LGBT Community Rights

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A woman is an adult female with an XX chromosome and the potential to bear children.
If a transwoman dies and 200 years from now we dig up the remains and investigate the bones, the conclusion is going to be that this was a male. Not a woman.

Now, it's at least a little interesting that you have chosen two different sorts of words to describe the genders in the above. You chose "woman" for female and "male" for man.

If you had written, If a transwoman dies and 200 years from now we dig up the remains and investigate the bones, the conclusion is going to be that this was a male [n]ot a female," I would have agreed. But this is the whole point: we have words that point to sex, and words that point to gender. Sex is male/female, gender is man/woman or boy/girl. You'll note that gender, unlike sex, is to some extent cultural -- that's why we refer to males of different ages by different names, and females likewise. We do it with animals, too. A male horse is either a colt or a stallion, a female is either a filly or a mare.

And I think it is to that cultural connotation that this debate turns on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now, it's at least a little interesting that you have chosen two different sorts of words to describe the genders in the above. You chose "woman" for female and "male" for man.

If you had written, If a transwoman dies and 200 years from now we dig up the remains and investigate the bones, the conclusion is going to be that this was a male [n]ot a female," I would have agreed. But this is the whole point: we have words that point to sex, and words that point to gender. Sex is male/female, gender is man/woman or boy/girl. You'll note that gender, unlike sex, is to some extent cultural -- that's why we refer to males of different ages by different names, and females likewise. We do it with animals, too. A male horse is either a colt or a stallion, a female is either a filly or a mare.

And I think it is to that cultural connotation that this debate turns on.

You may be right about that. I'm happy to concede that point.
And it sure is true that I will use the word "she" to refer to a transwoman who is completely "transitioned".

But I will also say that plenty of the "woke" camp would scream blood and murder if I would refer to a transwoman as being a male.

I think we are rapidly entering an absurd and hysterica "pampering" society where you can't say anything anymore without "offending" somebody, regardless how innocent the statement is. And what I "hate" about this whole PC / woke stuff, is that where we used to simply tell people to grow thicker skin and suck it up, it now turns to those simply using everyday language and it suddenly makes them "immoral" or whatever.


It's become so freaking bad that they will get on their high horse and call it "offensive" when you start a speech with "ladies and gentlemen".

I mean, seriously.

Having said that, I also stick to my stance that it's not so simple to simply treat transwoman as actual women across the board.

Take the use of ladies rooms for example. Personally, I don't give a rat's behind who used which toilet to be honest, but let's look at it from both sides.
Transwomen demand to use the ladies room because they feel "uncomfortable" in the men's room. But what about the "real" women who feel uncomfortable sharing the bathroom with males that had "feel like women"? Don't their feelings count? Why must society bend over backwards to accomodate the transwomen and not the born women? How are we going to decide who's "feelings matter most"?

Then there's indeed also sports and a whole range of other things.

I just feel like this whole woke stuff is extremely one sided at the moment.

This is one of the reasons why I object to "pretending" that transwomen are actual women. They are not.
Yes, I want them to feel comfortable. But not at the expense of other people.
The feelings of trans people do not have any priority over the feelings of others.

The woke folks would tell the women who are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with males who had a sexchange to "suck it up".
Well, why can't the transwomen "stuck it up" and use the male bathroom?

It goes both ways imo. And at the moment it just feels very one sided.

 

[Kfox]

I don't go to Pride events anymore, though I used to. Toronto has among the largest events in the world, and I have to tell everybody something (though I think you already know it) -- when you get half a million people out celebrating in the streets, and 12 of them are showing their genitals, that's not really an expression of what the other 499,988 are doing.

And yet, the press -- and the straight world -- see only those 12!

The problem is, the other 499,988 are not condemning those 12 for representing them in a negative way; if they did the press and straight world would take notice.

 

[setarcos]

You're not being forced to do any of those things.

For now. But I've concern for the future. Teachers have actually been fired for using incorrect pronouns when speaking with students because some students want to redefine how we use language and yes, force other people to conform...or lose their job.

Private businesses have been penalized for their religious or moral beliefs. Seems they can have rights as long as it don't interfere with LGBTQ++ privileges. Yes I said privilege. Being a customer of a specific private business is a privilege not a right. No one should have the right to force private business owners to do something against their own legal personal convictions as long as those convictions in themselves don’t promote violence.

Businesses have had the right to refuse service to anyone since Rin Tin Tin was rescued from a WWI battlefield however I know of at least two privately owned businesses...one national chain store, that have been dragged into court by LGBTQ++ activists for their refusal of service to persons whose activities go against their own personal ethical and moral positions. Seems, since past generations have ethically wronged LGBTQ++ persons the LGBTQ++ solution is to get revenge by being ethically wrong back. That’s not a healthy path to progress.

These people have the right to patronize other businesses more conforming to their beliefs. They should not have the right to force conformity on businesses they want to patronize. That’s not a good way to get or give understanding in order to advance empathy and equality if that is the goal.

According to the National Institutes of Health website,
“Intentional refusal to use someone’s correct pronouns is equivalent to harassment and a violation of one’s civil rights." and then they go on to quote Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which "expressly prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin."

And...

"The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's technical assistance publication Protections Against Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity (or Gender Identity has relatively recently been added) considers the use of pronouns or names that are inconsistent with an individual’s gender identity as unlawful harassment."

Which means that if I refuse to use pronouns or names in a manner that is inconsistent with their well-defined meaning and intent because some individual wants to render those pronouns absolutely non-sensical due to their illness or simple personal preference I will be technically breaking the law. In essence I will be forced to obey the personal preferences of someone else because I prefer meaning over mental ambiguity or conformity to a diseased mind.

How about our good neighbors to the north of the U.S.?
Look at this headline from the Nebraska Family Alliance....

Canadian Bill C-16 Becomes Law, Enforcing Compelled Use Of Preferred Gender Pronouns
The new Canadian law has highlighted the hot-button concept of ‘’. ‘Misgendering is violence’ has become a rallying cry of the trans community in recent years. People who decide to be referred to as a particular gender, or even with nonstandard genderless pronouns such as ‘xe’ or ‘zir’, consider the ‘wrong’ pronoun hate speech.
The most concerning precedent this law sets is that the Canadian government is now mandating compelled speech. Abruptly, it is now a hate crime in Canada to refer to someone by any pronoun other than what they prefer. Now, Canadians can be jailed for up to two years (or fined, or even forfeit their property) for nothing more significant than using one pronoun instead of another.

IF this article is anywhere near accurate that is concerning. Compelled use = forced to.
If we sacrifice sensible meaning to sensibility then no one is in a better position for empathetic cooperation.

Because you live in a pluralistic, democratic society - the same reason I have to accept the right's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the decision to give churches a walk regarding taxes. You can't always get what you want.

At least there are logical arguments to be had concerning the 2nd Amendment and religious tax deferment. Being in a pluralistic, democratic society does not mean throwing comprehendible meaning and logic out the window like the proverbial baby with the bathwater. If it did it would soon collapse as a democracy or in our case democratic republic.

If by "pluralistic, democratic society" you mean I have to be forced to allow someone who exhibits obvious indicators of gender in opposition to the indicated gender of the public bathroom they are entering based merely on their say so then not only is that democratic society based in being illogical, it’s also, a purposefully promoting and easily preventable endorser of potential violence, lack of dignity, and chaos and would soon fall into disarray and decay. Wait a minute...hmmm, kind of like we're witnessing today.

With this kind of insanity we are opening ourselves up to and even ignorantly embracing the potential for all kinds of preventable sex crimes and worse. Not to mention the emotional damage done to those in a most vulnerable position who would now have no yardstick with which to gauge a pervert from a person with gender dysphoria. All because in our mad illogical and dangerous rush to normalize everything and equalize everyone we're afraid to offend anyone with potentially disastrous results.

Pedophiles have already been caught playing the gender dysphoria card (How many haven’t?). Inmates have already caught on to this insanity. Males have been transferred to all female prisons based on little more than their own professed condition which have ended up in multiple pregnancies. Where do we draw the line with this crazyness?

So your telling me...in the 21st century, in a so called first world country, I haven't the right, and shouldn't expect that my daughter should be safe from the perfectly preventable crimes like I described above and while she's in a most vulnerable position? Why would anyone want to live like that? But then again we have to make sacrifices so as not to offend right?
Do I suddenly not have the right to not be offended and feel safer then because I am not a member of a particular group?

Me? It's not an issue in my world. If I know any transexuals, I'm unaware of that fact. But if it comes up, I will be kind, polite, tolerant, and inclusive.

What is it your being kind, polite, tolerant, and inclusive about concerning them that you wouldn’t anyone else anyway? Just saying that classifies them in some way and you can bet someone in the LGBTQ++ community, which you are apparently not a part of, will find that in itself offensive and a cause for protest because in my opinion they don’t just want piece, happiness, and equality. They want revenge, punishment, and compensation for being disagreed with, disparaged, or subjugated in some manner.

As persons with abnormalities such as the various dysphoria's, it wasn't and isn't an issue with me either. I have homosexual friends. I know transsexuals'. I am kind to them, tolerant of them, and not exclusive towards them. But I certainly expect the same from them and for them to be sensible, respectable, and socially responsible in society regardless of personal offence. The LGBTQ++ community don't have a monopoly on being offended. I'm unfortunately offended daily and have to accept that while keeping others perspectives in mind. It’s not my fault or my daughters that society hasn't caught up yet in accommodating bathroom options which can make everyone feel safe while retaining their dignity and expectations of privacy for instance. So a transsexual should be sensible enough to acknowledge that they do not have the right to not be offended at the expense of someone else being offended or harmed.

They do not have the right to do as they please now simply because they have been a historically victimized, marginalized, or a “some otherwise” traumatized minority in this country. So have blacks, Native Americans, Mexicans, transient workers, the poor in general, persons with mental illness, take your pick and even those straight whites trying to do good by them.

You don't spread equality among people by giving superior rights to those who've traditionally had none before. What you end up doing is just swapping one bad situation for another.

When you say you would be polite, tolerant, and inclusive I assume you mean so long as your dignity, safety, and reasonable freedom isn't in jeopardy? In other words you mean you would treat a human being like a human being should be treated and you would expect the same from them right?
I guess your just lucky its not an issue for you and you can ignore it being an issue for someone else...until that someone else becomes you.

 

[setarcos]

I disagree that that is what is happening.

The semantics of these things have been debated. It’s pretty clear cut.
What does the descriptor female mean to you? And male?
What does "they" or "them" mean?
What does it actually mean to be non - binary that doesn't spiral down into some meaningless psychological verbiage?
What does...oh never mind. Look at this note from the Trans Students Educational Resources website...

"Note:
There are no “male/female” or “man/woman” pronouns. All pronouns can be used for any gender and are gender neutral.
We also do not use “preferred pronouns” due to people generally not having a pronoun “preference” but simply having “pronouns.” Using “preferred” can accidentally insinuate that using the correct pronouns for someone is optional."

We are turning language into an informational joke. Suddenly being female has nothing to do with reproductive ability. Suddenly being Male has nothing to do with the y chromosome.
Suddenly I’m talking to “they” instead of “you” when I am talking directly with you..er I mean they. Now I should know what ze and zer refers to. And if I don't agree I could potentially go to jail or lose my job.
Suddenly there are no male and female distinguishments, ahem…except of course when a transsexual insists they are now male or female whatever the particular case. If this isn’t a fragmenting of meaningful comprehension and sanity I don’t know what is.

And how about this from the same site… "There are an infinite number of pronouns as new ones emerge in our language. Always ask someone for their pronouns."

An infinite number? What's the difference here between asking for their "personal" preferred pronoun, which I apparently now need to do before I can even start a conversation, and just asking for their name if I haven't met them before? Except, often that preferred personal pronoun which was once a general descriptor of a person belonging to a specific class of individual/s has now become a specific descriptor of an individual.

Again an example of the fragmentation of meaning in language which is doing nothing but increasing the informational load that a person must wade through in order to express some semblance of meaning. And often that meaning is impossibly vague since we now can’t even agree on what is male and female, let alone what kind of human is capable of belonging to neither. It’s as if by making up names or redefining words and giving them to people as descriptors we can magically legitimize a “condition” as natural, normal, and healthy.

I'm all for the pursuit of happiness, although we probably have different ideas of what happiness is.

I would say the pursuit of happiness is instinctual in humanity. However the pursuit of happiness at the expense of others of despite others is self destructive and the kind of hedonism I am talking about.

Wisdom is the knowledge that facilitates that and prevents us from ending up broke, alone, or with alcoholic cirrhosis, which is unhappiness. That guy pursued happiness as well, but foolishly, and found misery instead.

I agree with your assessment here. I simply believe humanity in general has placed itself into a state of pursuing happiness unwisely.

My wife and I have been spending evenings out on our terraza watching the sun go down and listening to Grateful Dead concerts by candlelight with our dogs and a glass of wine. That's hedonism. Do you decry that, too?

Not in itself, it certainly seems as if you've been blessed to be able to do that.
But as I've said, our pursuit of happiness is often found at the expense of or ignoring of others misery.
Using hyperbole to show what I mean...are you able to enjoy what you would consider the fruits of this world because you've stolen from or overcharged your clients? Would you continue to enjoy your wine and concerts by ignoring the hungry and homeless family just below your terrace if there were one? Would you be just as happy?
Personal Hedonism for its own sake is full of ignorance and relishes it. The question then becomes how much are we willing to ignore in order to gain our own happiness and how much happiness can we gain by our ignoring?
What you've described is personal material wealth which gives you physical pleasure.
True happiness transcends the personal physical pleasures of this world. It has to transcend this world because only ignorance can produce happiness in this world since no happiness can possibly be had without the ignorance of or ignoring of the unhappiness of others. imo

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is it your being kind, polite, tolerant, and inclusive about concerning them that you wouldn’t anyone else anyway? Just saying that classifies them in some way and you can bet someone in the LGBTQ++ community, which you are apparently not a part of, will find that in itself offensive and a cause for protest because in my opinion they don’t just want piece, happiness, and equality. They want revenge, punishment, and compensation for being disagreed with, disparaged, or subjugated in some manner.

This doesn't bother me. If I offend somebody inadvertently and know it, I'll apologize. And if some or many fit your description, then those are issues for them to contend with.

If by "pluralistic, democratic society" you mean I have to be forced to allow someone who exhibits obvious indicators of gender in opposition to the indicated gender of the public bathroom they are entering based merely on their say so then not only is that democratic society based in being illogical, it’s also, a purposefully promoting and easily preventable endorser of potential violence, lack of dignity, and chaos and would soon fall into disarray and decay.

Yes, you may be forced to make choices you don't like. You can't protect your daughter from all potential harm to her. You never could.

our pursuit of happiness is often found at the expense of or ignoring of others misery.

Probably, but not mine. Most misery in the world is beyond my power and means to address. For that which is not, I help where I can up to the limit of my ability. These days, that's mostly contributions to local dog charities. We've also adopted multiple rescues.

Would you continue to enjoy your wine and concerts by ignoring the hungry and homeless family just below your terrace if there were one?

The two are unrelated. Yes, we would continue to enjoy our concerts and we would do what we could to help others in distress.

no happiness can possibly be had without the ignorance of or ignoring of the unhappiness of others. imo

Probably, but even those who do not ignore the unhappiness of others will not be able to eliminate unhappiness from the world or even from his neighborhood and will have to accept the fact of its existence and his impotence at eliminating all of it.

You're probably different from her, but there used to be a prolific Jehovah's Witness poster here on RF who was offended that I could be happy while people were suffering in the world. I would tell her what I told you, and also that the trick is to learn to where one can help, where one can't, and to accept the reality that there is suffering in the world without letting it steal one's own chance at happiness as it has hers - the Serenity Prayer, but as a something I do for myself rather than pray for. You're probably familiar with Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief, which culminates with acceptance of something one doesn't have the power to change. We have to manage our emotions if we know when and how.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The semantics of these things have been debated. It’s pretty clear cut.
What does the descriptor female mean to you? And male?
What does "they" or "them" mean?
What does it actually mean to be non - binary that doesn't spiral down into some meaningless psychological verbiage?
What does...oh never mind. Look at this note from the Trans Students Educational Resources website...

I wonder, do you think that there is any possibility that "who" you are might in any possible way differ from "what" you are?

You ask about female and male, but those are not the only words we use to describe people. We also use words like women and men, girls and boys, lasses and lads, mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles -- and many more -- all of which, unlike male and female, describe some sort of relationship rather than just the naked fact of which genitals you happen to have been born with.

Let me ask you, which is the most important contributor to your own, internal identification of yourself as a human being -- is it your physical body, hair color, skin color, eye color or shape, genitalia? Or is it your brain, your mind, the thinking, feeling, observing, emoting, caring (or not) result of all that your brain can fathom?

Who are you? Your willie or your will?

When I was born, several hundred years ago, I was named Jack Allen E******. I was named Jack for my mother's favourite brother, and Allen for a female Major Allen of the Salvation Army who cared for my mother up to and through her delivery of me. The last name is the same as my mother's, because she was somewhat unwed at the time. She later married a cruel drunkard who was also named Jack, Jack Main, to be precise, and until I was 7 years old, I was called Jack Main. Then, when I learned the truth, I was told I must use my real last name E******, but could choose which first name I wanted. Since Jack Main had tried to kill me twice (only twice!) I confess I didn't really like that, so I desired to be called Allen.

Not "Al," by the way. I am not an "Al." I'm an Allen. Now, many people like using shortened names and nick-names. If I asked you, politely, to call me Allen and not Al, would you? Or would that be too much trouble -- that one extra syllable -- for you?

(Oddly, I asked the Ontario Health Insurance people to allow me to be called J. Allen E******* on my health card, because that's how I go, and how I signed my name. They refused. They insisted that, for their purposes, I must be called the name I loath.

Now, why is it so troublesome for you that a person who may have been born with a penis and testicles, but having grown up feeling like a girl, later a woman (both "females" by the way), to call her "she" if she requests it? What if she'd changed her name from Allen to Alice? Would you feel compelled to insist on calling her Allen? Why?

I ask again: who (not what) is she? Is she her genitalia (even, perhaps, after they've been removed)? Or is she the person inside her head, the person her mind insists to her that feels "right" to her?

I confess, I am asking these questions in a state of real confusion, because I cannot think of a single reason that I would not call her what she wished to be called, and I think I would be ungenerous and frankly boorish to insist on calling her otherwise -- just as I think people who insist on calling me "Al" when I've repeatedly asked them not to are ungenerous and boorish.

 

[setarcos]

This doesn't bother me.

What doesn't bother you? Not being able to appease through apology? Shouldn't it bother you that your apology, however sincere, will always be an empty gesture to some? And what's more your apologizing for something that isn't your fault at the whim of someone else's insistence. That helps no one because neither party is willing to face the reality of the situation.

And if some or many fit your description, then those are issues for them to contend with.

I'm afraid its not. Since we live on a finite planet and given the general direction modernity is taking us in...what goes around will eventually come back around. Even to your cozy little neighborhood...eventually, forcing you to in one way or another contend with it.

Yes, you may be forced to make choices you don't like. You can't protect your daughter from all potential harm to her. You never could.

All potential harm? No. You are correct. Logically perceived, avoidable harm? That is quite a different matter.
Ignoring avoiding all potential harm because you can't avoid some potential harm is not very logical.

Probably, but not mine. Most misery in the world is beyond my power and means to address.

Isn't it within your power to take the money you spent on wine and tickets to see a concert you would enjoy and buy that family some food? Or the homeless some blankets for winter, or …etc.?
What place on earth can one go which isn't infested with need that you might be able to sacrifice some of your pleasures for the greater happiness which is to be found in the greater good of giving? It is only by ignoring or being ignorant of that need that you may enjoy your pleasures. "Beyond my power and means to address" is an excuse to avoid giving up our own pleasures and happiness for a greater good.
That is an all too common attitude in this world and I'm guilty of it as well. Since we stake our pleasures and happiness in the material comforts of this finite world at the expense of others miseries we find it difficult to see why we should lower ourselves in order to lift up others.

For that which is not, I help where I can up to the limit of my ability.

And for most of us, that limit is where our pleasure and happiness gets interfered with not where our ability stops if we're to be honest with ourselves.

These days, that's mostly contributions to local dog charities. We've also adopted multiple rescues.

I commend you for making some charitable efforts. A lot of people are too busy ensuring their own pleasures rather than worrying about another beings misery. But lets be honest...and as I've said I'm not judging and I'm guilty as the next fella...that's probably not the limits of your ability but the limits of your willingness.

The two are unrelated. Yes, we would continue to enjoy our concerts and we would do what we could to help others in distress.

Like I said before, the only way you could possibly continue to enjoy your pleasures is by being ignorant of others misery or by ignoring - however temporarily - that misery since by its very nature, awareness of misery interferes with enjoyment of pleasure. Unless your high on a sociopathic spectrum. Doing "what you can" to help others then becomes a method of reconciling your pleasures with awareness of others misery. "I gave at the food bank so I can conscientiously enjoy this $100 dollar a plate meal in this high end fancy restaurant."

even those who do not ignore the unhappiness of others will not be able to eliminate unhappiness from the world or even from his neighborhood and will have to accept the fact of its existence and his impotence at eliminating all of it.

Agreed. That fact for some may eliminate their finding pleasure in this world but it doesn't eliminate their finding happiness in their actions.

there used to be a prolific Jehovah's Witness poster here on RF who was offended that I could be happy while people were suffering in the world.

I do disagree with her as I've indicated in the reply just above. And I believe she's misunderstood her own sect or has been too simplistic in her statement from what I've studied of that sect anyway.
For me, finding pleasure in this world is a compromise with "the devil" or whatever you prefer to call it ; evil, bad luck, terrible happenstance...
But finding happiness in this world is a striving towards being harmonious with "Gods will" or …alleviating suffering where one can, or constructive empathy, or self sacrifice of ones pleasures for the good of others happiness etc..

 

[setarcos]

I wonder, do you think that there is any possibility that "who" you are might in any possible way differ from "what" you are?

I'm sorry I haven't got back to you on your other posts...but lets just pick up here if that's okay.

Do you think who I am includes my physical nature or just my perception of that nature? Is what I am a union of the physical with the spiritual infused by a soul? Or do you think what I am is simply a member of the homo erectus species with its characteristic physical traits?
Is the mind a mere epiphenomenon of the brain? Or is there a duality of mind/brain in which they are independent but relational? These are some of the things you must clarify before a proper answer can even be attempted.
I'm not sure how you relate who you are to what you are but in any healthy - healthy meaning functioning according to purpose without causing stress - being the "perception" of who you are should cooperate with what you actually are physically. If you are a human animal your self perception should reflect that in a healthy manner. And yes, so should your perception of your own physical gender.
Its is a proven fact that our physical embodiment has a direct effect on our perception of self. Even if only as an expression of discord between the two.
That being said, it is a proven fact that ones perception of who one is does not always cooperate with what one actually is. That is a discord between mental awareness and physical reality and it is reflective of an unhealthy state in the being.
I cannot imagine a state in this world in which the perception of who one is can be divorced from the effects of the physical embodiment of that self perception. Its not possible. There is a direct correlation between ones physical reality and ones mental self awareness which results in a healthy or unhealthy state of being.
In Christianity the belief is that we are a triumvirate being having been created in such a way that our mental self awareness (who we are) cooperates with our physical reality (what we are) if you will, which have together been infused with a soul. What ever comes next...should we become pure spirit or what have you we must be literally born anew in a new state. That can be inferred from scripture.

You ask about female and male, but those are not the only words we use to describe people.

I certainly agree with you. You can describe individuals and the state they may be in without direct reference to their sexuality.
"They are going to the movie." "Those people are Muslim." "That person needs help."
But whenever one uses gender identifying pronouns to identify a specific individual/s ; he,she,her,him, or women, men, boys, girls, it always has a sexual component. Gender specific pronouns express specific identifying information about ones physical reality not their mental discord.

describe some sort of relationship rather than just the naked fact of which genitals you happen to have been born with.

Yes. They do describe some sort of relationship and that relationship IS what kind of "genitals" you physically have. Or, since humans have taken to mutilating the body to fit the discordant mind, what kind of sex related genetic make up you were born with.

which is the most important contributor to your own, internal identification of yourself as a human being -- is it your physical body, hair color, skin color, eye color or shape, genitalia? Or is it your brain, your mind, the thinking, feeling, observing, emoting, caring (or not) result of all that your brain can fathom?

Most important? I'd say that in order to have a healthy "internal" identification of myself as a human being I would have to have a healthy cooperation between my self awareness and my physical state since one needs both to identify as a human being. What you are attempting to describe is a purely spiritual being made up of only mind divorced from any physicality. That's not possible in this world. That doesn't even describe a human being. That is why anyone with gender or body dysphoria suffers some amount of psychological distress. They can't divorce their self awareness from their physical reality. No one can.

Who are you? Your willie or your will?

Seriously? Ask yourself, how often has your "willie" overridden your will? Think how often throughout history that has been the case for people. From presidents to the next door neighbor who got caught sleeping with someone they shouldn't have. Scripture is rife with warning about such struggles and its not because one can self dictate who we are. That's already been done and it includes a union of both. The warning in scripture is about striving towards a healthy union between the two since divorce is impossible in a healthy individual. Cut off your willie and see if it doesn't change your personality and perception of who you are and for the worse. Even in transsexuals your dealing with the same organ. Its simply been rearranged.
So to answer your question...we are both. And often for people it takes a good amount of will to over ride the willie when its healthy to do so which also takes a good amount of effort and mental energy because the two are a union which comprises our self identification.

Not "Al," by the way. I am not an "Al." I'm an Allen. Now, many people like using shortened names and nick-names. If I asked you, politely, to call me Allen and not Al, would you? Or would that be too much trouble -- that one extra syllable -- for you?

No trouble at all since it helps to identify you which imparts meaningful information to me. But your name is not all that identifies you to me is it? I mean simply having a proper name in itself imparts no information about the person having the name other than a preferred title, other than perhaps general assumptions like; Allen is traditionally a male name so you must be a male. A specific title like that is self serving. In other words it offers no other information other than what it has been specifically applied to. It doesn't describe the characteristics of the thing it is applied to. At most, to be meaningful, it is a descriptor of a thing with known characteristics.
But after all there are many Allen's in the world. So how am I to distinguish you from all other Allen's if I am speaking about you to others?
I may use a physical description, I might describe your job, your marital status, your approximate age, etc.. All of which can impart meaningful information about you because they follow certain grammatical and semantic rules which a particular society has adopted and can be generally applied.
Now suppose you decided to change those rules. You exchange one colors name for another, a measurement of height becomes a measurement of age, married means your single or have a pet, job means your unemployed. I may be able to still meaningfully converse with you but only after I learn your specific preferences. This increases the informational load substantially especially if I have to do this with everyone now. And exponentially if I'm trying to interpret to others information about you in a conversation.

But even so you've still simply exchanged one meaningful code for another if only for yourself and others to discover. But redefining how a particular person wishes to use a pronoun will impart only confusion because of a personal preference. When an agreed upon terms general application suddenly becomes redefined as a specific identifier for a specific individuals sheer preference Its a devolution of the purpose of language. Especially when that term has been rendered meaningless, even to the individual.
If I ask an individual who prefers to be referenced by "we" what "we" means in reference to them and they can't give a comprehendible answer for instance then that can only serve to distance the individuals from having a meaningful interaction with each other. That is not progress.

(Oddly, I asked the Ontario Health Insurance people to allow me to be called J. Allen E******* on my health card, because that's how I go, and how I signed my name. They refused. They insisted that, for their purposes, I must be called the name I loath.

Not odd at all. Blame it on nit picky legalities and bureaucratic nonsense brought on by the jokers who always try to game the system instead of just being honest.

born with a penis and testicles, but having grown up feeling like a girl, later a woman (both "females" by the way), to call her "she" if she requests it?

Can you tell me how that person knows what being a girl or woman feels like? The only way to know what being a female is like is if you've been born a healthy female. That means a healthy cooperation between your self perception and your physical reality. The only thing that person knows is that how they think they should relate to their body is not how they realistically feel.
If I call someone something I believe to be false and what's more, can be scientifically proven to be false then I'm merely playing into that delusion. I'm reinforcing their delusion at the expense of betraying my own convictions which are based on reality. I would be sacrificing my mental health for the sake of someone else's unhealthy condition. I'm fine with addressing transsexuals as transsexual male or transsexual female as identifiers of having undergone body morphing and who deserve all the dignity and respect afforded to human beings in that condition. But it would be a lie to consider them simply male or female regardless of the gender they were born with based on their unhealthy self identity.

What if she'd changed her name from Allen to Alice? Would you feel compelled to insist on calling her Allen? Why?

That preference is negotiable because it is based in cultural norms. Male and female are scientific identifiers with specific definitions of who qualifies for which.
IF it may be a condition of the persons therapy to be called male or female until such time as their mental state can be brought back into reconciliation with reality then I can see where it may be temporarily beneficial. But to insist on being called male or female as a healthy reflection of reality despite actual reality without them undergoing any psychological help would be detrimental to a healthy society and ultimately to the person in my opinion. And such a society should not realistically expect all of its citizens to be therapists. Seems it would be infinitely more practical to bring the individual into acceptance of reality rather than everyone else into acceptance of what isn't realistic.
You'd basically be asking all of society to be unhealthy by accepting unrealistic preferences as reality.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Can you tell me how that person knows what being a girl or woman feels like? The only way to know what being a female is like is if you've been born a healthy female. That means a healthy cooperation between your self perception and your physical reality. The only thing that person knows is that how they think they should relate to their body is not how they realistically feel.

Without a brain, nobody "feels like" anything at all. And it is well known (see the works of Dr. Oliver Sacks, for example) many people perceive things that are in complete discord with their physical body. With a brain -- and using all available methods and tools, Stephen Hawking could not only feel like the genius he was, he could overcome his bodily limitations and communicate what he thought to the rest of us.

You appear, so far as I can see, to think that the winner of the "who are you, your brain or your body contest" has to be your body. And if your brain doesn't agree, fix it or get another one. I'm just going to end this dialogue by saying that I -- and pretty much the entire neuroscience and psychological professions -- disagree. I've tried to explain why to you, but you appear to just want things to be "the right way" as you define it. No nuance allowed.

I've nothing more to add to this conversation. I'm no sort of professional, nor am I transgender. My sex is male and accords with my gender identification, so no, I can't experience what a transgendered person does, and thus can't explain it. All I can do is listen to those who do have such experience, and do my best to be understanding and accepting.

I wish that one of RF's transgendered individuals would make an effort at trying to explain their experience to you, but for myself, I'm done.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm sorry I haven't got back to you on your other posts...but lets just pick up here if that's okay.

Do you think who I am includes my physical nature or just my perception of that nature? Is what I am a union of the physical with the spiritual infused by a soul? Or do you think what I am is simply a member of the homo erectus species with its characteristic physical traits?
Is the mind a mere epiphenomenon of the brain? Or is there a duality of mind/brain in which they are independent but relational? These are some of the things you must clarify before a proper answer can even be attempted.
I'm not sure how you relate who you are to what you are but in any healthy - healthy meaning functioning according to purpose without causing stress - being the "perception" of who you are should cooperate with what you actually are physically. If you are a human animal your self perception should reflect that in a healthy manner. And yes, so should your perception of your own physical gender.
Its is a proven fact that our physical embodiment has a direct effect on our perception of self. Even if only as an expression of discord between the two.
That being said, it is a proven fact that ones perception of who one is does not always cooperate with what one actually is. That is a discord between mental awareness and physical reality and it is reflective of an unhealthy state in the being.
I cannot imagine a state in this world in which the perception of who one is can be divorced from the effects of the physical embodiment of that self perception. Its not possible. There is a direct correlation between ones physical reality and ones mental self awareness which results in a healthy or unhealthy state of being.
In Christianity the belief is that we are a triumvirate being having been created in such a way that our mental self awareness (who we are) cooperates with our physical reality (what we are) if you will, which have together been infused with a soul. What ever comes next...should we become pure spirit or what have you we must be literally born anew in a new state. That can be inferred from scripture.


I certainly agree with you. You can describe individuals and the state they may be in without direct reference to their sexuality.
"They are going to the movie." "Those people are Muslim." "That person needs help."
But whenever one uses gender identifying pronouns to identify a specific individual/s ; he,she,her,him, or women, men, boys, girls, it always has a sexual component. Gender specific pronouns express specific identifying information about ones physical reality not their mental discord.

Yes. They do describe some sort of relationship and that relationship IS what kind of "genitals" you physically have. Or, since humans have taken to mutilating the body to fit the discordant mind, what kind of sex related genetic make up you were born with.

Most important? I'd say that in order to have a healthy "internal" identification of myself as a human being I would have to have a healthy cooperation between my self awareness and my physical state since one needs both to identify as a human being. What you are attempting to describe is a purely spiritual being made up of only mind divorced from any physicality. That's not possible in this world. That doesn't even describe a human being. That is why anyone with gender or body dysphoria suffers some amount of psychological distress. They can't divorce their self awareness from their physical reality. No one can.

Seriously? Ask yourself, how often has your "willie" overridden your will? Think how often throughout history that has been the case for people. From presidents to the next door neighbor who got caught sleeping with someone they shouldn't have. Scripture is rife with warning about such struggles and its not because one can self dictate who we are. That's already been done and it includes a union of both. The warning in scripture is about striving towards a healthy union between the two since divorce is impossible in a healthy individual. Cut off your willie and see if it doesn't change your personality and perception of who you are and for the worse. Even in transsexuals your dealing with the same organ. Its simply been rearranged.
So to answer your question...we are both. And often for people it takes a good amount of will to over ride the willie when its healthy to do so which also takes a good amount of effort and mental energy because the two are a union which comprises our self identification.

No trouble at all since it helps to identify you which imparts meaningful information to me. But your name is not all that identifies you to me is it? I mean simply having a proper name in itself imparts no information about the person having the name other than a preferred title, other than perhaps general assumptions like; Allen is traditionally a male name so you must be a male. A specific title like that is self serving. In other words it offers no other information other than what it has been specifically applied to. It doesn't describe the characteristics of the thing it is applied to. At most, to be meaningful, it is a descriptor of a thing with known characteristics.
But after all there are many Allen's in the world. So how am I to distinguish you from all other Allen's if I am speaking about you to others?
I may use a physical description, I might describe your job, your marital status, your approximate age, etc.. All of which can impart meaningful information about you because they follow certain grammatical and semantic rules which a particular society has adopted and can be generally applied.
Now suppose you decided to change those rules. You exchange one colors name for another, a measurement of height becomes a measurement of age, married means your single or have a pet, job means your unemployed. I may be able to still meaningfully converse with you but only after I learn your specific preferences. This increases the informational load substantially especially if I have to do this with everyone now. And exponentially if I'm trying to interpret to others information about you in a conversation.

But even so you've still simply exchanged one meaningful code for another if only for yourself and others to discover. But redefining how a particular person wishes to use a pronoun will impart only confusion because of a personal preference. When an agreed upon terms general application suddenly becomes redefined as a specific identifier for a specific individuals sheer preference Its a devolution of the purpose of language. Especially when that term has been rendered meaningless, even to the individual.
If I ask an individual who prefers to be referenced by "we" what "we" means in reference to them and they can't give a comprehendible answer for instance then that can only serve to distance the individuals from having a meaningful interaction with each other. That is not progress.

Not odd at all. Blame it on nit picky legalities and bureaucratic nonsense brought on by the jokers who always try to game the system instead of just being honest.


Can you tell me how that person knows what being a girl or woman feels like? The only way to know what being a female is like is if you've been born a healthy female. That means a healthy cooperation between your self perception and your physical reality. The only thing that person knows is that how they think they should relate to their body is not how they realistically feel.
If I call someone something I believe to be false and what's more, can be scientifically proven to be false then I'm merely playing into that delusion. I'm reinforcing their delusion at the expense of betraying my own convictions which are based on reality. I would be sacrificing my mental health for the sake of someone else's unhealthy condition. I'm fine with addressing transsexuals as transsexual male or transsexual female as identifiers of having undergone body morphing and who deserve all the dignity and respect afforded to human beings in that condition. But it would be a lie to consider them simply male or female regardless of the gender they were born with based on their unhealthy self identity.


That preference is negotiable because it is based in cultural norms. Male and female are scientific identifiers with specific definitions of who qualifies for which.
IF it may be a condition of the persons therapy to be called male or female until such time as their mental state can be brought back into reconciliation with reality then I can see where it may be temporarily beneficial. But to insist on being called male or female as a healthy reflection of reality despite actual reality without them undergoing any psychological help would be detrimental to a healthy society and ultimately to the person in my opinion. And such a society should not realistically expect all of its citizens to be therapists. Seems it would be infinitely more practical to bring the individual into acceptance of reality rather than everyone else into acceptance of what isn't realistic.
You'd basically be asking all of society to be unhealthy by accepting unrealistic preferences as reality.

I do have one last thing to say to you. As a manager of people in business for decades, one of my basic tenets was that "people's feelings are real," meaning I am in no position to tell any other person that "you should not feel that way." My other tenet was that no matter what I to tell someone -- whether good or bad -- I would always do better to help them maintain their self-esteem. I was a well-loved manager of many people for those tenets, even though I had to deny people promotions, to fire some, to tell others that they had personal hygiene issues that needed addressing.

Your stance is precisely opposite mine. You are willing -- I think possibly even enthusiastically so -- to tell some with a penis that "you shouldn't feel as if your genitals don't fit your gender identification," or to tell a someone born with a vagina, "it's wrong for you to feel like you can be a man!" I could never make those pronouncements to another person.

 

[setarcos]

Without a brain, nobody "feels like" anything at all. And it is well known

While this may be true It certainly isn't well known. It can't be since no method of testing this assumption has yet be devised.
I've already stated that there is a direct correlation between the material brain and the mind(self awareness) in the material universe. That has been studied and well attested to. What anyone may feel like without a "brain" hasn't. It is Christian belief that self awareness can survive separation from the physical. However, while the two are tethered together in union each may have effect on the other.

With a brain -- and using all available methods and tools, Stephen Hawking could not only feel like the genius he was, he could overcome his bodily limitations and communicate what he thought to the rest of us.

Stephen Hawking could "feel" like the genius he was because he was a genius. I don't know what Stephan Hawking's genius feels like, let alone what being a genius feels like because not only wasn't I born Stephen Hawking, I wasn't born a genius by any standard's of testing.
There's a difference between what the mind is feeling and the physical reality that informs the mind. The former is wholly individualistic, the latter is general to the identity of a class of being. That is one reason health care can work at all. Studying one specimen is expected to be generalized to all specimens of the same classification. Yet even that as we well know is on a spectrum and isn't perfect. One persons medicine is another's allergic reaction. One persons therapy is ineffectual for someone else. Ideally, how we approach each persons health would be tailored to the individual down to the genetic level.
One thing is sure though, I can generalize what it may feel like to be another person only in so far as that other person has similar characteristics as myself. For instance, I'm a male but my pain receptors are similar to a females - though perception of pain in the mind may be somewhat different - so I may be able to empathize to some degree with a female in pain. The circuitry of hunger, thirst, being cold, being too hot, all similar enough that I can empathize based upon my own perceptions.
However I cannot know what it feels like to be a human female since their are important distinctions in anatomy which inform the mind. While the human male/female brain and associated mind ARE on a somewhat overlapping spectrum there still is distinction informed by our physical make up. I cannot possibly be born knowing what it feels like to be a female if I was born a male and being born with a self awareness that is in discord with my own perception of my physicality would not make me an expert on what it should feel like to be a female even if I mutilate my body to simulate the feminine form.
There have actually been brain scans done on persons with gender dysphoria which have been compared to "normal" male/female brains and many do exhibit female or male mental characteristics in opposition with their physical gender indicators, whichever may be the case, but as I've said the male/female mind is on an overlapping spectrum which include "feminine" males and "masculine" females comfortable with their born gender. So the physical manifestations of these brain scans which are meant to map mental awareness do not correspond one to one with how it feels to be comfortable with ones self identity as a male or female. You can't just say they've been born with a male/female mind/brain in the wrong body. Something more is going on and the most that can be achieved is a mutilation of the body in an attempt to bring it into accord with the mind or therapy for the discordant mind to bring it into accord with the body.

the winner of the "who are you, your brain or your body contest" has to be your body.

No. I literally said who you are is a union between your mind (self awareness) and your physicality. Each informs the other as a real being.

And if your brain doesn't agree, fix it or get another one.

Um....I'd say if your mind is in discordance with your physical reality then get therapy since you can't get another one and still be you.
Same goes for if you want to go the change the body route.

I'm just going to end this dialogue by saying that I -- and pretty much the entire neuroscience and psychological professions -- disagree. I've tried to explain why to you, but you appear to just want things to be "the right way" as you define it.

And here it comes....the ole "I've tried to explain things to you" shtick. This is usually a defense tactic to shut down a discussion because it can't be shown that the other guy is wrong.
Its never going to be anything other than your right and the other guy just doesn't comprehend?
I just want things the right way? Yeah I would like things to be the right way. Why wouldn't you? The right way is to not have people suffer from gender dysphoria in the first place. Since we don't have that the question becomes what is the best way that we can realistically achieve for society?
What is it that the "entire" neuroscience and psychological profession disagrees with me about? You'll have to narrow that down since I'm not sure what you've shown me that makes that statement true.

I've nothing more to add to this conversation. I'm no sort of professional, nor am I transgender

And yet you've insulted my intelligence by claiming to have explained things to me as if what you've explained to me is better than what I've explained to you but you haven't been able to help me just understand that fact. I mean, after all its so obvious I don't know what I'm talking about but you do.

My sex is male and accords with my gender identification, so no, I can't experience what a transgendered person does, and thus can't explain it.

Then what makes you think that a transgender person can know what being a healthy male or female whichever may be the case is like?
If a transgender person explained to you what they experience could you then explain it to others? Only in so much as their experience is general to your own. Personal experience is lost in the translation and that is one reason a trans person could never know what it is really like to be the gender their trying to transition to.

All I can do is listen to those who do have such experience, and do my best to be understanding and accepting.

What we've been discussing has nothing to do with being understanding and accepting. Yes we all should do those things but what we are discussing is facts. Can't I be understanding and accepting and yet acknowledge the facts as well? Should I sacrifice fact for fear of offending someone?
Being those things does not mean society should just not try and correct an unhealthy situation because in the effort someone is offended.
Wouldn't you agree that finding a cure for gender dysmorphia would be better than just accepting that it happens and not worrying about it?
There's a condition called body integrity disorder (BIID). Its the desire to amputate a healthy limb or desire a paralysis. The main treatment is psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy. Why don't we treat these people by hacking off the limb or paralyzing them so that they can be happy?
Should they get a parade so that we can all rejoice in their newly found happiness? Or that they have that condition in the first place?
What about the hundreds of other paraphilias that people suffer from or "enjoy"? Should we give parades in celebration of necrophilia, exhibitionism, Autoerotic asphyxiation, Beastialism, Biastophilia/Raptophilia (rape fantasy), Heterophilia, Masochism, Pictophilia, Paeodophilia, Transvestic fetishism, voyeurism, or any other of a thousand different fetishes and conditions.
How about all the various dysmorphias? A parade and celebration for everyone's condition!
Parades have been given for the handicapped, the mentally challenged, cancer patients/survivors, and all kinds of people suffering from various disorders and disabilities. What these parades do is twofold. They celebrate the person not their affliction and they draw attention to the need for cures, compassion, and understanding while cures are not available.
What LGBTQ parades seem to do is celebrate the condition which in turn overshadows the person. You yourself asked if we are simply our sexuality and consequent desires? Our dysphoric conditions? Our diseases? Should we celebrate our unhealthy conditions?
It would seem that these parades respond with a resounding yes with their over emphasis on celebrating every sexual fetish and variety under the sun.

I wish that one of RF's transgendered individuals would make an effort at trying to explain their experience to you

I would love that. I'm open to the discussion. I'm willing to have that discussion. And I'm willing to take the chance that I might be offended by them either purposefully or unintentionally and that I may have to fundamentally change my viewpoints. I however am not willing to sacrifice my convictions for the simple sake of someone else not being offended. There's a place and time to do that, that is keep ones mouth shut so as not to offend. Like a public restaurant, while shopping, at a health club, in the library, at a family reunion (as if that can happen) etc..
On here however, it should be a safe place to express ones true opinions, feelings, understanding, what have you, without fear of being criticized, bullied, marginalized, or deliberately insulted. And to find out you were fundamentally wrong is something else one should be willing to experience if one wishes to engage here. I can only hope that even if we are too prideful to admit being wrong here when we see it, we can at least admit it to ourselves in private and make progress that way.

 

[setarcos]

Your stance is precisely opposite mine. You are willing -- I think possibly even enthusiastically so -- to tell some with a penis that "you shouldn't feel as if your genitals don't fit your gender identification," or to tell a someone born with a vagina, "it's wrong for you to feel like you can be a man!" I could never make those pronouncements to another person.

How completely misrepresentative of what I've said. Its because of the promotion of this kind of blatant and frankly irresponsible dissemination of the twisting of what's actually been said in order to suit ones emotional needs that a difficult and complex discussion is made all the more confused and emotionally misconstrued and that's wrong.
I never said anything regarding feelings not being real. Nor did I imply anywhere that any particular person "should not feel that way" whatever that way is to them. And I never dictated anywhere how gender dysmorphic persons should feel and I never said anything remotely close to "it's wrong for you to feel like you can be a man!" or woman or hat for that matter.
Your trying to demonize what I've said in order to satisfy your own emotional needs that are not liking that I've said something that don't agree with what you want to be true.
Either you didn't understand my arguments and opinions or you do and instead of discussing them rationally you'd rather attack me emotionally for disagreeing with you. I would ask you to take time to think about what I'm saying so that you can better help me to understand what counterpoint your trying to make.
I do understand that this is a highly emotional issue and I do realize the fact that you have legitimate feelings that are deserving of respect as are all those effected by these issues. I would expect the same respect from you and them about my own feelings.
However, we must try and distance ourselves from our personal feelings as much as is possible if we are to expect any semblance of progress towards mutual understanding of these complex issues.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How completely misrepresentative of what I've said. Its because of the promotion of this kind of blatant and frankly irresponsible dissemination of the twisting of what's actually been said in order to suit ones emotional needs that a difficult and complex discussion is made all the more confused and emotionally misconstrued and that's wrong.

Please tell me what you think is incorrect about the following (from the Canadian Government's Institutes of Health Research), and how you would correct it to better explain your viewpoint.

What is gender? What is sex?​

​

'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, despite having different meanings:

Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society.

 

[ChurchofDeanne]

OP clearly has passion, and passion is good. Passion is wonderful. It drives us to move and act. However, ignorance and bigotry and hatred can also be powerful motivators, and languishing in these mental states leads us away from truly loving one another. There has been enough said in this post, but I have come here with the sole intention of expressing the Church of Deanne's appreciation, love, acceptance, affirmation and inclusion for and of all peoples, and the numerous diverse expressions of individual and cultural identities that comprise the vast diaspora of human experience. Our church will be built, not upon the divisions of today, but upon the prospects of tomorrow, when issues of race, gender identity, social class and sexuality will be even more complicated, but will matter much less. Our position is simple: all people are equal and deserve acceptance and respect and love and acknowledgement and equal civil rights, and all people have the right to be free from the harmful effects of discrimination and persecution. The Church of Deanne gladly welcomes everyone, and gladly appoints all eligible, earnest people to positions within the church irrespective of sexuality or any other personal attributes.

 

[setarcos]

Please tell me what you think is incorrect about the following (from the Canadian Government's Institutes of Health Research), and how you would correct it to better explain your viewpoint.

Okay. I only would ask that you attempt to divorce your emotions from your reason while assessing my answer long enough to understand where I'm coming from.
I'm not sure what relevant viewpoint of mine you are specifically referring to so I will just restate my understand of the two terms given : sex and gender.
I will start by going through what you have quoted from the Canadian Government's Institutes of Health Research.

"What is gender? What is sex?​

'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, despite having different meanings:"

This is a relatively recent redefining of what gender means and it is another example of the interjection of confusion and equivocation into language in order to satisfy a political agenda.
For instance if we examine the etymology of the word gender we don't see a clear distinction until the 50's or 60's according to the "E Scholarly Community Encyclopedia"...Quoted,
[ The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.[5] The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.[5] The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[6]]

Gender dysmorphia could just as easily be called sex dysmorphia.
So what political agenda? I personally suspect that it is the result of a particular organism/s natural desire to legitimize its existence and ensure its continued existence by normalizing and even celebrating its particular state of being. All natural healthy beings have an inborn instinctual tendency towards self preservation. That goes for unhealthy beings as well. Especially if that being identifies its existence with the state it finds itself in - health or unhealthy. These are untested personal reasonings though. I'll let the following quote from the same site cited above give a more fact based possible explanation of why I think political to some degree...

"Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955."...
" In the last two decades of the 20th century, the use of gender in academia has increased greatly, outnumbering uses of sex in the social sciences. While the spread of the word in science publications can be attributed to the influence of feminism, its use as a synonym for sex is attributed to the failure to grasp the distinction made in feminist theory, and the distinction has sometimes become blurred with the theory itself; David Haig stated, "Among the reasons that working scientists have given me for choosing gender rather than sex in biological contexts are desires to signal sympathy with feminist goals, to use a more academic term, or to avoid the connotation of copulation."[8]"
And something I think you'd probably agree with and think I don't if you think I haven't considered these things....
In legal cases alleging discrimination, sex is usually preferred as the determining factor rather than gender as it refers to biology rather than socially constructed norms which are more open to interpretation and dispute.[9] Julie Greenberg writes that although gender and sex are separate concepts, they are interlinked in that gender discrimination often results from stereotypes based on what is expected of members of each sex.[10] In J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
"The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.[11]"

Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals.

I agree.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles

Socially constructed roles directly linked with biological sex as a reference point.

Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.

Sex is always characterized as male or female. There are of course variations in the biological attributes of expressed sex characteristics. Within each class of male and female and even within the subcategories of intersex persons. But even in intersex persons the expressed biological attributes are always categorized according to standard male/female characterizations.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people.

If this were the simple truth then there would be no such thing as "gender" dysphoria but rather gender disillusionment with artificially constructed roles. In other words socially constructed rolls would be the cause of gender dysphoria. Or any gender related issues.
This is a politicized definition which serves a particular agenda by taking advantage of equivocating terms. And yes, governments and institutions do that from time to time.
I'm curious, on a side note do you think sexual characteristics play any roll in how or why a society constructs or evolves particular rolls? And is gender identity just a social construct then?

Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time.

Hog wash. Another politicized statement meant to serve a particular agenda which pushes a particular point of view.
Gender identity : not confined to girl/woman, boy/man, not static, exists along a continuum(of what I would ask) and changes over time.
At the end of that statement we still have no idea what Gender identity is except what we want it to be in order to apply to a particular persons condition.
Imagine if I wanted to define a word for you by saying that its not confined to any particular class, it exists along an undefined continuum of the very word I'm trying to define for you, and can change from one ill defined meaning to another. Try to cooperate building a rocket out of that and we wouldn't get higher than an ant hill before it imploded under its own vague and ill defined weight.
No wonder there's so much contention in the world.

There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society.

This is a fine observational statement and its a reflection of the politicized, equivocated, and vaguely defined term "gender" where there need be none.
How I define the terms...
"Sex" refers to the biological classification of male or female and associated characteristics as physically and genetically determined without a component of self awareness.
"Gender" in the modern parlance since it was redefined to be a vague reference to a particular humans condition...refers to the self aware identification of the sexual embodiment of ones own identity.
In a healthy mind gender and sex cooperate in a union of self identity.
I've already mentioned and defined what the "spectrum" of gender identity is in my above posts....

"However I cannot know what it feels like to be a human female since their are important distinctions in anatomy which inform the mind. While the human male/female brain and associated mind ARE on a somewhat overlapping spectrum (or continuum) there still is distinction informed by our physical make up. I cannot possibly be born knowing what it feels like to be a female if I was born a male and being born with a self awareness that is in discord with my own perception of my physicality would not make me an expert on what it should feel like to be a female even if I mutilate my body to simulate the feminine form."
And...
"There have actually been brain scans done on persons with gender dysphoria which have been compared to "normal" male/female brains and many do exhibit female or male mental characteristics in opposition with their physical gender indicators, whichever may be the case, but as I've said the male/female mind is on an overlapping spectrum which include "feminine" males and "masculine" females comfortable with their born gender. So the physical manifestations of these brain scans which are meant to map mental awareness do not correspond one to one with how it feels to be comfortable with ones self identity as a male or female. You can't just say they've been born with a male/female mind/brain in the wrong body. Something more is going on and the most that can be achieved is a mutilation of the body in an attempt to bring it into accord with the mind or therapy for the discordant mind to bring it into accord with the body."

In any case, gender always refers back to male/female characteristics and upon reaching certain critical extremes of opposing physical sexuality and mental gender identification there becomes unhealthy dysphoric situations.

If you have counterpoints to what I've said I would love to discuss them with you. After all, I may be misinformed, may have misunderstood something, or may just be plain wrong. But with the above I'm being reasonable not emotional.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not going to write a novel here. I can't answer everything, so will only deal with the important points.

First, you are using the word dysmorphia where you should be using dysphoria. The term "gender dysmorphia" is not used, so far as I am aware. Dysmorphia is the feeling that there is something very wrong with your body. Gender dysphoria is the feeling that one is not in the correct body, based on birth sexual assignment.

Please take note of that last, because it contains a very important point: we humans really do primarily see ourselves, our being, not as our physical body but as the content of our mind. I am 75, and a long time ago I was (so I'm told, and believe) quite an attractive man. I still primarily perceive myself as that person from years ago, not as the guy who needs a cane because of a bad spine and hip. My self-conception doesn't really mentally include the spare tire around my middle, or the wattled neckline and sagging breasts. In short, my primary conception of myself is not my body, static in time, it is an internalized, life-long story of all that I have been, felt and experienced.

Now, I make that assumption about all people that I know -- that what I observe about them physically is not necessarily even a little like how they perceive and think about who they are. (This is my observance of the Golden Rule -- I think of people as I'd like them to think of me.)

The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.[5] The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.

This not nearly as true as you suppose. Traditionally, Native American two-spirit people were male, female, and sometimes intersexed individuals who combined activities of both men and women with traits unique to their status as two-spirit people. In most tribes, they were considered neither men nor women; they occupied a distinct, alternative gender status. In tribes where two-spirit males and females were referred to with the same term, this status amounted to a third gender. In other cases, two-spirit females were referred to with a distinct term and, therefore, constituted a fourth gender.

Then there are the Hijra of India, the Fa’afafine of Polynesia and the Tatatapui of New Zealand. Also, a third gender/social role in Arabia that has been attested since about 600 AD is the Khanith-(earlier there was the term Mukhannathun). There have been since ancient times in Thailand Trans-Feminine ‘Third Gender’ communities made up of people referred to as ‘Kathoeys’. Whilst on the subject of terminology we can add here that in various ancient languages throughout the world, there are words that apparently denote ‘Transgenderites’ with examples from ancient poetry and religious leaders who use words such as ‘Ali’ and ‘Pedi’ to describe the ‘phenomena’ of transgenderism.

In such ancient cultures as Mesopotamia, Sumerian, Assyria, Babylonia and Akkadian there is historical evidence (including texts from 4500 BC) that document priests-priestesses known as ‘Gala’, a Male-to-Female priesthood that was accepted as sacred and given reverence. Furthermore, during the Old Testament Era there is evidence from an ancient Mesopotamian text known as ‘Erra and Ishum’ that references the worship of the fertility Goddess Ishtar and describes men ‘who changed their masculinity into femininity’. However, some writers have suggested that the requisite Male castration was a conspiracy to usurp Matrilineal leadership. The evidence is however against this theory as there are textual records for Transgender Priestesses dating back to the late Palaeolithic Era.

"Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955."..

I really, really wish you hadn't brought up Money. His ignorance of the permanence of gender identity (irrespective of the body) led to his recommending sexual reassignment of a Canadian boy, David Reimer, who suffered a botched circumcision, and was subsequently -- under Money's supervision -- brought up as a girl. Everything Money could think of was thrown at this "girl" to make the new gender identity stick. I'll omit the whole story, but suffice to say it ended with Reimer trying to live as male from his teens on, until his suicide.

David Reimer, despite never having seen himself with male genitalia, "knew" he was male from the age of 9. It was, of course, all in his mind.

I'll let that digest before I write more...