To Seem, Rather Than To Be? (Trans Ideology)

[Kylie]

@TLK Valentine and @PloverWing I wanted to suggest that you both watch this video. Share it with someone that you know who identifies as trans, although you'll probably not take me up on that.

Would you care to provide a summary of this video?

 

[Kylie]

Very interesting video, I thought he made some very good points. That’s why when I refer to somebody, I refer to their biology instead of their gender. Some people have changed the definition of gender to mean something that is not a reference to sex or biology so to refrain from any confusion, I no longer address gender. If I refer to a biological woman as “she” and I am accused of
mis-gendering them, I will make it clear I was not referring to their gender but their biology. Consistent with science, humans are mammals, and all mammals be it dogs, cats, apes, or even humans; are biologically male, female, or intersex (intersex being a deformity) so there is no confusion as to who can or cannot get pregnant, because nobody decides their biology.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that the shape of their reproductive organs is a better way to determine how to refer to them than what they actually tell you about their gender identity?

 

[PloverWing]

@TLK Valentine and @PloverWing I wanted to suggest that you both watch this video. Share it with someone that you know who identifies as trans, although you'll probably not take me up on that.

Well. You're right: I have no plans to share the video with any of my transgender friends.

What I most dislike about the video is its mocking tone. I'm willing to discuss gender issues in a compassionate, pastoral way, and I'm willing to discuss gender issues (to a degree) in a detached, analytical way. But I don't think it's helpful to discuss gender issues by making fun of the other person's point of view, and that's the approach that the speaker takes for most of the video.

I will, however, agree with the speaker on two points:

1) Do not commit suicide. To anyone reading this post who has had cruel things said to them on account of their gender identity or expression, do not let those cruel words drive you to suicide. The Trevor Project (The Trevor Project | For Young LGBTQ Lives) is one of the places you can reach out to.

2) It can be confusing that, in modern parlance, "man" and "woman" sometimes refer to biological sex and sometimes to psychological gender. Adding to the complexity is that some people have surgically transitioned. I'm willing to use the group of terms "cis man", "cis woman", "trans man", and "trans woman" for clarity when necessary. The discussion between the senator and the professor in which he used "man" to mean "cis man" and she used "man" to include both cis and trans men was unproductive; it's better to discuss actual concepts rather than mere wording.

 

[Ken-1122]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that the shape of their reproductive organs is a better way to determine how to refer to them than what they actually tell you about their gender identity?

The reason I didn’t say anything about the shape of their reproductive organs is because it is a lot more than that. If you have XX Chromosomes rather than XY, if you have a uterus instead of a prostate, if you have a natural testosterone level of 15-25 instead of 900-1200, If you have ovaries, Fallopian tubes, and a natural estrogen level of somewhere between 150-200, (I could go on and on, but I think you get the point) you are a biological female, not a male; and this is regardless of what is going on inside of your head. You know how they say science is real? Well, I like to go with the science, and biology is science, gender the way they are redefining it is not.

 

[Moral Orel]

The reason I didn’t say anything about the shape of their reproductive organs is because it is a lot more than that. If you have XX Chromosomes rather than XY, if you have a uterus instead of a prostate, if you have a natural testosterone level of 15-25 instead of 900-1200, If you have ovaries, Fallopian tubes, and a natural estrogen level of somewhere between 150-200, (I could go on and on, but I think you get the point) you are a biological female, not a male; and this is regardless of what is going on inside of your head. You know how they say science is real? Well, I like to go with the science, and biology is science, gender the way they are redefining it is not.

How in the world do you know all that information about every person you've referred to as "he" or "she"?!

 

[Ken-1122]

How in the world do you know all that information about every person you've referred to as "he" or "she"?!

because they are human.

 

[RDKirk]

It would be nice to not have they/them pronouns (to impose a new language on others to adopt). Even if you want to say it can be used as singular. The issue is that it creates unnecessary verbiage. Less is more.

Don't sweat it. Languages do not complicate over time, they simplify.

"They/them" will become a normal part of speaking because it already was becoming that. Grammarians for years had been fighting a losing battle for consistent agreement of gender and number in pronouns. Non-grammarians have, for centuries, been using they/them as an all-purpose third-person pronoun. That's simpler, and that's the way languages go.

What is not going to stick is adding more pronouns to the language, particularly pronouns that will never be in consistent use. That's an unnecessary complication of the language (if only a fraction of a percent of the population desires it, it's unnecessary), and languages do not complicate over time, they simplify.

 

[RDKirk]

Let's turn your example around. Suppose a kid has only 1 leg and wants to walk like other kids. So the kid wants a prosthetic. And the parents provide for the prosthetic. Is that an immature kid?

Yes. The kid, by definition, is immature. If his reason for wanting a prosthetic is limited to "being like the other kids," that reasoning is still immature. "I want to be like the others" is immature rationale.

The fact that this happened to be a beneficial desire does not mean the rationale was not immature. In many other cases, when the child says, "So I can be like the other children," the parents will have to say "no."

 

[RDKirk]

The only reason I was reducing womanhood to egg carrier is because to progressives (and confused minded conservatives for that matter, like Caitlyn Jenner), that’s the one thing they can’t do anything about—a biological man (trans woman) can never mimic every behavioral characteristic. They may practice talking in a softer tone or practice their gait, but it’s about all they can do.
Another thing, gender reassignment surgery can’t even come close if we’re just considering differences in bone structure. You might have aesthetic differences in the resulting surgical procedures, like giving the appearance of breasts, but guess what? They will never lactate. I could go on and on if I were a biologist. And sure, I left out older women when making my point, but in a way I didn’t. While older women go through menopause, there was a period in their life when they menstruated to get to that stage in life.

Singer Macy Gray is currently under attack for this statement:

"Women go through a completely unique experience, and surgery...does not change that. Being a little girl is a whole epic book."

 

[RDKirk]

Why is any of this important? Trans persons surely know their biological limitations in regards to the gender they identify as. What is the harm in just letting a trans woman call herself a woman or a trans man call himself a man?

Because some of them--at least the ones holding the microphone--do not acknowledge any biological limitations, even if there has not been any particular effort to "transition" at all. Those who hold the microphone claim that a person with beard, chest hair, and penis who has only declared "I am a woman" should be treated in every way like a woman...even to demanding a gynecological exam. These people deny there is any way to define exclusively what a woman is.

 

[RDKirk]

The thing is, though, that the pronouns a person uses isn't about what's between their legs. It's about what their sense of self is saying.

What does that actually mean? Is that clinical "gender dysphoria?" If it isn't definable as gender dysphoria, then is it actually anything at all?

And if it's not clinically definable, why is anyone else obligated to observe it?

Gender dysphoria has been reported across many countries and cultures. Among individuals who are assigned male gender at birth, approximately 0.005 percent to 0.014 percent are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Among individuals who are assigned female gender at birth, approximately 0.002 percent to 0.003 percent are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Polydactylism, the presence of a sixth finger, referred to as polydactyly, occurs in one in 3,000 births. 0.033%

More than twice as many people have six fingers than have gender dysphoria. How many times in your life have you seen someone with six fingers? Do we manufacture all gloves to accommodate that tiny percentage that has six fingers?

 

[Moral Orel]

because they are human.

I asked a "how" question, not a "why" question. Would you care to answer my question?

 

[Ken-1122]

I asked a "how" question, not a "why" question. Would you care to answer my question?

I don't have all of that information on somebody before determining if they are male or female, I go strictly by the way they look. As a matter of fact, I've mistaken biological women for biological men before based on how they look, So I can be wrong.

 

[didactics]

I don't have all of that information on somebody before determining if they are male or female, I go strictly by the way they look. As a matter of fact, I've mistaken biological women for biological men before based on how they look, So I can be wrong.

When it comes to intersex, genetically you’re either male or female. Androgen insensitivity syndrome for example, I have not learned much about this subject, there are degrees of this dysfunction. Sorry, this subject might be uncomfortable for some but I thought it was informative. From Wikipedia:

—Individuals affected by complete androgen insensitivity syndrome CAIS develop a normal external female habitus, despite the presence of a Y chromosome, but internally, they will lack a uterus, and the vaginal cavity will be shallow, while the gonads, having been turned into testicles rather than ovaries in the earlier separate process also triggered by their Y chromosome, will remain undescended in the place where the ovaries would have been. This results not only in infertility in individuals with CAIS, but also presents a risk of gonadal cancer later on in life.—

Or take for example Swyers syndrome:

—Girls with Swyer syndrome have an XY chromosomal makeup (as boys normally do) instead of an XX chromosomal makeup (as girls normally do).—

The thing about Swyers syndrome is that it’s a result of a mutation in the SRY gene (I don’t know entirely what that means, but that’s what I’m getting). Then there’s De La Chapelle, also known as XX Male syndrome where a piece of the SRY gene breaks off and attaches to an X chromosome (translocation movement).

What we need to keep in mind: we don’t argue from the rare and abnormal to justify trans ideology.

And even in a situation in which there might be a legitimate underlying biological reason for confusion about gender, reality is that they are either male or female. Yes it’s unfortunate when rare cases like that happen. Parents sometimes have to assign a hermaphroditic sex at birth until a doctor can do more testing. Sometimes a sex deformity is not known until puberty begins.

What @Moral Orel is trying to do is draw you into the weeds and get you to question basic things. We argue based on what is normal. We know that humans were designed to have two arms for example. Are we going to question what’s normal if someone is born with a rare deformity? Of course not.

 

[didactics]

Would you care to provide a summary of this video?

Hi Kylie,

To give you the short version, as I don’t remember in detail anyway, he basically was reviewing this interaction with these two politicians who argued over the word “man.” He said that they were both right depending on what definition you are using in reference to who can get pregnant. What I liked in particular was his conclusion; even though the lady is a progressive, it doesn’t mean that she has trans peoples best interest in mind. We shouldn’t be encouraging the behavior of oversensitivity of others in order to win an argument, is basically what he’s saying. I think the reason he is coming at it from that angle is because for one, he usually doesn’t like discussing politics that much, and two he’s advocating for a basic principle no matter who you are: as hard as it can be sometimes, don’t let mere words get to you so that you stay resentful.

 

[didactics]

Don't sweat it. Languages do not complicate over time, they simplify.

"They/them" will become a normal part of speaking because it already was becoming that. Grammarians for years had been fighting a losing battle for consistent agreement of gender and number in pronouns. Non-grammarians have, for centuries, been using they/them as an all-purpose third-person pronoun. That's simpler, and that's the way languages go.

What is not going to stick is adding more pronouns to the language, particularly pronouns that will never be in consistent use. That's an unnecessary complication of the language (if only a fraction of a percent of the population desires it, it's unnecessary), and languages do not complicate over time, they simplify.

Oxford English Dictionary:

Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

Werriam-Webster:

Though singular 'they' is old, 'they' as a nonbinary pronoun is new…The new use of they is direct, and it is for a person whose gender is known or knowable, but who does not identify as male or female. If I were introducing a friend who preferred to use the pronoun they, I would say, “This is my friend, Jay. I met them at work.”


From what I’m getting, to use they as a nonbinary pronoun, that is new, and I think 2010 new. And that’s what I have in mind in particular. Using they for other reasons might be for example, describing someone you had a brief encounter with and their face was covered. Obviously an interaction like that would mean you can only say so much. But I think it complicates English to use they frequently as it comes off sounding more incessant.

 

[Kylie]

The reason I didn’t say anything about the shape of their reproductive organs is because it is a lot more than that. If you have XX Chromosomes rather than XY, if you have a uterus instead of a prostate, if you have a natural testosterone level of 15-25 instead of 900-1200, If you have ovaries, Fallopian tubes, and a natural estrogen level of somewhere between 150-200, (I could go on and on, but I think you get the point) you are a biological female, not a male; and this is regardless of what is going on inside of your head. You know how they say science is real? Well, I like to go with the science, and biology is science, gender the way they are redefining it is not.

You have not answered my question, you've merely deflected.

So I shall ask it again.

Why do you think that the shape of their reproductive organs/the internal arrangement of their bodies/their chromosomes is a better way to determine how to refer to them than what they actually tell you about their gender identity?

 

[Kylie]

What does that actually mean? Is that clinical "gender dysphoria?" If it isn't definable as gender dysphoria, then is it actually anything at all?

And if it's not clinically definable, why is anyone else obligated to observe it?

Gender dysphoria has been reported across many countries and cultures. Among individuals who are assigned male gender at birth, approximately 0.005 percent to 0.014 percent are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Among individuals who are assigned female gender at birth, approximately 0.002 percent to 0.003 percent are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Polydactylism, the presence of a sixth finger, referred to as polydactyly, occurs in one in 3,000 births. 0.033%

More than twice as many people have six fingers than have gender dysphoria. How many times in your life have you seen someone with six fingers? Do we manufacture all gloves to accommodate that tiny percentage that has six fingers?

Are you actually suggesting that because it's rare and there isn't a way to specifically define it that we should not bother respecting people when they say, "Please use these particular pronouns for me"?

 

[RDKirk]

Oxford English Dictionary:

Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

Werriam-Webster:

Though singular 'they' is old, 'they' as a nonbinary pronoun is new…The new use of they is direct, and it is for a person whose gender is known or knowable, but who does not identify as male or female. If I were introducing a friend who preferred to use the pronoun they, I would say, “This is my friend, Jay. I met them at work.”


From what I’m getting, to use they as a nonbinary pronoun, that is new, and I think 2010 new. And that’s what I have in mind in particular. Using they for other reasons might be for example, describing someone you had a brief encounter with and their face was covered. Obviously an interaction like that would mean you can only say so much. But I think it complicates English to use they frequently as it comes off sounding more incessant.

I understand the difference of the extended non-binary use. As a grammar nerd, it bugs me. Very often it blurs the understanding of the sentence.

As I said, however, it's still a simplification of the grammar and likely to take hold. It's much easier for people learning English as a second language, for instance.

Long live the Oxford comma!

 

[RDKirk]

Are you actually suggesting that because it's rare and there isn't a way to specifically define it that we should not bother respecting people when they say, "Please use these particular pronouns for me"?

What I'm saying is that public policy is better based on the needs of the great majority with appropriate exceptions made for the exceptions. "Hard cases make bad law."

Trans people with actual gender dysphoria are actually a very small minority, as I pointed out. And when they commit to the gender that fits, they want to be referred to by the gender they present. That's easy enough.

But the idea that someone with a beard and chest hair should be referred to as "she" and permitted into women's spaces is not going to stick as a lasting social value.