sound extreme, but in my opinion it's the only consistent option.  Elizabethan nobles didn't retroactively stop being men because frilly neck scruffs and leggings look effiminate now, and it was never their codpieces that made them men.  They wore codpieces because they were men, and that drove them to perform masculinity.

Perhaps (definitely) some people weren't men, yet they performed masculinity anyway because of social pressure.  Those are trans people.  We cannot prove they were trans- we could not prove it even if they were alive today, changing into one of those 20-ft-wide cage dresses at the first opportunity.  It's impossible and unnecessary to prove.

In many countries, trans people seeking health care are forced into an artificial gender binary to access affirming care like hormones.  Someone seeking estrogen is required to perform femininity, often for years, in a way we would never demand of a cis woman.  Oh-so-progressive nordic countries only recently stopped sterilizing trans people as a banally routine part of gender-affirming care.  This is madness that cannot be justified.  Someone's gender cannot be proven, and that's fine.

Bodily autonomy is the only reason we need to allow- AKA, not restrict- access to hormone therapy.

[Rolan7]

HOLY FUCKING BINGLE it did it again!!
https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/the-emails/
From the hacktivist that revealed the do-not-fly lists were kinda racist , a new drop revealing that anti-trans activists don't always believe what they're saying

Spoiler: CW transphobia, duh: One example, which ought to concern the few conservative trans people who play along with this shit (click to show/hide)

Edit:
As a palate cleanser, two funny tweets about Samus:
https://twitter.com/b0tster/status/1633164041391599624
https://twitter.com/b0tster/status/1633518951194927109

thats a misconception its actually progesterone that lets you use the morphing ball

YESSS LET'S GO

[Strongpoint]

There's some context missing here, in that doubting trans people's self-identified gender is often done in conjunction with denying them healthcare they could die without. Trans people are touchy about gender for a reason, that being a great deal of oppression.

Gender and sexuality both has lots of nuances, which we could learn about from each other, in and outside of this thread. At the same time there can be hardships in such a discussion, because LGBTQ+ people face a lot of unfair treatment, and the lot of us sadly bring with us some bias from the world we were brought up in. Going into that difficult discussion, hedging on the other person lying won't lead to anything constructive. Please don't.

I honestly don't understand how denying healthcare is legal. I am very confused why stories like Robert Eads' don't end in a bunch of people going to jail. Doctors may have a right to say "I disagree that you are a wo(man)", they shouldn't have a right to deny treatment because of that.

I also understand the desire of changing LEGAL definitions of the words gender, man, woman (not that I think it is a good idea in all cases) It can also be done without changing the definition by rewriting rules and replacing relevant instances of "(wo)men" with "men and trans(wo)men"

I never said that trans people are lying, Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that people have a full right to not believe someone when they say I am X. Demanding them to accept every "I am X" claim is just plain wrong and very anti-freedom of thought. Also, I listed lying as one of the  possible reasons why a claim can be false. Why are you jumping on the lying part?

*I do think that not all people who claim to be trans are actually trans, some are mistaken, especially young people but it is a rather complicated discussion. Intentionally lying and putting yourself into a marginalized group is rather... unlikely

[Strongpoint]

Furthermore both are impossible.  You cannot demonstrate you are an atheist.  I cannot demonstrate that I'm non-binary.  Not only do neither of have a responsibility to do so, we *can't*.  There's some outside chance we could justify the existence of atheists or trans people to this random offensive person, but we cannot prove who we are.  We don't need to.  The burden is on them to, IDK, make whatever case they're actually making when they "express doubt"

I can't demonstrate that I am an atheist but I can explain why I consider myself to be one and what I mean by the word atheist. My words are not enough for them? Do they define the word differently? Whatever. It is their right. As long as they don't mess with my actual rights (like punishing me for 'wrongly' identifying myself as an atheist or trying to lock me into a mental institution to cure my 'delusion') it is their business. I understand that Trans people do have their actual rights messed with.

But it is this messing with the rights that should be the focus, not trying to forcefully change someone's opinions on who other people are.

Technically 3 is more accurate, though slightly incomplete.  Genders are socially constructed and subjective.  "Manhood" means very different things in different cultures, and often changes decade by decade.  There are common ideas but the details evolve (or just change ).  Womanhood too.  And other genders as well.

Doesn't it mean that being trans has nothing to do with genetics or other aspects of one's biology and it is simply the result of someone's upbringing and cultural background?

  A man need not perform any masculinity whatsoever.  He must simply identify as a man.  Typically that means he wants to be manly, at least in some ways, but there is no requirement whatsoever.

So your definition of a man is "Man is any person who considers himself to be a man". Do I understand you correctly?

[Rolan7]

But it is this messing with the rights that should be the focus, not trying to forcefully change someone's opinions on who other people are.

Oh, sure!
And when someone accosts me in public about gender, I'm going to say whatever I need to to survive the situation.  I'm not going to explain the history and nature of gender and patiently explain my "position" and why I feel this way.  They may be dangerous and they definitely don't care.

But yeah I can't force anyone to change their opinion about literally anything.  I might call them rude if they go out of their way to misgender people (like my dad does), but people in real life are very often rude.  The consequences of that are social.

Technically 3 is more accurate, though slightly incomplete.  Genders are socially constructed and subjective.  "Manhood" means very different things in different cultures, and often changes decade by decade.  There are common ideas but the details evolve (or just change ).  Womanhood too.  And other genders as well.

Doesn't it mean that being trans has nothing to do with genetics or other aspects of one's biology and it is simply the result of someone's upbringing and cultural background?

Maaaybe.  I'm not convinced of the "gendered brain" theory but I'm ready to listen.  There's clearly a correlation between male physical traits and forming a more masculine gender identity.  "Males tend to be men" you could say.  But we constructed "manhood" in response to male traits, so that's not surprising.  I'm curious what will happen when people grow up with more genders around.

Much (all?) dysphoria is totally cultural, though.  Many trans women shave their legs, but smooth legs are not a female trait.  Leg shaving is just something (many) women do.  It's still very important to people, but it's subjective.

  A man need not perform any masculinity whatsoever.  He must simply identify as a man.  Typically that means he wants to be manly, at least in some ways, but there is no requirement whatsoever.

So your definition of a man is "Man is any person who considers himself to be a man". Do I understand you correctly?

Dangit, I got in a conversation about this recently so I should have been more clear.  That's on me.

"Identity" is tricky.  I think it is a subconscious phenomenon.  That's why many people are trans without knowing it yet.  Figuring out one's true identity can take a very long time...  It helps to have the words to better understand one's psyche, and the freedom to experiment.

So a trans man can say they're a woman.  They can truly believe they're a woman.  But I would say that they can only actually identify as a man.

Yet someone "identifying themself" is just claiming their identity, they could be mistaken or lying.  English is tricky.

[Egan_BW]

So your definition of a man is "Man is any person who considers himself to be a man". Do I understand you correctly?

no a man is just any member of our species the word you're looking for is wereman

sprints out of thread cackling madly

[voliol]

There's some context missing here, in that doubting trans people's self-identified gender is often done in conjunction with denying them healthcare they could die without. Trans people are touchy about gender for a reason, that being a great deal of oppression.

Gender and sexuality both has lots of nuances, which we could learn about from each other, in and outside of this thread. At the same time there can be hardships in such a discussion, because LGBTQ+ people face a lot of unfair treatment, and the lot of us sadly bring with us some bias from the world we were brought up in. Going into that difficult discussion, hedging on the other person lying won't lead to anything constructive. Please don't.

I honestly don't understand how denying healthcare is legal. I am very confused why stories like Robert Eads' don't end in a bunch of people going to jail. Doctors may have a right to say "I disagree that you are a wo(man)", they shouldn't have a right to deny treatment because of that.

I also understand the desire of changing LEGAL definitions of the words gender, man, woman (not that I think it is a good idea in all cases) It can also be done without changing the definition by rewriting rules and replacing relevant instances of "(wo)men" with "men and trans(wo)men"

I never said that trans people are lying, Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that people have a full right to not believe someone when they say I am X. Demanding them to accept every "I am X" claim is just plain wrong and very anti-freedom of thought. Also, I listed lying as one of the  possible reasons why a claim can be false. Why are you jumping on the lying part?

*I do think that not all people who claim to be trans are actually trans, some are mistaken, especially young people but it is a rather complicated discussion. Intentionally lying and putting yourself into a marginalized group is rather... unlikely

I never said you said trans people are lying either .
It seemed strange to me that when talking about how to take people's words about their gender, a general statement about all reasons a claim can be false, if these reasons didn't connect back to the matter at hand. And as you noted lying was the stranger one of these, so that's why I "jumped" on it. A misunderstanding, I suppose?

So your definition of a man is "Man is any person who considers himself to be a man". Do I understand you correctly?

no a man is just any member of our species the word you're looking for is wereman

sprints out of thread cackling madly

This thread has been won. Time to pack your things up, folks!

[Rolan7]

I'd like to point out that Strongpoint is arguing for access to HRT, and so is moderately [slur] on-side despite all the words we've exchanged.

Death before detransition.  Literally.
I can't do it again- the decade and a half as a scared adult, repressing, or the couple months where my hormones didn't work.  F'ing castor oil.

I can't do it again.  I won't.
All the changes to my sex, they're just gravy.
I lived a half-life until I started hormones.  So, so late.

[KittyTac]

Well I am cis (though bi/pan) and I support people expressing their identity as best as possible. I might not fully understand but I am fully supportive and accepting.

[Strongpoint]

Much (all?) dysphoria is totally cultural, though.  Many trans women shave their legs, but smooth legs are not a female trait.  Leg shaving is just something (many) women do.  It's still very important to people, but it's subjective.

Wait. I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

Are you implying that a cisgender woman who shaves her legs has a slightly different version of female gender compared to a cisgender woman who doesn't?

And if I will start shaving my legs (let's say my girlfriend will say she prefers cleanly shaven male legs) will it mean that I moved somewhere on the spectrum and my gender has slightly changed to another variant of male?

[Rolan7]

Much (all?) dysphoria is totally cultural, though.  Many trans women shave their legs, but smooth legs are not a female trait.  Leg shaving is just something (many) women do.  It's still very important to people, but it's subjective.

Wait. I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

Are you implying that a cisgender woman who shaves her legs has a slightly different version of female gender compared to a cisgender woman who doesn't?

And if I will start shaving my legs (let's say my girlfriend will say she prefers cleanly shaven male legs) will it mean that I moved somewhere on the spectrum and my gender has slightly changed to another variant of male?

Hmm...
I meant that women who shave their legs do so not because they are female, but because they are women.

A woman in the USA who doesn't shave her legs is still a woman, because she identifies as one, she is simple Gender-Non-Conforming in that way.  also, based- saw this with women cyclists pretty often.  Were they forming a "gender"?  That's above my pay grade.

Similarly, a man who is secure in his masculinity can certainly shave his legs.  That was even more common in cycling (there are pragmatic concerns regarding crashing on asphalt, but also it's sexy).  I don't think that spawns a new variant gender, but I suppose that's debateable- are metrosexual men a gender?  Perhaps.

But you do not join that group simply by shaving your legs!  It is something less concrete and more personal than that.  Any inclination to do so could be a reflection of your inner gender.

also, controversial take:  I think one's true gender is fixed by adulthood.  Some trans people say it can change, but I think conversion therapy is fundamentally impossible rather than simply moronic.