Transgender issues: Why blurring the line between men and women is not the problem

[icehorse]

And you know my response and your use of stereotyping.

Ever think about minding your own business?

Actually, I don't. Who did I stereotype in post #39? TAs? TA supporters? I was talking ONLY about the ideas they hold.

Minding my own business?

Like going along with women being assaulted and/or losing hard fought rights?

Like going along with having free speech damaged?

Nah, I think I'll continue to butt in.

 

[Yerda]

Actually, I don't. Who did I stereotype in post #39? TAs? TA supporters? I was talking ONLY about the ideas they hold.

Minding my own business? Like going along with women being assaulted and/or losing hard fought rights? Nah, I think I'll continue to butt in.

Just for clarity, has anyone asked you to go along with women being assaulted or losing rights?

 

[Firenze]

There is no blurry line nor ambiguity. A human male is a person with a Y chromosome. A person without a Y chromosome is female.

And nature is imperfect. It's why we sometimes get a child born with both a penis and ovaries. Are they male or female? Looking at just the chromosome makeup without considering both the genitalia AND the brain chemistry would seem an intellectually lazy course.

 

[Ella S.]

Oh gee, another thread on trans.

Why are some so threatened by such differences?

At this point, it's almost certainly willful ignorance about the social psychology and linguistic history of gender, at least for some of the users in this thread.

It's the same mentality I see in creationists, anti-vaxxers, and climate change denialists. I wonder if there's ever going to be any way to get through to them.

 

[Alien826]

He has vagina, cervix and ovaries. He is a male with ovaries, etc. As I wrote. His gender is determined and defined by his chromosomes, not by outward secondary sexual expressions.

primary sex character, features present at birth that comprise the external and internal genitalia, including the penis and testes and the vagina and ovaries. Primary sexual characteristics are distinguished from secondary sexual characteristics, which emerge during the prepubescent through postpubescent phases; examples of secondary sex characters include breasts, pubic hair, and facial hair.

Primary sex character | Description & Characteristics

Primary sex character, features present at birth that comprise the external and internal genitalia, including the penis and testes and the vagina and ovaries. Primary sexual characteristics are distinguished from secondary sexual characteristics, which emerge during the prepubescent through

www.britannica.com

 

[Kfox]

However, I believe that the real problem isn't about blurring the line between men and women, but rather the real problem is about creating a rigid and hostile divide between men and women.

There has never been a ridged and hostile divide between men and women before transgenderism became an issue, why would there be one now?
Perhaps you’ve gotten it wrong; perhaps the problem with the transgender issue is not about rigid and hostile divides between men and women; but something else.

 

[Alien826]

What an odd notion! Nobody really wants to be other than they are -- cisgender, straight men don't even think about the possibility of being gay: it's not who they are. Cisgender gay men don't even think about the possibility of being straight; it's not who they are, either.

The only real problem -- the cause of all the hatred and debate, is that some of us don't think other people should be who they are! We suppose that they should be like us. On what basis do we think that? How would we respond to somebody who said, "you shouldn't be like you are, you should be like me?" My answer to that is quite simple: "What makes you think I should be like you, rather than that you should be like me? What is the actual source of your superiority?"

I have to disagree. I'm sure you are familiar with the term "in the closet" which refers to gay men that are not ready to admit to the world what they are. There are also men with gay feelings that have been told that being gay is bad, evil or whatever and deal with it by expressing extreme hatred of gay people.

I just watched a movie about an organization that performed "conversion therapy" to supposedly "cure" gay men of their homosexuality. It was all very abusive and caused one young man to kill himself. At the end it named and showed pictures of some of the people on whom the movie was based. The obnoxious leader of the "conversion" organization eventually came out as gay and is now married to a man! (Can't remember the name of the movie, sorry).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have to disagree. I'm sure you are familiar with the term "in the closet" which refers to gay men that are not ready to admit to the world what they are. There are also men with gay feelings that have been told that being gay is bad, evil or whatever and deal with it by expressing extreme hatred of gay people.

I just watched a movie about an organization that performed "conversion therapy" to supposedly "cure" gay men of their homosexuality. It was all very abusive and caused one young man to kill himself. At the end it named and showed pictures of some of the people on whom the movie was based. The obnoxious leader of the "conversion" organization eventually came out as gay and is now married to a man! (Can't remember the name of the movie, sorry).

There was no need to disagree. A man who is "in the closet" is not "straight." The hate-filled leaders of conversion therapy (I think your movie might have been "Pray Away") were not all closeted gays: some, of course, were, and eventually all come out; others are just (mis-)guided by religious zeal.

So what I said I stand by: that we don't really want to be other than we actually are (not what we pretend we are). And when you are comfortable with who you are, when you have come to like you as yourself, then there's less need to hate others. The next step, then, is realizing that for people who are different than you, so long as they are comfortable in their own skin, and living their own lives to the best of their ability, it has quite literally nothing to do with you, and therefore isn't worth the enegy that hate requires.

 

[icehorse]

Just for clarity, has anyone asked you to go along with women being assaulted or losing rights?

Of course not. I don't think anyone on this forum wants to see women's rights or safety reduced.

The argument is over whether the TA agenda hurts women's rights and safety, or not.

 

[icehorse]

At this point, it's almost certainly willful ignorance about the social psychology and linguistic history of gender, at least for some of the users in this thread.

It's the same mentality I see in creationists, anti-vaxxers, and climate change denialists. I wonder if there's ever going to be any way to get through to them.

How about instead of slurring other posters (and pretending to be a mind reader), you stick to debating the ideas?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There has never been a ridged and hostile divide between men and women before transgenderism became an issue, why would there be one now?
Perhaps you’ve gotten it wrong; perhaps the problem with the transgender issue is not about rigid and hostile divides between men and women; but something else.

I respectfully disagree with your view. I believe this issue has existed in the past and still persists today.

For instance, some men may voice their opinions in a way that does more than just voice their opinion, but seeks to silence women, non-binary and gender fluid people in a manner that goes beyond sharing their perspective.

I do not mean to imply that this happens all the time, or is even necessarily going on right now, but I think it is a significant enough issue, sometimes, that I would not hesitate to address it if needed.

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

The next step, then, is realizing that for people who are different than you, so long as they are comfortable in their own skin, and living their own lives to the best of their ability, it has quite literally nothing to do with you, and therefore isn't worth the enegy that hate requires.

I agree it is damaging if men and women "hate" each other. However, given the violence, abuse, and assault heaped on women by men, I do think it's reasonable for women to be wary of men. And back to the original idea which (I think) is that blurring between men and women -- that is, allowing men to access what have been in recent years, single sex spaces where women and children are especially vulnerable, such as restrooms, changing rooms, prisons, shelters, etc. -- can reduce divisions, I disagree wholeheartedly. Women and children need safeguarding from bad men, and need to be wary of all men until they know they can trust the good men. That doesn't mean hating men, it just means being realistic and being careful. Safeguarding rules were put into place for very good reasons. Tearing them down now because some people falsely believe that people can change sex seems like a very bad idea. And even if person A agrees that tearing down the safeguarding is okay for person A, they do not get to decide that for everyone else.

 

[Ella S.]

How about instead of slurring other posters (and pretending to be a mind reader), you stick to debating the ideas?

I already debated you and won, on a number of occasions, and so have other posters here. You just ignored everything they said and kept repeating the same errors you have been corrected on over and over again.

That's not debate. If anyone here was genuinely debating, I would be the first to participate, but they aren't. They're not listening. They don't care. They're pushing hate for reasons that collapse under any small amount of scrutiny.

It's exactly like trying to debate with a creationist. They don't listen. They aren't interested in an honest conversation. They intentionally misrepresent or ignore the science on the subject. At some point, the debate is a refuge in audacity.

I'm not being dragged back into bad faith proselytizing masquerading itself as "debate." You should know better by now. There's no longer any excuse.

 

[Alien826]

There was no need to disagree. A man who is "in the closet" is not "straight." The hate-filled leaders of conversion therapy (I think your movie might have been "Pray Away") were not all closeted gays: some, of course, were, and eventually all come out; others are just (mis-)guided by religious zeal.

So what I said I stand by: that we don't really want to be other than we actually are (not what we pretend we are). And when you are comfortable with who you are, when you have come to like you as yourself, then there's less need to hate others. The next step, then, is realizing that for people who are different than you, so long as they are comfortable in their own skin, and living their own lives to the best of their ability, it has quite literally nothing to do with you, and therefore isn't worth the enegy that hate requires.

My disagreement was with your statement that nobody wants to be other than what they are. Ideally, I agree. Nobody should be made to think that what they are is "bad" intrinsically. But, as the movie demonstrated, some gay men truly wish that they were straight and not subject to the ill treatment they were receiving, in some cases because they have been convinced that they are subject to an evil "disease" or told that their sexuality is a "choice". Thankfully this is changing.

The movie is Boy Erased (2018). It is based on real people and events, but portrayed dramatically.

 

[Soandso]

Oh gee, another thread on trans.

Why are some so threatened by such differences?

It's just another satanic panic, honestly

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Oh gee, another thread on trans.

My reasons for starting this thread are complex, and have little to do with me having problems with transgender people myself (I don't). If faced with the question of if I had to do it over again, if I would do it again (ie, start this thread)... my answer is that I probably wouldn't have the energy, despite wishing the best for all conversation participants.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My disagreement was with your statement that nobody wants to be other than what they are. Ideally, I agree. Nobody should be made to think that what they are is "bad" intrinsically. But, as the movie demonstrated, some gay men truly wish that they were straight and not subject to the ill treatment they were receiving, in some cases because they have been convinced that they are subject to an evil "disease" or told that their sexuality is a "choice". Thankfully this is changing.

The movie is Boy Erased (2018). It is based on real people and events, but portrayed dramatically.

Well, my own view differs slightly. I do not think that many gay men (or women, for that matter) truly wish they were straight. Rather, I think that they are responding to the pressures of their own families, friends and communities (especially religious), who are in fact those who wish them to be straight. They don't want to be straight, they just want -- as we all do -- the approval of the social world in which they live.

 

[icehorse]

I already debated you and won

A couple of points of clarification here:

1 - I do not recognize intersectionality theory as having any value at all.
2 - I'd LOVE to hear how you determine that you've "won" a debate on RF

It's exactly like trying to debate with a creationist. They don't listen. They aren't interested in an honest conversation. They intentionally misrepresent or ignore the science on the subject. At some point, the debate is a refuge in audacity.

You know, I feel EXACTLY the same way about debating you? I have asked you many questions that you have not answered

As for ignoring the science? What science exactly have I ignored?

 

[Yerda]

Of course not. I don't think anyone on this forum wants to see women's rights or safety reduced.

The argument is over whether the TA agenda hurts women's rights and safety, or not.

Ok, I just thought I'd clarify.

Much of the trans activism I've come across focuses on the rights of trans individuals to be treated with prejudice and discrimination in education, health, employment etc. I'm right in thinking that you have no problem with this?

 

[Kfox]

I respectfully disagree with your view. I believe this issue has existed in the past and still persists today.

For instance, some men may voice their opinions in a way that does more than just voice their opinion, but seeks to silence women, non-binary and gender fluid people in a manner that goes beyond sharing their perspective.

Though everybody is guilty of this, I see trans activists doing this more than just about anyone else. They do this by calling anybody who does not agree with their view; bigots, transphobic, and a host of other words and attacks in an attempt to shut down conversations. And many of these activists include non-binary, gender fluid, and others; not just men.

I do not mean to imply that this happens all the time,

I see this happening all the time; especially in debates.

or is even necessarily going on right now, but I think it is a significant enough issue, sometimes, that I would not hesitate to address it if needed.

Do you also see trans activist doing this? Or are the only people you see doing this men.