In fairness, it should be asked: What is the definition of...

[Kfox]

"Man" is a gender identity.

I've never understood this idea of "gender identity" perhaps you can explain it to me.

It is often - but not always - reflected in "masculine" gender expression.

What constitutes "masculine" gender expression varies over time and by culture, social group, etc.

That's really it.

What is a masculine gender expression? Are you suggesting there are some expressions males exhibit that females don't? If so, can you provide a list of some of some gender expressions?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes.

So your worldview leaves room for atypical men (e.g. trans men and intersex men) to still be men?

 

[Kfox]

Ignoring gender orientation.

What do we call a woman who has a hysterectomy (bleeding) or breast removal (cancer)? Is she still a woman?

That's like asking what do we call someone who has a leg removed; are they still human? Of course! Just because someone has one leg due to surgery does not take away from the fact that it is natural for humans to have 2 legs. The same goes for a woman who has some of her female parts removed.

What about those who have both male and female hormones?

That is called "intersex" (considered a deformity) According to science; all mammals are either male, female, or intersex. The extremely rare occasion of someone having both sex organs, chromosomes and sex organs not aligning aligning, does happen among mammals and when it does it's considered a deformity.

 

[Kfox]

So your worldview leaves room for atypical men (e.g. trans men and intersex men) to still be men?

I don't think I have a worldview, I'm just going by the science. It is my understanding trans men are actually biological women; so no, and intersex is a category by itself; not intersex men or intersex women.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've never understood this idea of "gender identity" perhaps you can explain it to me.

What is a masculine gender expression? Are you suggesting there are some expressions males exhibit that females don't? If so, can you provide a list of some of some gender expressions?

If you sincerely want to understand gender identity and expression better, this explainer provides a good introduction:

https://www.genderbread.org/wp-cont...king-through-the-Binary-by-Sam-Killermann.pdf

 

[Fallen Prophet]

A Man?

Another thread in this Debate Forum, asks "What is the definition of a woman?" It has had 8,160 views, and 542 responses -- which I think is a bunch. So it apparently aroused some interest.

But why has nobody yet thought to ask the corollary question: "What is the definition of a man?"

There was a time in human history, not so very long ago, when a woman who didn't behave "like a woman" could be considered a witch, and hanged, burned, squashed, drowned or whatever seemed most appropriate. To not be the mother of children was once considered to a very odd state of affairs for a woman. And to even think about being a leader, meddling in politics, pretending to be able to assess guilt in a trial, or worse, to participate in a trial as a litigator were simply unthinkable. Now, they can indeed aspire to be Presidents and Prime Ministers (and in many countries -- alas not the US -- are just that).

So? What is a man? (And I don't think Rudyard Kipling's "If" is a good place to start, even though it ends with the line: "And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!"

The reason that the woman question has been gaining so much traction is because women have been viewed as an oppressed minority and their status is as such is under threat due to the effect of transgender ideology taking hold in our society and government.

Many men were also hanged, burned, squashed, drowned, etc. after being accused of being "witches" - it wasn't happening only to the ladies.

I would claim that a "man" is an adult human male.

 

[ChristineM]

You've obviously misunderstood the point I was making; glad we could clear that up.

No misunderstanding, however it seem to be you cleared up your meaning on a later post. Cheers

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think I have a worldview, I'm just going by the science.

Please don't insult science by trying to pass bigotry off as "science."

It is my understanding trans men are actually biological women; so no,

You think that "female" = "woman"? Why?

and intersex is a category by itself; not intersex men or intersex women.

There are a range of intersex conditions; intersexuality is about as common as red hair.

Most people who are intersex don't even realize it. They just have a chromosomal or hormonal anomaly, and even though they may present physically as typical male or female, they don't have the typical "XY with an SRY gene on the Y chromosome / XX without an SRY gene on the X chromosome and typical hormonal levels, hormonal sensitivity, etc."

You could be intersex and not even know it. If you found out that, say, you're XX with an SRY gene on one of your X chromosomes, do you think this would invalidate your gender identity?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Please don't insult science by trying to pass bigotry off as "science."

Sorry - but you are the insulting science by claiming that a biological fact could be "bigotry".

If trans-men were men or males - then you would just call them men or males.

But they are not - so you call them trans.

It is not bigotry to disagree with someone's perception of themselves.

You think that "female" = "woman"? Why?

Because of biology and all human history.

Playing word games does not change anything.

And don't think any of us missed the media or "the establishment" claiming that Rachel Levine was the "first female four-star admiral in the commissioned corps".

Rachel Levine - Wikipedia

So - people tried to use little weasel word mind games to make "female" about biological sex and "woman" about the made-up concept of "gender" - but they showed their hand.

Their goal of trying to trick people into believe that males can be females was exposed - proving that they themselves also always believed that "female" = "woman".

Even though they talked about "gender" for decades - it was all a facade - to confuse biological sex.

There are a range of intersex conditions; intersexuality is about as common as red hair.

This is simply not true.

The term "intersex" does not include conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia.

Intersex refers to when chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female.

So - when we remove all the conditions that Anne Fausto-Sterling insisted should be considered "intersex" the percentage drops from about 1.7% to 0.018%.

Then when you consider that red-haired people make up approximately 3% of the population - people are about 167 times more likely to be red-headed than intersex.

Most people who are intersex don't even realize it. They just have a chromosomal or hormonal anomaly, and even though they may present physically as typical male or female, they don't have the typical "XY with an SRY gene on the Y chromosome / XX without an SRY gene on the X chromosome and typical hormonal levels, hormonal sensitivity, etc."

You could be intersex and not even know it. If you found out that, say, you're XX with an SRY gene on one of your X chromosomes, do you think this would invalidate your gender identity?

Intersex has nothing to do with transgenderism or gender identity.

 

[Nakosis]

A Man?

Another thread in this Debate Forum, asks "What is the definition of a woman?" It has had 8,160 views, and 542 responses -- which I think is a bunch. So it apparently aroused some interest.

But why has nobody yet thought to ask the corollary question: "What is the definition of a man?"

There was a time in human history, not so very long ago, when a woman who didn't behave "like a woman" could be considered a witch, and hanged, burned, squashed, drowned or whatever seemed most appropriate. To not be the mother of children was once considered to a very odd state of affairs for a woman. And to even think about being a leader, meddling in politics, pretending to be able to assess guilt in a trial, or worse, to participate in a trial as a litigator were simply unthinkable. Now, they can indeed aspire to be Presidents and Prime Ministers (and in many countries -- alas not the US -- are just that).

So? What is a man? (And I don't think Rudyard Kipling's "If" is a good place to start, even though it ends with the line: "And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!"

I'm think maybe I just ought to stick to male/female definitions.
Man/woman have a lot of cultural baggage.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry - but you are the insulting science by claiming that a biological fact could be "bigotry".

If trans-men were men or males - then you would just call them men or males.

But they are not - so you call them trans.

It is not bigotry to disagree with someone's perception of themselves.

Because of biology and all human history.

Playing word games does not change anything.

But what is the need to so carefully identify everyone, that one must say: that guy is a man, but that other one is a trans-man?

Let's just suppose that you are trying to hire a programmer, and two apparently quite masculine fellows are applying. Clearly, they both identify as "male," so what does it matter to you, as a hiring manager, what hidden within their trousers? How would that impact your decision, and would it be more or less important than their coding ability and their work history?

 

[Kfox]

Please don't insult science by trying to pass bigotry off as "science."

Bigotry? Are you gonna be a CB and cry bigotry every time someone says something you don't like? C'mon.....

You think that "female" = "woman"? Why?

Because the Dictionary defines it that way. Or are you gonna call that bigotry as well.....
Definition of woman | Dictionary.com

There are a range of intersex conditions; intersexuality is about as common as red hair.

Most people who are intersex don't even realize it. They just have a chromosomal or hormonal anomaly, and even though they may present physically as typical male or female, they don't have the typical "XY with an SRY gene on the Y chromosome / XX without an SRY gene on the X chromosome and typical hormonal levels, hormonal sensitivity, etc."

You could be intersex and not even know it. If you found out that, say, you're XX with an SRY gene on one of your X chromosomes, do you think this would invalidate your gender identity?

My point was that there aren't intersex men, or intersex women; intersex is a category all by itself. That is the only point I was trying to make.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bigotry? Are you gonna be a CB and cry bigotry every time someone says something you don't like? C'mon.....

Nope. Just when it's called for.

If you don't like having your views called bigoted, don't have bigoted views... or at least have the sense not to air them publicly.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If trans-men were men or males - then you would just call them men or males.

I call then transmen and transwomen or cismen and ciswomen for the same reason I call people homosexual women or heterosexual women. They're all women but I'm talking about a specific trait some of them have that others do not. That's how language works.

The term "intersex" does not include conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia.

Intersex refers to when chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female.

So - when we remove all the conditions that Anne Fausto-Sterling insisted should be considered "intersex" the percentage drops from about 1.7% to 0.018%.

If you're going to lift from Leonard Sax, who does not represent intersex identity, you may as well post the link.
His assertion that most clinicians don't consider these intersex is wrong. As it's a intersex condition listed by APA and all associated clinicians, as well as ISNA and all associated clinicians. Intersex is not just referring to conditions that produce ambiguous genitalia at birth, but also effects that happen during puberty and beyond to produce phenotypic discordant with chromosomal sex.
There are intersex that focus on the former, because a lot of the time it comes with nonconsentual genital revisions. But even thise that focus on that issue do not claim people with ambiguous genitalia at birth are the only intersex examples.

Intersex has nothing to do with transgenderism or gender identity.

Lots of intersex people also identify as male, female or nonbinary and even transmasc or transfem. But I agree that talking about the nonbinary nature of sex is a different subject than the nonbinary nature of gender.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My point was that there aren't intersex men, or intersex women; intersex is a category all by itself. That is the only point I was trying to make.

There are intersex men and women. We don't use chromosomal or genital sex to have social and legal gender identities. My intersex friend with androgen insensitivity disorder still has 'female' on her legal documents and I call her female.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lots of intersex people also identify as male, female or nonbinary and even transmasc or transfem. But I agree that talking about the nonbinary nature of sex is a different subject than the nonbinary nature of gender.

They're different things, but when people base their anti-trans position on this idea that there's a one-to-one correspondence between a clear sex binary and a clear gender binary, the fact that there isn't a clear sex binary really stops their argument right in the gate.

 

[Kfox]

Nope. Just when it's called for.

If you don't like having your views called bigoted, don't have bigoted views... or at least have the sense not to air them publicly.

What constitutes bigotry is completely subjective; I don't think my views are bigoted, however you do so why don't you tell me exactly what it is that I said that you find bigoted?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

They're different things, but when people base their anti-trans position on this idea that there's a one-to-one correspondence between a clear sex binary and a clear gender binary, the fact that there isn't a clear sex binary really stops their argument right in the gate.

I agree, though they usually dismiss gender as a nonstarter, neither binary or nonbinary. And honestly those operating from a false binary fallacy from naturalism (male and famale are only physical characteristics, even when ambiguity exists) aren't going do well when they butt up against clear examples of nurture effecting nature (epigenetics, endocrinology, neurology etc.) They've already set up that sociology and psychology are clearly divisible from physiology when that's a whole other false binary.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

But what is the need to so carefully identify everyone, that one must say: that guy is a man, but that other one is a trans-man?

First and foremost - to defend the biological fact that the "other one" is a woman/female and she can never become a man/male and vice versa.

There are only two biological sexes or genders, and no one can become a member of the opposing biological sex or gender.

Second - the "other one" is suffering from some kind of mental health crisis and needs us to not affirm her delusions - but give her actual help.

Suicidality is incredibly high among "transgender" individuals because they are not receiving the help they need.

Third - to avoid all the confusion that has spread throughout our society when we began to replace facts with ideologies - which is being taught to vulnerable and impressionable children.

The number of youths that identify as "LGBTQ+" has risen exponentially over the last couple decades - not naturally - but by the intervention of media and academia - a true slippery slope.

Fourth - to defend the "safe spaces" of the biological sexes - such as changing rooms, bathrooms, shelters and prisons - from incursion by members of the opposite sex.

"Transgender" males have been admitted into women's prisons and shelters and have abused women while staying there.

Fifth - to defend women - who are having medals, honors, accolades, opportunities - and their very identities taken from them.

Lia Thomas stole the first place medal from a woman.

Rachel Levine was not the "first female four-star admiral in the commissioned corps".

Clarence Thomas could have been the "first Black female" Supreme Court Justice by claiming to be trans?

How many women's scholarships, grants, loans, etc are going to be taken from women and given to men?

Why are we referring to mothers as "birthing persons"? And claiming that men can also have periods or have babies?

"Transgender" ideology is an attack on women.

Let's just suppose that you are trying to hire a programmer, and two apparently quite masculine fellows are applying. Clearly, they both identify as "male," so what does it matter to you, as a hiring manager, what hidden within their trousers? How would that impact your decision, and would it be more or less important than their coding ability and their work history?

First off - super sexist hypothetical - you don't think females or "trans-women" can be programmers?

Second - a female can be masculine and still identify as female - masculinity and femininity do not determine biological sex.

Third - why are you assuming these "masculine fellows" clearly identify as male?

Aren't you assuming their gender?

Fourth - the people who come up with these hypotheticals and ask these questions are the same that demand that women need more representation in STEM fields - like programming.

Yet - they also claim that "trans-women" are women and that "trans-men" are men - so wtf are we supposed to do?

Hiring based on ability, qualifications and merit isn't good enough for the liberals seeking "gender-based" or "race-based" quotas - but then they cannot answer the simple question, "What is a woman?"

I would love it if people were hired based solely on their ability, qualifications and merit - but liberal morons whose ideologies change with each passing wind have made that impossible.

They just voted in Kentaji Brown Jackson - not based on her LSAT scores, past experience of leniency on sex offenders, or inability to define what a "woman" is - all of that stuff is sexist and racist to focus on - but based simple on the fact that she was a Black woman.

So - no - you don't get to present these hypotheticals and ask me these stupid questions when you and others like you don't even know what you are advocating for anymore, and you don't even know what a "woman" is.

Get your ducks in a row first - then return to reality and we can have a discussion.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Nope. Just when it's called for.

If you don't like having your views called bigoted, don't have bigoted views... or at least have the sense not to air them publicly.

Rather circular reasoning.