Transphobia

[Guitar's Cry]

Trans women are not the same as biological women; this is basic science. Is science hateful now?

What part of the biology of women would you be referring to? Biology is...squishy. Scientifically, gender and sex require different categorizations due to the intricate and dynamic social nature of gender and the complexity of biological sex, which includes aspects of physiology such as gonadal development, secondary sexual characteristics, brain development, genetics, and hormones. Most people focus solely on the gonads and secondary sexual characteristics, but this does not take into account the less visible aspects that play a part in shaping a person's sex. Then, add psychology and sociology into this and things get really dynamic and complex!

So what do you specifically mean by "biological woman"?

 

[Callisto]

What part of the biology of women would you be referring to? Biology is...squishy. Scientifically, gender and sex require different categorizations due to the intricate and dynamic social nature of gender and the complexity of biological sex, which includes aspects of physiology such as gonadal development, secondary sexual characteristics, brain development, genetics, and hormones. Most people focus solely on the gonads and secondary sexual characteristics, but this does not take into account the less visible aspects that play a part in shaping a person's sex. Then, add psychology and sociology into this and things get really dynamic and complex!

So what do you specifically mean by "biological woman"?

In biology, sex is specific, not relative. Trans activism insisted on hardline separation between the interchangeability of "gender" and "sex" to support their cause and now want to say there is no difference. Stick to the original stance which is closer to biological reality: Gender = social roles; sex = biological makeup. To deny this is to ignore evolution, ignore fundamental biological facts, and impose human sociopolitical concepts on a field that applies to all species.

Transwomen are biological in the sense that yes, like all humans, they are biological. But no, they are not and never will be biological women. That is a fact, that is the reason they transition in the first place: to outwardly appear to be women and to live in society in a manner that emulates women. There is no shame in admitting this and until this recent activism, transwomen didn't claim to be biological women (and many, if not most, still don't).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The word "transphobia" is used the same way the far right uses "woke". Both are terms used to shut down and negate any attempt at rational discourse. Some people don't want to have discourse.

I agree with the last sentence, but disagree with the first sentence, but I can stipulate to that. If so, so what? There's no rational discourse going on here, and no need to be concerned about feelings when talking about or to bigots who deny their bigotry. Why? To me, they're not part of "us" anymore. They're "them," like Putin and the Taliban. I feel no connection to American conservatives further right than the 5-10% most moderate, with whom I share many values. Fellow Americans? No. Just other people who happened to have been born there, not fellow anythings for me any longer, and haven't been for years now. I don't like them, I don't care what they want or think, and I don't care if I offend them. They offend me. We have too little in common, and they have openly hated liberals since Gingrich went after Bill Clinton.

Forbearance is an interesting term. It refers to seeing the other as legitimate and treating them with some deference, as if they matter even if they are the opposition - what was once called the loyal opposition. We compete, but have common interests and goals. That describes the two parties around mid -20th century, the way it also describes two teams engaged in a friendly sporting event. They limit themselves to safe and fair play, not deliberately trying to break legs, for example. And with that degree of mutual respect and cooperation, they accomplished great things, both politically and in sports leagues, because they share many values and see one another as having a legitimate role in the process.

But that's gone for good now, beginning with Gingrich, who, when asked why the House impeached Clinton rather than just sanctioning him, answered, "Because we can." People should have listened to that, because he meant it, and not just for a day or a week, but the left kept fecklessly thinking that the Republicans were fellow Americans and the old ways should continue to be the present ways. Only now is the left coming to see the Republican party as actively anti-American, enemies of ordinary citizens, enemies of democracy, enemies of the rule of law, enemies of tolerance and egalitarianism, and enemies of church-state separation, and enemies of liberals and liberalism.

Now, what were you saying about attempting rational discourse? I see the Republican party as an American disease, and I have virtually nothing in common with people who vote for them. Like I said, I don't care what they think or want, just how to defeat marginalize them and their party.

This is as close to rational discourse as I want to have with the right, and its purpose is not to come together, but to make an argument that will resonate with others like me if any who haven't fully recognized these things yet explicitly, but find themselves saying, "He's not wrong. What do I actually have in common with such people? These people mean me and cherished values harm."

In the case of the trans movement, it's costing allies

And why do they need allies? Do they have enemies? Humanists will always be their allies.

Gender = social roles; sex = biological makeup. To deny this is to ignore evolution, ignore fundamental biological facts

Is somebody arguing with that? What the problem here except that there are people trying to force others to conform to their preferences and go through life looking and acting like a male or female based in anatomy. You might be one of them. Many of us simply don't care how such feel or what they want others to do to make them feel more comfortable with whatever insecurity is powering their transphobia.

And we ignore evolution frequently, because, as Gingrich said, we can. Do you wear glasses? Have you ever used contraception?

I disagree. *Refusing to use preferred pronouns; because you refuse to be controlled.

That's transphobia. There is no other reason for you to take that attitude and make that excuse.

*Refusing to use preferred pronouns; because you refuse to be controlled.
*Refusing to date transgender; because you are not attracted to same sex
*Disagree with them using shower facilities of their choosing; privacy issue
*Disagree trans women are the same as biological women; because it’s true
*Disagree trans women should compete in female sports; because they have a biological advantage

None of this is based in fear, none of it based on hatred, all of it is based on either facts, preferences, or point of view.

It's based in hatred and rejection, in lack of empathy, lack of flexibility, and yes, personal insecurity.

I have never heard a person called "woke" for having a specific point of view

Then you're not listening. "Disney has long been one of the leading businesses in Florida with one of the most powerful voices in the state capitol. DeSantis has criticized the entertainment giant in recent months for what he has called its "woke" policies, including requiring its employees to wear facemasks in the park during the COVID-19 pandemic." If you're planning to point out that Disney is no longer a single person, don't bother.

Rude is based on your personal opinion

Did you think it should be otherwise?

You have no evidence that hate is behind this refusal.

Sure she does. So do I.

You have no reason to claim fear unless they tell you it’s fear. Unless you can read minds, you have no justification to make such a claim otherwise.

Disagree on both counts. Many of us have been alive long enough to understand what motivates assorted behaviors including that on display in this thread.

What are you looking for here with this kind of posting? Acceptance because you say it's not hatred-powered to people who see it as that? You have no hope of convincing people that disagree with you of that, and it frustrates you to not be taken at your word. I'm torn between such people deliberately misrepresenting their feelings and being unaware of their own motives. It really wouldn't matter to know the answer in any given case.

Incidentally, your etymological argument about phobia meaning fear is incorrect. That is only one meaning of the suffix. A more proper definition is "aversion to" as in the hydrophobia of rabies (water avoidance) and the photophobia of migraine headaches (light aversion). And even were it only a modern usage, that's how it's used. What should I suppose motivates you to argue that point if not bigotry? A love of etymology and linguistic purity?

I don't have to read your mind. Your words will do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Rude is based on your personal opinion. You have no evidence that hate is behind this refusal

The attitudes of those who do it, especially those who insist on doing it, says more than their words ever can.

Trans women are not the same as biological women; this is basic science. Is science hateful now?

You think science has emotion?
For example, it's considered rude to repeatedly mention and draw attention to the deformities of another. Such as to repeatedly poiny out that a blind person is blind. They all know they are. The person doing it is just being a ****.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In biology, sex is specific, not relative. Trans activism insisted on hardline separation between the interchangeability of "gender" and "sex" to support their cause and now want to say there is no difference. Stick to the original stance which is closer to biological reality: Gender = social roles; sex = biological makeup. To deny this is to ignore evolution, ignore fundamental biological facts, and impose human sociopolitical concepts on a field that applies to all species.

Huh? What? Maybe some vocal dumbies screaming into social media so it can get get amplified and echoed, but in the real world I've yet to encounter someone who actually believes that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Careful, I think your dogma is showing

We've already many here think all this is new and are missing a big chunk of the picture. I've also been around long enough for all this to sound like a scratched record.
But tragically, it does seem not everyone thinks it's rude to deliberately misgender people, ans refuse to accept how this shameful, uncivilized, and hideous behavior often gets it wrong and does end with a total ***ling who has called a woman with PCOS a man.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In biology, sex is specific, not relative. Trans activism insisted on hardline separation between the interchangeability of "gender" and "sex" to support their cause and now want to say there is no difference. Stick to the original stance which is closer to biological reality: Gender = social roles; sex = biological makeup. To deny this is to ignore evolution, ignore fundamental biological facts, and impose human sociopolitical concepts on a field that applies to all species.

Transwomen are biological in the sense that yes, like all humans, they are biological. But no, they are not and never will be biological women. That is a fact, that is the reason they transition in the first place: to outwardly appear to be women and to live in society in a manner that emulates women. There is no shame in admitting this and until this recent activism, transwomen didn't claim to be biological women (and many, if not most, still don't).

Biology isn't so simple, especially where it relates to sex and gender. Claiming that sex and gender are simple fundamental biological facts ignores such things as sexual mimicry. Removing human behavior from biology ignores humans as animals with their own ethology.

Human language and customs (including gender roles and identity)--now there are relative phenomena! But they fall under the science of human ethology, and this means taking all aspects of sex and gender into account without bias, and not just attempting to cram all the variations of individuals into two simple categories because of dogmatic definitions.

 

[icehorse]

We've already many here think all this is new and are missing a big chunk of the picture. I've also been around long enough for all this to sound like a scratched record.
But tragically, it does seem not everyone thinks it's rude to deliberately misgender people, ans refuse to accept how this shameful, uncivilized, and hideous behavior often gets it wrong and does end with a total assling who has called a woman with PCOS a man.

I'm sorry, it seems there are a few typos in your post, and I can't understand it. Can you restate this? thanks

 

[Kfox]

Right extremists don't use "phobic" the way left extremists do, everything that is too far left for the speaker (and, you don't have to go far at all to get there) is "woke". If something feels a little too "diverse" or "inclusive" (2 words that are often spat rather than spoken), it's woke. They're economical that way, one word to denounce many things with.

Woke is a term that was originally used as a compliment; but now those on the right are using it as a pejorative. Phobia was always used as a pejorative. But still you don’t see those on the right calling people “woke” for having specific views the way you see those on the left calling people phobic for having certain views.

 

[Kfox]

What part of the biology of women would you be referring to? Biology is...squishy. Scientifically, gender and sex require different categorizations due to the intricate and dynamic social nature of gender and the complexity of biological sex, which includes aspects of physiology such as gonadal development, secondary sexual characteristics, brain development, genetics, and hormones. Most people focus solely on the gonads and secondary sexual characteristics, but this does not take into account the less visible aspects that play a part in shaping a person's sex. Then, add psychology and sociology into this and things get really dynamic and complex!

So what do you specifically mean by "biological woman"?

When I say biological woman, I’m talking about an adult human female. What is a human female? A human female is a human with a uterus instead of a prostate, a natural testosterone level of somewhere between 20-35 instead of 900-1,200, Ovaries instead of testies, XX Chromosomes instead of XY, etc. etc.
According to science, all humans are mammals; and all mammals are either male or female; regardless of what is going on inside of their heads.

 

[Callisto]

I agree with the last sentence, but disagree with the first sentence, but I can stipulate to that. If so, so what? There's no rational discourse going on here, and no need to be concerned about feelings when talking about or to bigots who deny their bigotry. Why? To me, they're not part of "us" anymore. They're "them," like Putin and the Taliban. I feel no connection to American conservatives further right than the 5-10% most moderate, with whom I share many values. Fellow Americans? No. Just other people who happened to have been born there, not fellow anythings for me any longer, and haven't been for years now. I don't like them, I don't care what they want or think, and I don't care if I offend them. They offend me. We have too little in common, and they have openly hated liberals since Gingrich went after Bill Clinton.

This sentiment is exactly what conservatives say as well, "it's their fault there's no discourse". Both sides are equally guilty of being dogmatic and self-righteous, never accepting any personal part in the failure for discourse or the bigotry they express, it's always the other guys.

And why do they need allies? Do they have enemies? Humanists will always be their allies.

Because society consists of more than a person's special interest group and it's through empathy from others and the willingness to aid another group that society flourishes. When people are so wrapped up in their own personal wants and needs, railing against any and all things outside it, it's hard for those who would lend their support to want to align themselves with that kind of self-centeredness and vitriol. The gay community didn't have a problem with hetero allies willing stand with them on civil rights, ditto other groups. But hey, if there are folks within the trans community that don't care about societal support, that's their choice. I don't so it being helpful to the community in the long run but YMMV.

Is somebody arguing with that? What the problem here except that there are people trying to force others to conform to their preferences and go through life looking and acting like a male or female based in anatomy. You might be one of them. Many of us simply don't care how such feel or what they want others to do to make them feel more comfortable with whatever insecurity is powering their transphobia.

Not sure where you got the idea that I'm "one of them." Acknowledging there are two biological sexes doesn't rob a trans person's rights to exist in society however they need to. Trans people have done that for generations now, it's nothing new. It's the activism and extremist individuals within it that are new.

And again, the coercion is two-sided. You have people on the left seeking to force others to change language and invalidate the need and reasons for spaces established along biological sex lines simply because they want it even if that means forcing another demographic (like biological women) to forfeit their spaces and needs.

And we ignore evolution frequently, because, as Gingrich said, we can. Do you wear glasses? Have you ever used contraception?

Gingrich is a bloated moron and wearing glasses doesn't ignore evolution. Humans not inventing glasses until the 17th century doesn't mean they didn't have poor eyesight during the centuries prior to that nor attempted to fashion a way to handle it. Contraception comes under health care and other species self-medicate. We just have, due to evolution, larger brains and opposable thumbs to do more than most species.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm sorry, it seems there are a few typos in your post, and I can't understand it. Can you restate this? thanks

You can't understand it? I forgot a couple words in the first sentence. Other than one minor typo that doesn't detract from meaning, like this;

[intentionally misgendering] often gets it wrong and [it] does end with a total assling who has called a woman with PCOS a man.

PCOS is PolyCystic Ovary Syndrome. And, unfortunately, it's not unheard of for a woman with PCOS to find herself in tbe targets of transphone bigots who think they know and want to make a deal out of it. It also happens to ciswomen who masculine/butch lesbians. It also just sometimes happens because of height, face, reasons that show us how stupid these bozos really are.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Phobia was always used as a pejorative.

That is most certainly not how it's used clinically. Agoraphobia, for example, is not a perjorative and is a mental disorder. It is an irrational fear of being in crowds and in public places (like grocery stores), and this is why it too ia considered a phobia.

 

[Callisto]

Huh? What? Maybe some vocal dumbies screaming into social media so it can get get amplified and echoed, but in the real world I've yet to encounter someone who actually believes that.

Oh, I've seen plenty of extremists that claim that sex is relative. And yes, they also make a point of being online. Here, I was responding to the statement that "sex is squishy". But again, that's not something that's claimed by many or even most within the trans community. Then too, most in the community simply want to walk the world comfortably in their own skin and assuage their dysphoria. They don't have any interest in drawing excessive attention to themselves, much less make controversy.

 

[Kfox]

That's transphobia. There is no other reason for you to take that attitude and make that excuse.

That is your opinion, which is an empty claim; unless you can somehow provide proof that it is transphobia. Of course I ain’t gonna hold my breath

It's based in hatred and rejection, in lack of empathy, lack of flexibility, and yes, personal insecurity.

More empty claims based on your subjective opinion. Face it! I know better than you know what is going on inside of my head.

Then you're not listening. "Disney has long been one of the leading businesses in Florida with one of the most powerful voices in the state capitol. DeSantis has criticized the entertainment giant in recent months for what he has called its "woke" policies, including requiring its employees to wear facemasks in the park during the COVID-19 pandemic." If you're planning to point out that Disney is no longer a single person, don't bother.

The Disney theme park was never a single person. Looks like you’ve found the flaw in your own response, so I don’t have to.

Sure she does. So do I.

Then provide the evidence. (again; ain’t gonna hold my breath)

Disagree on both counts. Many of us have been alive long enough to understand what motivates assorted behaviors including that on display in this thread.

Then by all means; provide proof that their objections are based on fear, when they specifically tell you it is not. (ain’t holdin’ my breath for that one either)

 

[Callisto]

Biology isn't so simple, especially where it relates to sex and gender. Claiming that sex and gender are simple fundamental biological facts ignores such things as sexual mimicry. Removing human behavior from biology ignores humans as animals with their own ethology.

Human language and customs (including gender roles and identity)--now there are relative phenomena! But they fall under the science of human ethology, and this means taking all aspects of sex and gender into account without bias, and not just attempting to cram all the variations of individuals into two simple categories because of dogmatic definitions.

Though sexual mimicry is just that, mimicry. It's not changing one's biology to the opposite sex. Even those that manage to mimic appearance do so because that's an evolutionary feature. Transgender persons do not change their sex, i.e., they can't change their biology. They can, to use your example here, engage in mimicry of the opposite sex.

While societal gender roles change, it doesn't mean individuals' sexes change with them. It's evident given the differences among cultures and the roles either sex may be accountable for in them. Until the mid-20th century, US women didn't do a lot of things in society that was deemed men's work or men's privilege. Actually, even in pioneer times, those families out on the prairies survived because the women were left alone or (with children if they had them) to tend and defend against humans and animals while the husbands were gone weeks at a time to bring back provisions. Societal gender roles are far more fluid than sex wherein one is born either maile or female or the rarer instance of something going wrong and a person is intersex (which still indicates the binary, a bit of both).

 

[Kfox]

You think science has emotion?
For example, it's considered rude to repeatedly mention and draw attention to the deformities of another. Such as to repeatedly poiny out that a blind person is blind. They all know they are. The person doing it is just being a dick.

What are you talking about? Do you really think I’m gonna go around pointing out transgender women and calling them men? I used to date a girl who had a gay friend who used to cross dress. There was occasion when we were all out in public. If he was in costume, I would refer to him as a her and call him by his stage name. Now does this mean I believe this person was a she, and the stage name was his real name? NO! I just did it when he dressed up because he preferred it that way. If he was not in costume, I called him he and by his real name because he preferred it that way. Just because I recognize a person for who they are, does not mean I'm gonna be rude to them!

 

[Kfox]

That is most certainly not how it's used clinically. Agoraphobia, for example, is not a perjorative and is a mental disorder. It is an irrational fear of being in crowds and in public places (like grocery stores), and this is why it too ia considered a phobia.

I wasn’t talking about how the word is used by Clinicians, but how the term is used by activists.

 

[Callisto]

You can't understand it? I forgot a couple words in the first sentence. Other than one minor typo that doesn't detract from meaning, like this;


PCOS is PolyCystic Ovary Syndrome. And, unfortunately, it's not unheard of for a woman with PCOS to find herself in tbe targets of transphone bigots who think they know and want to make a deal out of it. It also happens to ciswomen who masculine/butch lesbians. It also just sometimes happens because of height, face, reasons that show us how stupid these bozos really are.

FWIW, I have PCOS as too does a niece and some friends. None of us have ever been misgendered. However, I can see how some women may have very severe expressions of it and that could lead to being misgendered at times. Even so, I wouldn't equate all instances of misgendering with being hated upon. People are wired to associate certain appearances with one sex or the other and the overwhelming majority of people do identify with their sex so misgendering is often an honest mistake. It can make the person feel bad but that doesn't mean the speaker intended that. I've been out with friends when that has happened and usually, it's an innocent mistake and the waiter or whoever has apologized. Stuff happens.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Both sides are equally guilty of being dogmatic and self-righteous, never accepting any personal part in the failure for discourse or the bigotry they express, it's always the other guys.

Saying that "both sides are equally guilty of being dogmatic and self-righteous" seems to me demonstrably inaccurate considering the discrepancy between the legislative actions of each major political party. On the part of liberals, there is no push to outlaw an entire group's right to marriage, no push to reverse basic protections for medical procedures (like the push that led to abortion bans and now the potential contraceptive bans at which Clarence Thomas hinted), and no push to ban an entire group's access to medical care (e.g., gender-affirming care) that is sometimes life-saving for them.

I see major faults within both parties and don't align with the Demcoratic Party's neoliberalism and historically hawkish foreign policy, but currently, I don't see both parties' domestic policies as equally dogmatic either. The GOP have been pushing a lot harder in that direction, and the theocratic disposition they have adopted in the last several years is quite salient in a lot of their decisions.