Response to a post (About myself being Gender Fluid)

[Kfox]

No, it wasn't. Gender was always divorced from biology.

If Gender has nothing to do with biology, why are trans men loading up on steriods and testosterone in an effort to get facial hair like biological males, and trans women are getting facial reconstruction and breast implants to look like biological females, if breasts has nothing to do with being a woman, and facial hair has nothing to do with being a man?

 

[Orbit]

If Gender has nothing to do with biology, why are trans men loading up on steriods and testosterone in an effort to get facial hair like biological males, and trans women are getting facial reconstruction and breast implants to look like biological females, if breasts has nothing to do with being a woman, and facial hair has nothing to do with being a man?

Gender is the social meaning and expectations that are associated with how a person looks, which is phenotype, which is produced by biological characteristics. In that way the two are related. This is so simple I really have trouble believing that you don’t get it.

 

[Kfox]

Once again, you have repeatedly acknowledged that not all women have XX chromosomes, not all women have fallopian tubes, not all women experience a female puberty, not all women have functioning wombs, etc, etc. No human being in their right mind would say biology isn't variable, so using biology as a way of classifying people into rigid categories makes no sense. It's arbitrary.

Those are birth defects; not biological variances. People born blind, with 2 fingers on each hand instead of 5, females without fallopian tubes; these are examples of something going wrong. These are not like variances in estrogen levels or different melanin levels. I never called birth defects/anomalies; biological variances.

Except, as we have established, you have no way to identify a person's biology without physically/sexually assaulting them.

If I’ve known you for a while, and one day you claim to be a girl, I don’t have to sexually assault you in order to realize your biology has not changed over night.

Then you're obviously wrong, as this whole debate has established. For every possible metric by which to understand why someone is a biological woman you have given, you have admitted exceptions.

The exceptions are people born with birth defects and medical conditions. These are not the people claiming gender issues; people claiming gender issues are almost always people born physically whole.

But it is always contingent on some form of physical characteristic. It's not the same as gender, which is purely social.

If gender were purely social, you wouldn’t have trans people trying to look opposite of their sex. Why are biological males having their sex organs replaced if female sex organs has nothing to do with being a woman? Their actions speak louder than your words.

 

[Kfox]

Well, since all categorisations occur in thoughts, all categorisations are not real.

As long as they remain thoughts; the moment action is taken, it becomes real.

 

[Kfox]

Answer the question: is peer pressure real?

Peer pressure does not have an actual existence.

 

[Orbit]

Peer pressure does not have an actual existence.

How can you say that when studies have measured its effect?

 

[Kfox]

As in "the traits that women have vary". I'm not sure how much more clearly I can state it. Women have lots of features, and those features can vary.

The fact that everybody does not look the same is proof that all humans have variable traits.

It's not controlled speech, no more than enforcing gendered language on people in the first place. How is your solution of anchoring pronouns and gender to biology NOT imposing controlled speech using the exact same logic?

I never said my idea should be imposed, I just said I use it because I think it is a good idea.

Now you're confused. What "woman" means is not the same thing as what "gender" refers to. And the definition of "adult human female" doesn't exclude trans people.

I disagree. Biological males used to say “I feel like a woman in a man’s body?” Or “I identify as a woman”; now they say I AM a woman. This is a big difference than before.

That's a loaded question. I could present you with a thousand studies and polls and you'd still say they're not supporting "everything".

By and large, people support trans rights, including the right to have your identified gender and pronouns.

That’s because they don’t support everything. Everybody feels they should be treated with dignity and respect, but this idea that there are 100 different genders with their own pronouns that we are supposed to remember? And if we get it wrong; we are somehow the bad guy? Most people think this is being taken too far.

 

[Kfox]

How can you say that when studies have measured its effect?

When peer pressure causes actions, it is the actions that are real, not the peer pressure. Belief in Santa causes people do act a certain way, does that make santa real?

 

[Orbit]

When peer pressure causes actions, it is the actions that are real, not the peer pressure.

That is absurd. So your thoughts aren’t real? Are they fake?

 

[Kfox]

Let's look at the post:

I've heard dark-skinned Jamaicans say, "I'm not black, I'm Jamaican." (Expressing that they don't identify with the "black" community, but rather with the Jamaican community.)

A mixed-race person may identify as "black," but may or may not be accepted as black by some within the "black" community.
Yes, there are inconsistencies here. Sometimes I get confused when it comes to race. I'm ok with my being confused regarding race, however.

If the dark Jamaican said he was white because he identifies as white, would you agree he would be white?

 

[Kfox]

Gender is the social meaning and expectations that are associated with how a person looks, which is phenotype, which is produced by biological characteristics. In that way the two are related. This is so simple I really have trouble believing that you don’t get it.

So according to you, gender IS related to biology?

 

[Kfox]

That is absurd. So your thoughts aren’t real? Are they fake?

My thoughts are only real to me because they exist in my head; but thoughts dont have an actual existence, if they did everybody would be able to experience them the same way I do.

 

[Orbit]

My thoughts are only real to me because they exist in my head; but thoughts dont have an actual existence, if they did everybody would be able to experience them the same way I do.

You can't see germs. Are they not real? Microwaves? Oxygen? Not real? Peer pressure is a social psychological phenomenon; it can be measured; it has effects; it has the power to change people's behavior--and you're going to say it's not real because you can't see it? And it definitely has consequences that occur outside of your head, obvious to any observer.

 

[Orbit]

So according to you, gender IS related to biology?

It is related to gender in the way that I said, but one does not define the other. Gender as a concept refers to the meanings and social expectations that we attach to biological characteristics, as a society.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If Gender has nothing to do with biology, why are trans men loading up on steriods and testosterone in an effort to get facial hair like biological males, and trans women are getting facial reconstruction and breast implants to look like biological females, if breasts has nothing to do with being a woman, and facial hair has nothing to do with being a man?

Because we live in a society where we have certain expectations about how people are supposed to look in order for us to assume or assign their gender. This isn't that difficult to understand.

 

[crossfire]

If the dark Jamaican said he was white because he identifies as white, would you agree he would be white?

It really doesn't matter too much to me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Those are birth defects; not biological variances.

"Birth defects" ARE biological variances.

People born blind, with 2 fingers on each hand instead of 5, females without fallopian tubes; these are examples of something going wrong. These are not like variances in estrogen levels or different melanin levels. I never called birth defects/anomalies; biological variances.

As I have said before, multiple times now since you somehow don't seem to get it yet, the point is that these things do not preclude a person from belonging within certain categories. The fact that the majority of human beings are born with sight, or five fingers, or biological women have fallopian tubes, does NOT MEAN that those born WITHOUT sight, five fingers, or fallopian tubes are NOT humans or women. The point is that these biological categories are NOT DEPENDENT on very specific features or traits, because the various traits associated with those categories are VARIABLE.

If I’ve known you for a while, and one day you claim to be a girl, I don’t have to sexually assault you in order to realize your biology has not changed over night.

Correct. You would have to have sexually assaulted me both before and after, since you would be presuming I was a particular biological sex to begin with.

The exceptions are people born with birth defects and medical conditions. These are not the people claiming gender issues; people claiming gender issues are almost always people born physically whole.

We were talking about biological gender and how we classify it. The point is that these medical conditions DO NOT PREVENT A PERSON FROM BEING CLASSIFIED AS A CERTAIN BIOLOGICAL GENDER, so to say that being biologically male and/or biologically female is dependent on any one or a number of these features is false. That's the point.

If gender were purely social,

It is, by definition.

you wouldn’t have trans people trying to look opposite of their sex.

No, they're trying to look like a particular GENDER. Once again, "looking like their sex" would be a misnomer to you, because - according to your definition - your sex is entirely related to biological characteristics. I'm not sure how a person can "look" like they have a vagina, or fallopian tubes. I'm not sure if you're aware, but you don't need XX chromosomes to wear a dress and makeup. These things are SOCIAL PRESCRIPTIONS, not biological ones.

Why are biological males having their sex organs replaced if female sex organs has nothing to do with being a woman?

Again, see above. It's about the expectation society has, and because - for a lot of people - they find it difficult to see you as a woman if you don't "look like" one or possess a penis.

Their actions speak louder than your words.

You don't seem to understand their actions very much.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As long as they remain thoughts; the moment action is taken, it becomes real.

I agree. Once a person identifies as a woman, they are a woman.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The fact that everybody does not look the same is proof that all humans have variable traits.

Right.

I never said my idea should be imposed, I just said I use it because I think it is a good idea.

You've repeatedly suggesting doing away with gender (which I agree with) and instead referring to people by biology (which is a terrible idea).

I disagree. Biological males used to say “I feel like a woman in a man’s body?” Or “I identify as a woman”; now they say I AM a woman. This is a big difference than before.

Not really. They just are now understanding that being a woman or being a man can be a matter of self-identification. That idea wasn't as pervasive before, but now we understand it and it is more widely accepted. There were still many, many trans people who explicitly identified as their gender and explicitly rejected the gender assigned them at birth. Those people have existed throughout history.

That’s because they don’t support everything.

That's just arbitrary. Nobody supports "everything". But they DO support people's rights to personal pronouns.

Everybody feels they should be treated with dignity and respect, but this idea that there are 100 different genders with their own pronouns that we are supposed to remember?

You don't have to remember it. You can literally just ask people and they'll tell you. This argument is as silly as saying "So, what, we're all supposed to have different names? How am I supposed to remember thousands of different names??"

I mean, seriously, you do it every day. It's not hard. And things like neo-pronouns are going to be vanishingly rare.

And if we get it wrong; we are somehow the bad guy?

No. If you get it wrong, they can correct you. If they portray you as "the bad guy" for making an honest mistake, that's their problem. As long as you're not doing it deliberately, the vast, vast, VAST majority of trans people are perfectly forgiving of making a mistake.

 

[Kfox]

You can't see germs. Are they not real? Microwaves? Oxygen? Not real? Peer pressure is a social psychological phenomenon; it can be measured; it has effects; it has the power to change people's behavior--and you're going to say it's not real because you can't see it? And it definitely has consequences that occur outside of your head, obvious to any observer.

I never said it isn't real because I can't see it. We can measure the effects of Santa clause during Christmas; does that make him real? Provide an example of peer pressure effecting anything without people involved.