When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

I'd prefer to see some stats on the distribution and range of reported "differences or disorders" on the spectrum ...

Do you have that to help substantiate this article?

I'm not interested in the article. It was only presented to show what the WHO was referring to in Steve's Dail Mail article. Which was sex and not specifically gender. The current discussion is about gender. If you have a problem with gender then tell me what it is. If you want to make a claim about gender then offer some evidence to back it up. Steve would appreciate the help.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not interested in the article. It was only presented to show what the WHO was referring to in Steve's Dail Mail article. Which was sex and not specifically gender. The current discussion is about gender. If you have a problem with gender then tell me what it is. If you want to make a claim about gender then offer some evidence to back it up. Steve would appreciate the help.

Who said that I'm here to back either Steve or you? It's not as if there are only "2" Worldviews or only "2" Praxes to rule them all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don't be nonsensical. There would have to be fraud by every person in every single department that dealt with such matters in every state or country on the planet. With obvious exceptions such as Saudi etc.

But again, you are free to find any authoratitive evidence to the contrary and present it. 'I think there's been a bit of fraud' isn't it.

I think you know that what I'm saying is common enough knowledge. Besides, no one has a trump card here.

 

[Bradskii]

Who said that I'm here to back either Steve or you?

Nobody. But you were arguing against gender as was Steve. If you want to argue against the definition then feel free.

 

[Bradskii]

I think you know that what I'm saying is common enough knowledge.

It's a common trope. And useless as an argument even if it was true. Evidence against a specific scientific definition is a better option.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nobody. But you were wrong arguing against gender as was Steve. If you want to argue against the definition then feel free.

I'm not arguing against 'gender.'

But I will argue against the social and political hegemony of unproven, arbitrary ideas, wherever they may be found. And where 'gender' is a major concern---usually among those with transgender complications, I'd tend to say something more or less along the lines of what Kristina Olson has pointed out:

Similarly, although some neuroscience studies have shown that brain structures of trans people resemble those of individuals with the same gender identity, rather than people with the same sex at birth, these findings have often involved small samples and have not yet been replicated. Further complicating interpretation of neuroscience results is the fact that brains change in response to experience, so even when differences appear, scientists do not know whether structural or functional brain differences cause the experience of a particular gender identity or reflect the experience of gender identity. Muddying the already murky waters, neuroscientists continue to debate whether even among people who are not transgender, there are reliable sex (or gender) differences in brains [see “Is There a 'Female' Brain?”]. Thus, whereas the topic is an active line of work in many research laboratories around the world, definitive conclusions about genetic and neural correlates of gender identity remain elusive.​

​

When Sex and Gender Collide

Studies of transgender kids are revealing fascinating insights about gender in the brain

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[stevevw]

Sex and gender refer to different things.

No not accoreding to the definition of the article under Postmodernist Queer theor from where it originated. This definition conflates gender and sex and in fact replaces sex with gender identity by making it more important than sex. Thus terminology according to gender identity erases sex because it replaces sex terminology.

Central to Queer Theory are the twin propositions that both sex and gender are socially constructed (31, 32) and that gender is the more important of the two (3, 33)1

Frontiers | Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language

On 24 September 2021, The Lancet medical journal highlighted an article on its cover with a single sentence in large text; ‘Historically, the anatomy and phy...

www.frontiersin.org

This is from the articles reference list which shows how gender identity ideologues aim to conflate sex and gender identity so as to undermine sex and lends support to what the articles authors are saying that gender identity as a Postmodernist Queer theory is unreal and unscientific..

It is impossible to understand the proposed change to the meaning of the sex question in the census without reference to a broader political project aimed at replacing sex with gender identity in law, language and data-collection.
Gender identity lobbyists have campaigned for many years to remove sex as a protected characteristic in law (WPUK 2020).
The postmodernist project is explicitly anti-scientific (Sokal and Bricmont 1998).

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10093735/1/Sullivan_Sullivan2020SexandtheCensusIntlJnlSocResMethods.pdf

The article gave the definition of gender. The discussion in the article was about sex

If the article was only talking about sex then why did it give a definition of gender identity.

I suggest that just about every time the article talked about sex it was also talking directly or indirectly about how gender identity effects the reality of sex. Here are a few examples and as you can see they mention gender identity a lot when they are talking about the reality of womens sex.

The long-established sexed meanings are that “woman” means an adult of the female sex2, and “mother” means a female parent (36). However, when new Queer Theory-informed gendered meanings are applied, “woman” means an adult with a gender identity of “woman,” and “mother” means a parent with a gender identity of “woman” (37).

The change in meaning of “women” from a sexed term to a gender identity can also mean that those women who do not have a belief in gender identity as a concept do not see themselves reflected in the gendered use of “women.”

We would argue that using “female” to describe a biologically male person with the gender identity of “woman” is inappropriate and that in order to accurately denote the sexes, “male” and female” should be retained as wholly sexed terms (109).

Yet, it is being suggested that collection of data on gender identity should be prioritized over sex (145)

Clarity about definitions, and the separate collection of data on sex and gender identity (where relevant) is needed (27).

Taken altogether the authors are talking about gender identity and are also saying that it should not trump the relaity of womens sex as its is harmful by erasing them as a unique category.

and the WHO guidance referred to sex. Following the generally scientific acceptance that a binary definition is not always valid. See here: Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

That is not something we are discussing nor do I wish to discuss it. It's gender we are discussing and it's gender you say doesn't exist. It's gender that has been defined and it's that definition that you need to address.

Tell me what about it you disagree with and give me some evidence for any claim that you make.

How can you discuss gender identity without including sex. It would be unfair and as the articles are saying harmful in erasing womens sex because the two are not exclusively seperate. In fact for most people 99.98% their gender is their sex. Otherwise your dismissing the vast majority of people. Why should the ideology of a very small % of people dictate the societal norms about sex and gender. We don't do that with anything else.

Why Sex And Gender Are Not Two Different Things

Why Sex And Gender Are Not Two Different Things

It cannot be stated strongly enough. There is not even a wisp of a scientific discovery that requires we understand sex and gender as two different things.

thefederalist.com

For the majority of people, usually around 98%, there is a clear correlation between their sex and gender (e.g. biological sex is male and gender is male).

Standard for Sex and Gender Variables, 2016

The standard for sex and gender variables identifies sex and gender as two distinct concepts and defines standard classification categories for each

www.abs.gov.au

The idea that gender identity trumps sex or that sex is a spectrum has been disproven regardless of what the Woke WHO and opther scientific journals claims. As the fake peer reviewed articles has shown these ideas based on Postmodernist Queer theory and CRT that have flooded humanities and our institutions are unscientistc.

unScientific American! Popular magazine is slammed by experts over ‘woke’ article titled ‘Why Human Sex is Not Binary’

Scientific American slammed for woke sex-binary article

Dr Agustin Fuentes, a anthropologist at Princeton University in New Jersey, wrote a piece for the Scientific American this week that argues human sex is not on a binary and instead a spectrum.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Another science kerfuffle in which a biology journal pushes ideology and denies the binary nature of sex

Another science kerfuffle in which a biology journal pushes ideology and denies the binary nature of sex

One by one, biology journals—and other science journals, as noted in our new “merit” paper—are placing at the top of their priority list “progressive” authoritarian Social J…

whyevolutionistrue.com

 

[rjs330]

Pull the other one...

See I have never denied gender exists. You are spreading disinformation. Stop spreading disinformation.

 

[rjs330]

No not accoreding to the definition of the article under Postmodernist Queer theor from where it originated. This definition conflates gender and sex and in fact replaces sex with gender identity by making it more important than sex. Thus terminology according to gender identity erases sex because it replaces sex terminology.

Central to Queer Theory are the twin propositions that both sex and gender are socially constructed (31, 32) and that gender is the more important of the two (3, 33)1

Frontiers | Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language

On 24 September 2021, The Lancet medical journal highlighted an article on its cover with a single sentence in large text; ‘Historically, the anatomy and phy...

www.frontiersin.org

This is from the articles reference list which shows how gender identity ideologues aim to conflate sex and gender identity so as to undermine sex and lends support to what the articles authors are saying that gender identity as a Postmodernist Queer theory is unreal and unscientific..

It is impossible to understand the proposed change to the meaning of the sex question in the census without reference to a broader political project aimed at replacing sex with gender identity in law, language and data-collection.
Gender identity lobbyists have campaigned for many years to remove sex as a protected characteristic in law (WPUK 2020).
The postmodernist project is explicitly anti-scientific (Sokal and Bricmont 1998).

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10093735/1/Sullivan_Sullivan2020SexandtheCensusIntlJnlSocResMethods.pdf

If the article was only talking about sex then why did it give a definition of gender identity.

I suggest that just about every time the article talked about sex it was also talking directly or indirectly about how gender identity effects the reality of sex. Here are a few examples and as you can see they mention gender identity a lot when they are talking about the reality of womens sex.

The long-established sexed meanings are that “woman” means an adult of the female sex2, and “mother” means a female parent (36). However, when new Queer Theory-informed gendered meanings are applied, “woman” means an adult with a gender identity of “woman,” and “mother” means a parent with a gender identity of “woman” (37).

The change in meaning of “women” from a sexed term to a gender identity can also mean that those women who do not have a belief in gender identity as a concept do not see themselves reflected in the gendered use of “women.”

We would argue that using “female” to describe a biologically male person with the gender identity of “woman” is inappropriate and that in order to accurately denote the sexes, “male” and female” should be retained as wholly sexed terms (109).

Yet, it is being suggested that collection of data on gender identity should be prioritized over sex (145)

Clarity about definitions, and the separate collection of data on sex and gender identity (where relevant) is needed (27).

Taken altogether the authors are talking about gender identity and are also saying that it should not trump the relaity of womens sex as its is harmful by erasing them as a unique category.

How can you discuss gender identity without including sex. It would be unfair and as the articles are saying harmful in erasing womens sex because the two are not exclusively seperate. In fact for most people 99.98% their gender is their sex. Otherwise your dismissing the vast majority of people. Why should the ideology of a very small % of people dictate the societal norms about sex and gender. We don't do that with anything else.

Why Sex And Gender Are Not Two Different Things

Why Sex And Gender Are Not Two Different Things

It cannot be stated strongly enough. There is not even a wisp of a scientific discovery that requires we understand sex and gender as two different things.

thefederalist.com

For the majority of people, usually around 98%, there is a clear correlation between their sex and gender (e.g. biological sex is male and gender is male).

Standard for Sex and Gender Variables, 2016

The standard for sex and gender variables identifies sex and gender as two distinct concepts and defines standard classification categories for each

www.abs.gov.au

The idea that gender identity trumps sex or that sex is a spectrum has been disproven regardless of what the Woke WHO and opther scientific journals claims. As the fake peer reviewed articles has shown these ideas based on Postmodernist Queer theory and CRT that have flooded humanities and our institutions are unscientistc.

unScientific American! Popular magazine is slammed by experts over ‘woke’ article titled ‘Why Human Sex is Not Binary’

Scientific American slammed for woke sex-binary article

Dr Agustin Fuentes, a anthropologist at Princeton University in New Jersey, wrote a piece for the Scientific American this week that argues human sex is not on a binary and instead a spectrum.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Another science kerfuffle in which a biology journal pushes ideology and denies the binary nature of sex

Another science kerfuffle in which a biology journal pushes ideology and denies the binary nature of sex

One by one, biology journals—and other science journals, as noted in our new “merit” paper—are placing at the top of their priority list “progressive” authoritarian Social J…

whyevolutionistrue.com

I love the part in the one article that states that gender theory today is 100% sophistry and 0% science. That about sums it up.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not arguing against 'gender.'

But I will argue against the social and political hegemony of unproven, arbitrary ideas, wherever they may be found. And where 'gender' is a major concern---usually among those with transgender complications, I'd tend to say something more or less along the lines of what Kristina Olson has pointed out:

Similarly, although some neuroscience studies have shown that brain structures of trans people resemble those of individuals with the same gender identity, rather than people with the same sex at birth, these findings have often involved small samples and have not yet been replicated. Further complicating interpretation of neuroscience results is the fact that brains change in response to experience, so even when differences appear, scientists do not know whether structural or functional brain differences cause the experience of a particular gender identity or reflect the experience of gender identity. Muddying the already murky waters, neuroscientists continue to debate whether even among people who are not transgender, there are reliable sex (or gender) differences in brains [see “Is There a 'Female' Brain?”]. Thus, whereas the topic is an active line of work in many research laboratories around the world, definitive conclusions about genetic and neural correlates of gender identity remain elusive.​

​

When Sex and Gender Collide

Studies of transgender kids are revealing fascinating insights about gender in the brain

www.scientificamerican.com

That is an excellent article. Covers all bases in reasonable detail and there is a lot that some people could learn from it. It should be compulsory reading for anyone discussing gender. I would strongly advise @stevevw to read it, if he hasn't already.

And I notice that @rjs330 gave it a gold star. Or rather gave the post a gold star. I'd like to ask if he read the article itself and what he thought about it.

And I'll point out the obvious while I'm here. The article wasn't questioning whether gender exists. It takes that as being understood right from the outset. But rather whether it is genetic (a reasonably strong case for it) or neurological. As you highlighted, conclusions about that remain elusive.

 

[Bradskii]

If the article was only talking about sex then why did it give a definition of gender identity.

So you wouldn't get confused by the difference. Something of a fail in your case.

Why Sex And Gender Are Not Two Different Things

Why Sex And Gender Are Not Two Different Things

It cannot be stated strongly enough. There is not even a wisp of a scientific discovery that requires we understand sex and gender as two different things.

thefederalist.com

Ah yes. An opinion piece in The Federalist. My go-to source for all things medical as well. You being serious?

For the majority of people, usually around 98%, there is a clear correlation between their sex and gender (e.g. biological sex is male and gender is male).

And now you link to another site that says that there's a correlation between sex and gender, which means that there's a connection between two different things. And which also tells us that for (at least) 2% of the population there's no correlation between their gender and their biological sex. So they are obviously different.

And are we at the point where you can make up statistics? You said: 'In fact for most people 99.98% their gender is their sex.' Which, apart from recognising that they are not the same, is directly contradicted by the very quote you gave.

And immediately after the quote in the article, it says this:

'For this reason the conceptual difference between sex and gender is not well understood by the general public with the two concepts often used interchangeably in legislation, research, and the media. This standard brings both concepts together to provide each with context and clarify the meaning and intention of each.'

Is this some sort of game you are playing? Links that you keep giving saying that they support your position say the exact opposite! How is it even possible that you read that highlighted quote and didn't understand it? And it is beyond any understanding that you didn't read the sentence that immediately followed it that tells you that sex and gender are two different things! And not more than two sentences later it gives the definitions of both:

Operational definition of sex​

Operationally, sex is the distinction between male, female, and others who do not have biological characteristics typically associated with either the male or female sex, as reported by a respondent.

Nominal definition of gender​

The term ‘gender’ refers to the way in which a person identifies their masculine or feminine characteristics. A person’s gender relates to their deeply held internal and individual sense of gender and is not always exclusively male or female. It may or may not correspond to their sex assigned at birth.

Steve, what are you playing at?

 

[stevevw]

That is an excellent article. Covers all bases in reasonable detail and there is a lot that some people could learn from it. It should be compulsory reading for anyone discussing gender. I would strongly advise @stevevw to read it, if he hasn't already.

And I notice that @rjs330 gave it a gold star. Or rather gave the post a gold star. I'd like to ask if he read the article itself and what he thought about it.

And I'll point out the obvious while I'm here. The article wasn't questioning whether gender exists. It takes that as being understood right from the outset. But rather whether it is genetic (a reasonably strong case for it) or neurological. As you highlighted, conclusions about that remain elusive.

Actually I am familiar with these studies and findings. Its an interesting and complex area. I think this is the road we should be further exploring as it is about the science for the most part and will help unravel this complicated issue. I say complicated because its a mixture of issues bioloigical, neurological, psychological and sociological and working out what each part plays is important to understanding and supporting Trans people and others who are GNC.

I think this can be summed by a fundemnetal question in regards to supporting Trans people. Do we try to align the body with the mind or the mind with the body.

But what we do know is that many young people feel this way and are not trans. Around 85% grow out of this after puberty. So the risk is with misdiagnosing children as Trans who may also display opposite sex behaviour when young who were not Trans but gay or lesbian. Though I think to some extent sexual orientation has also been linked to similar findings on brains and hormones with same sex attracted people.

But still they end up not being Trans and making these kids go down an Affirmation and transitioning path would really screw them up creating additional problems for which we are beginning to see now with regretters and de-transitioners.

There is also the issue of psychological impairment as many Trans and GNC peoples have childhood trauma and sexual abuse. There are many issues that cause gender dysphoria which cause people to reject their bodies. Then add to this Autogynephilia where male are aroused at identifying as women.

So theres a lot of sort but what Trans ideology does is put all this in the one pot and assume its all the same. Like all this is just a healthy and normal variant of being human when its not.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually I am familiar with these studies and findings.

Your comments thus far make me struggle to think you have read anything like it - and accepted it as being authoratitive. It talks about gender - which you have rejected. It explains what gender is. Which you say is wrong.

I say complicated because its a mixture of issues bioloigical, neurological, psychological and sociological and working out what each part plays is important to understanding and supporting Trans people and others who are GNC.

Because it's a mixture of different components? The author mentioned that. That the reasons why people consider their gender different to their biological sex are not always apparent. It could be biological. Maybe neurological. There's obviously a societal impact because gender is often a socially determined concept.

But wait...what are we discussing? Gee - gender. We're discussing something you say doesn't exist separate from biological sex. But we're addressing it as something that people consider not to align with their biological sex. This must be awfully confusing to you that we can easily discuss something that you refuse to acknowledge.

Around 85% grow out of this after puberty.

Well, another figure to play with. So 15% do not. So 15%, following puberty, consider that their gender still doesn't align with their biological sex. But...how can that be when gender doesn't exist? Again, something of a mystery for you I would imagine.

 

[stevevw]

So you wouldn't get confused by the difference. Something of a fail in your case.

But that would only make sense if they were then talking about how these differences play out as far as womens sex is concerned. In that sense they are saying those who think gender identity trumps sex are the confused ones.

Ah yes. An opinion piece in The Federalist. My go-to source for all things medical as well. You being serious?

The Federal court is only reflecting whats happening in society. In real life situations where sex and gender conflict. Like how a biological male can smash the womens weight lifting world record which will never be brioken by a biological female ever again. That will go down in the history books. Thats when sex and gender come together.

But I can perhaps use antropological evdience if you want showing even our closest cousins display what we would call socially constructed gender behaviour. Is that just a coincident or did the ape society socially construct their infants into this behaviour.

Toy story: Why do monkey and human males prefer trucks? Comment on “Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children” by Hassett, Siebert and Wallen

Toy story: Why do monkey and human males prefer trucks? Comment on “Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children” by Hassett, Siebert and Wallen - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Why is opposite sex gendered behaviour in infants used as a sign of being Trans or GNC when its only a social construct. If a girl who believes they are a boy is still socialized like a girl yet still wants to play with opposite sex toys. How can that be. I suggest that the reason is because their brains are wired for opposite sex behaviour.

So genedered typical behaviour like toy choices is not completely socialised into kids. There is some truth that males like trucks and stuff and females like dolls and stuff because its how their brains work. Just like in our counsins. There is a connection between sex and gender that ideologues deny to proporgate their unfounded ideological and metaphysical beliefs about human nature.

And now you link to another site that says that there's a correlation between sex and gender, which means that there's a connection between two different things. And which also tells us that for (at least) 2% of the population there's no correlation between their gender and their biological sex. So they are obviously different.

Your making the assumption that the 2% represent some spectrum. I think they are saying that we can safely assume that sex and gender are connected because 98% of the time it aligns. It aligns for good reason because we embody our sex which is displayed in gendered ways.

Something has misaligned with the 2% which if it did not misalign would have made 100% of people align gender with sex. Like any misalignment it produces a very small difference. But we don't then say this is a normal and health human variant. Rather we are concerned to help support them in recognition of that setback. The confusion is caused by ideologues who twist the truth to proporgate their ideology.

And are we at the point where you can make up statistics? You said: 'In fact for most people 99.98% their gender is their sex.' Which, apart from recognising that they are not the same, is directly contradicted by the very quote you gave.

Not sure what you mean. I quoted the 99.98% relating to Transex people. This has been used as to why sex is a spectrum. But a tiny blip on a vast binary does not create a spectrum. The point is does the 0.2 or 2% even mean that we can say gender and sex is completely seperate. I don't think so because the of the fact that almost 100% align sex and gender which points beyond social constructions. There is no other issue in science where we take the tiny outlier as represetation of the whole.

Also transex people don't like being labelled Trans or Queer because of a physical anomely. Even many of transex people identify within the sex binary. This is another sad consequence of the ideology in erasing peoples sexed reality. Doing exactly what they accuse society of doing to them.

And immediately after the quote in the article, it says this:

'For this reason the conceptual difference between sex and gender is not well understood by the general public with the two concepts often used interchangeably in legislation, research, and the media. This standard brings both concepts together to provide each with context and clarify the meaning and intention of each.'

Is this some sort of game you are playing? Links that you keep giving saying that they support your position say the exact opposite! How is it even possible that you read that highlighted quote and didn't understand it? And it is beyond any understanding that you didn't read the sentence that immediately followed it that tells you that sex and gender are two different things! And not more than two sentences later it gives the definitions of both:

Operational definition of sex​

Operationally, sex is the distinction between male, female, and others who do not have biological characteristics typically associated with either the male or female sex, as reported by a respondent.

Nominal definition of gender​

The term ‘gender’ refers to the way in which a person identifies their masculine or feminine characteristics. A person’s gender relates to their deeply held internal and individual sense of gender and is not always exclusively male or female. It may or may not correspond to their sex assigned at birth.

Steve, what are you playing at?

Not playing at anything. Giving both definitions doesn't mean they are not related. Have you ever considered that gender and sex are both connected and unconnected dependeing on the situation and that is why you and everyone get confused and conflate them inappropriately. Its understandable and easy to do it. Its a complex issue that needs unravelling.

The point was with the 98% alignment for most people with sex and gender was that even if we only take this stat and disregard definitions and the science this is a very strong support for the two having some correlation. We would not reject such a strong correlation for any other issue being researched.

I mean to say that sex is assigned at birth and somehow its our innate gender identity that counts and sex was socially constructed to conflict with gender identity is totally back the front. Sex isn;t assigned at birth, its a biological reality and for 98% of people that biological reality gives us a gendered sense that we have embodied. Its expressed through gender norms ect. We act out our biological reality.

I mean you even acknowledge this connection when you argue that Trans people who identify as the opposite do so because of innate brain chemical and neurological alignment with opposite sex brains. The opposite sex behaviour is used to measure the gender idenity as being opposite. So theres the connection between gender and sex. If the behaviour is only socially constructed then why use it as the measure.

The survey is just trying to sort all this out for research but its not saying either way there is a connection or no connection. Their point is these two things often get confused and they need to be sorted as its important for health ect. But that is exactly what the paper I linked earlier was saying.

 

[stevevw]

I love the part in the one article that states that gender theory today is 100% sophistry and 0% science. That about sums it up.

I don't think its 100% sophistry for reasons like say aggressive behaviour is rooted in hormones (testosterone) and can influence gendered behaviour.

 

[Bradskii]

But that would only make sense...

It makes sense in itself. If there's something in the definition with which you disagree, then tell me. Want to make a claim about the definition? Show some evidence. I keep asking this but you make zero attempt to address it.

The Federal court is only reflecting whats happening in society. In real life situations where sex and gender conflict.

Wow. There are real life situations where sex (one thing) and gender (another thing) conflict? Why do you keep saying one things and then directly contradict it with another. I mean directly contradict it. If sex and gender are the same thing then how do you mange to suggest that in real life situations they conflict. That is the basis for transgenderism!

Why is opposite sex gendered behaviour in infants used as a sign of being Trans or GNC when its only a social construct. If a girl who believes they are a boy is still socialized like a girl yet still wants to play with opposite sex toys. How can that be. I suggest that the reason is because their braions are wired for opposite sex behaviour.

I guess an article from Scientific American like you said you just read would explain it. Or at least give you reasons why there is a difference between sex and gender!

Your making the assumption that the 2% represent some spectrum.

You can't use a percentage to describe a spectrum. A spectrum runs form A to B. Or in this case M for masculine to F for feminine.

Something has misaligned with the 2% which if did not misalign would have made 100%. Like any misalignment it produces a very small difference. But we don't then say this is a normal and health human variant. Rather we are concerned to help support them in recognition of that setback.

Correct. So if there is a significant difference between one's biological sex and one's gender then it's a problem. Gosh, are there people like that? And do they want to transgender? And should they receive all the help and care that we can give to ensure that what they want to do is in their best interests? Well...yeah. Glad you want to help.

The point is does the 0.2 or 2% even mean that we can say gender and sex is completely seperate.

One is a social construct. One is a biological fact. Two things that are different that are not the same. Guess which is which.

Not playing at anything. Giving both definitions doesn't mean they are not related. Have you ever considered that gender and sex are both connected and unconnected and that is why you and everyone get confused and conflate them inappropriately.

Of course they are connected. But...they. are. not. the. same. thing.

 

[stevevw]

Your comments thus far make me struggle to think you have read anything like it - and accepted it as being authoratitive. It talks about gender - which you have rejected. It explains what gender is. Which you say is wrong.

I have not rejected gender perse. Just the subjective sense of it as being something real that trumps biological sex. I accept the gender aspects that are socially constructed but disagree that this means geneder doesn't have innate aspects that influence behaviour. Like race issues this is the issue that ideologues have a one dimensional view which makes gender identity the only true and real enity.

This is what is causing the conflicts because then the so called real enity of identity conflicts with the real enity of our biological sex and according to the ideologues one has to be deminished or even deleted. Which is gender identity is now the true essence of reality and sex is secondary, even irrelevant in health, and law. Its the metaphisical and ontological ideology that is creating idenity as the only real thing. Its not based on any science. You could compare it to say eugenics or other beliefs about human nature.

Because it's a mixture of different components? The author mentioned that. That the reasons why people consider their gender different to their biological sex are not always apparent. It could be biological. Maybe neurological. There's obviously a societal impact because gender is often a socially determined concept.

I notice how you emphasize the differences with "biological and neurological maybe" and "socially determined obviously". You seem to be making an absolute claim for social constructions as the cause and nature well maybe we don't know enough to say "obviously". That there lies the problem I believe, that you are biased twoards the "no fixed nature" of humans.

Thats understandable as progressives don't like science, objective facts ect. Its all about moral relativity. That way people/society can rationalise everything as "its my reality and that trumps all". But thats seems mopre religious than something we could say is actually the case.

But wait...what are we discussing? Gee - gender. We're discussing something you say doesn't exist separate from biological sex. But we're addressing it as something that people consider not to align with their biological sex. This must be awfully confusing to you that we can easily discuss something that you refuse to acknowledge.

Notice how you said "the reasons why people consider their gender different to their biological sex are not always apparent". So no we are not just talking about gender. The fact is people feel different (opposite) to their biological sex means that sex is connected.

You can't feel opposite of something genderwise if sex is not connected. If gender is a social construction created seperate from sex then having some innate dysphoria athat conflicts with a social construction doesn't make sense. So sex is the reason their gender is in conflict in that their gender is conflicting with their biological reality.

Well, another figure to play with. So 15% do not. So 15%, following puberty, consider that their gender still doesn't align with their biological sex. But...how can that be when gender doesn't exist? Again, something of a mystery for you I would imagine.

Your creating straw men again. I have not said that gender doesn't exist but rather that it doesn't exist as ideologues claim like its a natural variation of humans that we should worship over sex, over the facts and reality itself. The 15% who continue with their gender dysphoria doesn't not mean that gender identity then trumps their sex. The later issue may be do we try aned align their minds with their bodies or their bodies with their mindes.

This alone tells us that the 15% have some developmental issue that needs attention. Trans ideology wants to affirm this 15% and even transition them so their bodies align with their gender identity. But we edon't know thats the solution either. Some long term studies show its not the solution. Now many organisations and nations are moving away from this trans model as it lacks scientific basis.

It seems we are deoing full circle and realising that all along the best approach was to first try and align the mind to the boedy. To get the person more comfortable with their body reality. Even if that means acception them just the way they are. Afterall if gender deeysmorphia is a sense that you are not in an authentic body to your sense of self then the last thing you want to edo is change your authentic bodey with articifically made human constructions that are not authentic. It defies basic psychotherapy.

No matter how authetic looking we can recreate humans to look like something else we will always know the difference ande that is what feeds gender dysphoria. So in some ways the trans ideology is feeding gender dysphoria which I think is a form of abuse.

 

[Bradskii]

I notice how you emphasize the differences with "biological and neurological maybe" and "socially determined obviously". You seem to be making an absolute claim for social constructions as the cause and nature well maybe we don't know enough to say "obviously". That there lies the problem I believe, that you are biased twoards the "no fixed nature" of humans.

There is no 'tabula rasa', but it is so obvious that we are creatures of our environment that it barely needs explaining.

Notice how you said "the reasons why people consider their gender different to their biological sex are not always apparent". So no we are not just talking about gender. The fact is people feel different (opposite) to their biological sex means that sex is connected.

Because we are comparing one with the other!

Your creating straw men again. I have not said that gender doesn't exist but rather that it doesn't exist as ideologues claim like its a natural variation of humans...

It is a variation that we all have.. It's practically the definition of gender that we all feel masculine or feminine to some degree.

It seems we are deoing full circle and realising that all along the best approach was to first try and align the mind to the boedy. To get the person more comfortable with their body reality. Even if that means acception them just the way they are. Afterall if gender deeysmorphia is a sense that you are not in an authentic body to your sense of self then the last thing you want to edo is change your authentic bodey with articifically made human constructions that are not authentic. It defies basic psychotherapy.

I didn't know you were qualified to make those decisions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is an excellent article. Covers all bases in reasonable detail and there is a lot that some people could learn from it. It should be compulsory reading for anyone discussing gender. I would strongly advise @stevevw to read it, if he hasn't already.

Of course it is. ... I like to have my epistemological cake AND eat it, too!!!

And I notice that @rjs330 gave it a gold star. Or rather gave the post a gold star. I'd like to ask if he read the article itself and what he thought about it.

And I'll point out the obvious while I'm here. The article wasn't questioning whether gender exists. It takes that as being understood right from the outset. But rather whether it is genetic (a reasonably strong case for it) or neurological. As you highlighted, conclusions about that remain elusive.

Exactly. The article wasn't questioning the existence of Gender perceptions. (Of course, neither did the more historically oriented article I posted just prior).

More importantly, for me, the statistic on suicide rates among those with Gender perception disorders is of the greater focus in this article, with the FACT that gender correlates are elusive as a close second.

For me, the question becomes: If I, deeming myself a "Christian," am to love and show compassion for others, how can I do that best in regard to what Jesus would have me do when engaging those who have these challenges in life? It's not a question of politics. It's also not completely a matter of a clash between "worldviews."

The upshot is this: if Jesus is who He says He was, and if we are to do what He want us to do, then by that very condtion, no one on either side of today's politics--whether on the Left or the Right--will sit well with all that Jesus had to say, and this will be the case where the issue of Gender is at the crux of a clash of worldviews.

 

[stevevw]

There is no 'tabula rasa', but it is so obvious that we are creatures of our environment that it barely needs explaining.

The 'Blank Slate' or there is no fixed nature and the empty mind idea is exactly what Trans ideology is based on. If they acknowlege human nature as in biological sex then they have to concede that sex and gender are not complete social constructions and in fact are influenced by nature. And they don't want to do that as it will expose their lies about how gender identity is a seperate and innate reality in the world and not just a subjective feeling of self..

The following is a great article that explains the roots of Trans ideological thinking. As I have been saying its more about a fundemental metaphysical and ontological belief and position about human nature and how we should order society behind this issue. An eye opener.

Trans ideology is born out of the union of two other radically rationalist ideologies: Existentialism and Postmodernism. Judith Butler’s idea that “gender is performative and not an essence,” is rife with all of the contradictions that Jean-Paul Sartre’s “existence precedes essence” is. (essence being innate or human nature my addition)

For Sartre, “there is no human nature.” There is only the individual, and the goal is to unfetter ourselves from every essence and concept the world tries to heave onto us without our consent.

This precept about the social nature of man has been the traditional way to understand the human person in our civilization; it was known to the Greeks, when they told us that man is a “political animal” who is “born for citizenship,” and to the Hebrews, whose God looked over his creation and only saw one thing that was not good: Man being alone.

Transgender ideology struggles with the same issues I have just presented for Existentialism. In fact, Judith Butler – primary founder of modern queer theory – quite literally copies Sartre’s famed “existence precedes essence” when she states that gender is not an essence but is by nature “perfomative.”

Gender is something you create; it precedes your essence. It is whatever one wishes for it to be – an ethereal, cartesian abstraction that predates mere biological facts.

The final aspect of transgender ideology is the postmodern flavor it has. Postmodernism is taking an incredulous position towards mata-narratives. This is where Michel Foucault takes center stage and provides a very Nietzschean answer: it’s all about power.“There is no truth that can be espoused, defended, or rescued against systems of power.” Thus, the disciples of Foucault interested in gender and sex (those like Judith Butler) began to see a binary gender system as merely a system of power.

Therefore, those who claim that gender is binary are merely attempting to enslave you, to exert their power on you to keep you from truly existing, from truly expressing yourself.
Matt Walsh, Michael Oakeshott, and Jean-Paul Sartre

Because we are comparing one with the other!

But you said the article was only talking about womens sex. If they are comparing it to gender identity then they are talking about gender identity. In that light they are comparing and showing how they conflict and how a subjective belief (gender identity) is trumping biological reality when it does conflict. IE deleting the word pregnant women or breast feeders (sex terms) with pregnant person and chest feeders (gender identity terms) deletes womens sex. That was the point of their paper.

It is a variation that we all have..

No not everyone agrees and thats the point. Your forcing a worldview on everyone else and wanting them to conform to having some innate identity seperate to their sex Just like religion.

It's practically the definition of gender that we all feel masculine or feminine to some degree.

Yes we all have it though I think its a very vague idea because many people don't consciously make a big issue about it because their gender naturally aligns with their sex they see them as the same thing. Its when it doesn't align that it becomes the issue. But that doesn't mean the majority who don't see things the same way as GNC people should also buy into the idea that we have this completely seperate idenity apart from our sex.

The idea that there is this innate identity within us more real than our sex and in fact is our sex is putting the cart before the horse for most people. Most people don't want to be labelled with identities like how men and women are now Cis rather than just men and women. Or that theres this idreal identity that can turn a biological male into a women identity like biological women. They hate the idea of being attributed with some identity they don't believe exists. They are not Cis they are just women and men.

Its almost doing to the majority what gender ideologues protest about in not having their pronouns conffffirmed. Ideologues demande everyone use their pronouns and terminology but then are quick to force their pronouns and terms on everyone else like they have to confom to the new narrative.

I didn't know you were qualified to make those decisions.

Well yes as these are areas I studied psychology and sociology in my degree. But its not rocket science. A basic principle of psychotherapy is to work on the mind, adjusting it to reality, bodily reality and not the other way around. Like the example of anorexia norvosa. We don't confom the body to the delusional thinking that the person believes they are overweight and need to lose more weight. We don't give them liposuction to affirm their delusion. We work on the mind. We help them feel more at ease with who they are, with reality.

Body dysmorphia is expressed in other ways and we don't treat it like sex and gender. Why is it only this area that we throw the science out the window.

But if you don't want to rely on my opinion then look at the many organisations and nations that have abandoned the Affirmative and Transitioning model that changes the body first. They now use psychotherapy as the first line of treatment. Thats because they realise the fundemental principle of good treatment is therapy.

How we got things back the front could only be the result of ideology because belief is a powerful thing and when ideologues use protection rights as the weapon to emotionally blackmail people it can be a powerful thing that people cave into. That is exactly what has happened.

Ideologues believe that Trans and GNC are healthy and natural variants of human beings. They don't like the idea that they need therapy as it implies a disorder or anomely. So they create the trans child. I expect there will be many court cases of people who were wrongly transitioned and had their lives ruined.