Trans people can't and #WontBeErased by attempts to define them out of existence. Presidents, however, can have that label removed. You'll need to vote, reasonable & compassionate Americans.
-
-
And no I do not use the term gender apart from discussion here, because I have not confidence any listener will share the same conceptual understanding as me. If a shit-show of a word. Any use of the word gender I use, I can replace with a ‘sex’ alternative. e.g.
-
This looks like turning into one of those discussions of definitions which does very little to engage with the reality of what is going on with gender identities different from biological sex and which is not yet well understood. We can't define the reality away.
-
I am afraid if we cannot agree on definitions then no meaningful communication can take place between us. We will just be speaking gobbledegook at each other. A shame, but it is late here, so goodnight.
-
I think we just have to go with what we can agree on. What there is evidence for. Much talking past each other comes from thinking the other person is defining things the same way as you. Hence calling people delusional. I agree it would be nice to have clear boundaries tho.
-
Eg "You're delusional if you think men can be women" usually means "You're delusional if you think people born with penises can be people born with vaginas" but the other person didn't mean that at all so isn't delusional but defining things differently.
-
I want to go with the evidence which is that people exist who feel sure they are the opposite sex to their genitals & science is starting to show us why they do. In practical terms, we need to recognise that this causes some unique rights & access problems which need addressing.
-
And this can't be helped by insisting that trans men and women be treated straightforwardly as the sex their genitals indicate or as the sex they feel themselves to be. Eg Neither men's nor women's prisons are appropriate for trans women. It all needs to worked out.
-
This isn't helped by people wanting to have everything cut and dried right now for ideological reasons with the solution being a straightforward claim that trans women are women or they are men. They are trans women & we have yet to fully understand this & work out ethical stuff.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think these terms like sex and gender, male and female are deserving of analytical definitions, not loose handwaving that may be masking fallacies, errors and nonsense. Protections and rights surely depend on this.
-
And people make them. We just can't enforce them on everyone or agree on them and so the meaning generally remains a vague & fluffy "characteristics, identities & behaviours which are associated with sex but are not biological organs."
-
Is that another way of saying there are no stable meanings to these words? And if so, how are you not erasing the concept of ‘woman’ as having an objective, material meaning?
-
The reality is that there is no stable meanings to these words, yes. If there were, you'd not be arguing to me that gender doesn't make sense because it would. I didn't make the reality and pretending it doesn't exist won't produce an objective, material meaning.
-
One day, we might know all there is to know about why some people are trans and be able to plot the biological aspects of what makes someone a woman including gonads, brains, hormones, responses to pheromones, genetics etc and be able to plot people on that. We can't now.
-
Currently, you are just arguing to restrict the objective meaning to gonads (almost no-one aegues gonads are not objectively real & bimodal. The whole concept of trans relies on it) and ignore the rest of relevant biology. That will fail as trans people will continue to exist.
-
There are only two sexual reproductive classes, male and female, and the entire history of the male-class exploiting the female-class has occurred along those lines. Women being infertile (e.g.) did not enable them to opt out of the oppressed class.
-
It matters that women be able to make those statements and have them mean something. It's the entire core of feminism.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
"Gender", as it's being used here, means role-playing, with the players attempting to impose those roles on other people's perceptions. Unsurprisingly, you can't do that. It's impossible to dictate how other people experience your behaviour, and it's all about behaviour.
-
OK, well, it's unlikely to go away as gendered behaviour seems to be related very much to our evolved brains and hormones and the cognitive and psychological differences these produce.
-
To use an unscientific term: Phooey! I wrote behaviour, not gendered behaviour. You've reversed the concept. Gender is fashionable nonsense, nothing to do with brains or hormones, though it'd be good if more people used the latter.
-
OK, if you don't include psychological, cognitive & behavioural differences which replicate panculturally and also in other apes - eg men being more interested in working with things and women with people - in 'gender,' I agree that social-only aspects of performance exist.
-
eg, men in Saudi Arabia wear what we would call dresses and associate with women's wear but they don't and consider it traditionally masculine attire. This is a culturally constructed difference.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.