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

[Moral Orel]

You and Ana seem to be on opposite sides of the argument, though. I'm a Christian, but I seem to be on the same side of the argument as Ana.

You seem to be thinking the same way Ana is that there are only two sides to the entire trans topic. The issue is multifaceted and that allows for you and Ana and I to all agree or disagree on different parts. Either I'm all for anything any trans person wants, or I'm against anything any trans person wants? Those are my only options? No, that's silly.

Didactics posted about dedicated gender roles, Ana has already said he doesn't care about gender roles, so Ana and I agree about gender roles. He isn't concerned with the trans topic because of gender roles, and neither am I. You two can agree about your conclusion and disagree about your premises.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We haven't diverged from that. A "gender identity" doesn't have to involve that person's biological sex.

Ok...

The overly-woke folk want to eliminate the concept of biological sex, you want to eliminate the concept of gender identity.

Well I think it's worth examining whether or not it's a valid concept.

They're both clearly at play in this topic. Trying to eliminate ways to convey ideas is only going to lead to confusion.

Well I certainly don't want to create more confusion on the topic....

But it's not exactly clear what gender identity means. Is it mere fashion and roles and norms? If so....why are we calling it an identity instead of fashion, or cultural roles and norms?

Did you just cite a dictionary definition at me as though it is authoritative?

No....one can always argue for another definition.

The problem these days is that people argue against a definition....and don't have a replacement one....hence that confusion you mentioned earlier. People are embarrassing themselves during cabinet appointment hearings at the question of defining a woman. People have attempted to redefine racism in certain ways but never actually use the term in accordance with the new definition.

You can propose a new definition if you want though

You realize that humans literally just made up language, right?

Yeah...in fact, I've known this a long time. I'm always surprised when some social constructivist acts like this is some revelation.

Words are useful if they convey the meaning you want to get across. When I say "Dave told me that he is going on vacation next week" the only meaning I want to get across is that "he" refers back to "Dave". I'm not trying to convey "Dave who has a penis". So who cares if we always used to think of sex and gender as being inextricably intertwined? They aren't.

Then why didn't you use "she"?

Big whup. Once you separate the ideas you can enjoy a nuanced position like I do.

I get that it refers to Dave....but the idea that Dave is male also exists in the pronoun.

Here's a word that maybe you can help me with.....cisgender.

You see....if anyone had ever asked me my gender (and no one does) I'd simply reply that I'm a man.

Apparently though, I'm cisgender, which doesn't make much sense to me. I'm told that this refers to men and women who are biologically men and women....but as you said, gender is separated from biology in your mind....so why would we need a word to connect gender and biology?

Why would anyone ever refer to themselves as "cisgender" instead of just man or woman or male/female?

Hey, did you know that every time you quote someone, that little quote box has a link to where you snipped the quote from? So if you stumble across a conversation that you find interesting, all you have to do is click that little arrow to retrace your steps through that conversation without having to scan page after page for the relevant info you're looking for? Neat huh?

I don't want to read every post you wrote just to find out you didn't answer the question....

Did you answer it or not?

No. If you want to join a conversation midway, it's on you to get yourself up to speed on that conversation.

I don't recall seeing that rule on the forum.

I responded to the post I intended to....if you don't see the connection between what you were saying and my question, I can point it out for you.

I'm pretty sure you see it though.

It sure is. It's incredibly useful and saves a lot of time to not confront things that aren't related to an issue. When biology matters, we can talk about it. When it doesn't matter... why are we talking about it?

Well you've got 2 new questions then....

Why don't we call Dave "she" in your example?

Why does the word "cisgender" directly connect biology to a gender category if gender isn't related to biology in your mind?

 

[Moral Orel]

Well I certainly don't want to create more confusion on the topic....

But it's not exactly clear what gender identity means. Is it mere fashion and roles and norms? If so....why are we calling it an identity instead of fashion, or cultural roles and norms?

An "identity" is a collection of all those things, maybe more.

Put gender aside for a moment and just consider an identity. Is it fair to say that your likes, dislikes, and beliefs are part of "who you are"? Is an "identity" not simply "who you are"?

No....one can always argue for another definition.

The problem these days is that people argue against a definition....and don't have a replacement one....hence that confusion you mentioned earlier. People are embarrassing themselves during cabinet appointment hearings at the question of defining a woman. People have attempted to redefine racism in certain ways but never actually use the term in accordance with the new definition.

You can propose a new definition if you want though

If you and I agree that male/female refers to biological sex, and that man/woman refers to all the other subjective stuff that we don't care about, we'll be able to clear up a lot of confusion. Let "gender" be all that fluff that is essentially meaningless, and insist "sex" be the biological facts that actually have pertinence. We can then make standardized definitions as to what it means to be male/female, we won't be able to make any sort of standardized definition as to what it means to be man/woman, but who cares? That's all the leftover stuff we don't care about. We use words like that all the time. Define "tall".

Then why didn't you use "she"?

Because Dave looka-lika man.

I get that it refers to Dave....but the idea that Dave is male also exists in the pronoun.

The idea that Dave is masculine also exists in the pronoun. The idea that masculinity refers to biology isn't necessary.

Here's a word that maybe you can help me with.....cisgender.

You see....if anyone had ever asked me my gender (and no one does) I'd simply reply that I'm a man.

Apparently though, I'm cisgender, which doesn't make much sense to me. I'm told that this refers to men and women who are biologically men and women....but as you said, gender is separated from biology in your mind....so why would we need a word to connect gender and biology?

Why would anyone ever refer to themselves as "cisgender" instead of just man or woman or male/female?

If your sex matches your gender, then you're cisgender.

They don't have to be identical to relate them. A red ball matches a red shirt. So what?

I don't recall seeing that rule on the forum.

It's not the forum's rule, it's my rule. You don't want to follow it, you don't have to. But you don't get whatever you want on demand either.

Why does the word "cisgender" directly connect biology to a gender category if gender isn't related to biology in your mind?

I never said they aren't related. I said they're distinct concepts. You can relate anything to anything else in some way, shape, or form.

 

[RDKirk]

Didactics posted about dedicated gender roles, Ana has already said he doesn't care about gender roles, so Ana and I agree about gender roles. He isn't concerned with the trans topic because of gender roles, and neither am I. You two can agree about your conclusion and disagree about your premises.

Well, bottom line, I don't really care if we came to the same conclusion via different routes. If I did, that would be an attempt at thought control.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You and Ana seem to be on opposite sides of the argument, though. I'm a Christian, but I seem to be on the same side of the argument as Ana.

It's hard to say what I think about a topic with so few facts and so little evidence. I've got some guesses....but gender ideology is mostly garbage that doesn't really answer anything.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You seem to be thinking the same way Ana is that there are only two sides to the entire trans topic. The issue is multifaceted and that allows for you and Ana and I to all agree or disagree on different parts. Either I'm all for anything any trans person wants, or I'm against anything any trans person wants? Those are my only options? No, that's silly.

Didactics posted about dedicated gender roles, Ana has already said he doesn't care about gender roles, so Ana and I agree about gender roles. He isn't concerned with the trans topic because of gender roles, and neither am I. You two can agree about your conclusion and disagree about your premises.

My problems with the whole trans activism thing started off purely legal....and just grew from there. In order....

1. What they are asking, legally speaking, is unprecedented. People like to compare it to wheelchairs and the concept of equal access....but extra wide restroom stalls were created because people in wheelchairs literally cannot fit into conventional stalls. There's nothing stopping a mtf trans person from going into the men's room and using it. What they are asking for is the ability to define themselves along whichever legal lines they choose. We do treat men and women differently, for example, in child custody cases. The mother typically takes precedent.....and now, if these activists are successful....any man could claim to be a mother and should be given equal priority.

If that sounds too far fetched, go back a decade in your mind and imagine being told that soon....men who believe they are women will step into an mma cage and beat the daylights out of a woman, I think that probably sounded ridiculous back then.

2. The whole "wrong side of history" argument....which I typically make fun of....is worth consideration now. If my position is wrong, well, I'm a bigot. I don't advocate standing in the way of adults who want medical treatment, but I don't think it's right for children or minors. You can possibly stretch that into the realm of bigotry if I'm wrong. If the other side is wrong....they will have supported the sort of large scale medical atrocity that we could only reasonably compare with something like the eugenics movement. If the other side is wrong...people will look back and wonder how any group of civilized people were so unbelievably monstrous.

3. The tactics of the advocates. Threatening suicide is emotional blackmail. It's a pretty awful way to get people to do what you want and never a good reason for changing all of society. Schizophrenic people actually have a higher rate of suicide....and no real activism. Young Adults with Schizophrenia Have Highest Suicide Risk
Imagine any minority threatened suicide if they didn't get special privileges? I imagine we'd be willing to take the risk.

4. The society they would have us make....
It may seem harmless, or even helpful, for everyone to engage in this sort of fantasy where people can choose to be a man or woman. I'd suggest that regardless of how accommodating we become, there's one accommodation that we won't demand....and that's the one I outlined in my question to you. A survey of Canadian college students concluded that trans people typically see themselves as heterosexual, so a mtf trans person finds a heterosexual man most desirable. Heterosexual men.....don't want to date or have a ltr with trans women at all. I'm talking about like 99%. In fact, trans people are no ones first choice....not even trans people.

So essentially, the trans person would go through life being treated like any other woman or man in nearly every respect but one. The one that arguably matters the most. The more trans people exist....the more of them will likely die alone. It seems to me rather cruel that they would eventually conclude that their life is really just a long lie....or rather, society lies to them. It seems better to me, even if it is more difficult at first, that they would do better to understand the unique nature of their lives and simply seek respect and compassion. Nobody is really served by the lie...no matter how much they desire it.

And that's really just the short list...

 

[Ana the Ist]

An "identity" is a collection of all those things, maybe more.

We have terms for those things though....terms like fashion work pretty well when describing fashion.

It's this idea of a "gender identity" that I'm trying to understand the veracity of....and it's difficult....because frankly, it gets propped up with a lot of unrelated concepts like fashion or "conventional gender roles" which we've largely gotten past as a society.

If gender identity is unique to everyone and has no clear boundaries regarding what is or isn't s gender identity.....then it's not only unclear what gender identity represents as a concept, it's also unclear why we would need the concept to describe anything at all.

Put gender aside for a moment and just consider an identity. Is it fair to say that your likes, dislikes, and beliefs are part of "who you are"? Is an "identity" not simply "who you are"?

Sure....it's a long list if we consider everything....and a list I wouldn't give much consideration to. I don't really define myself by my favorite movie for example....although one could reasonably say it's "part of who I am".

If you and I agree that male/female refers to biological sex,

Yes.

and that man/woman refers to all the other subjective stuff that we don't care about,

I really don't though. I don't see why a woman is less womanly for enjoying car restoration as a hobby or a man any less manly for stitching dresses. I get that on average we may find more men doing one thing and women doing another....but that level of analysis may work against this idea you're presenting more than it works for it.

For example, it's not secret that because men are typically more aggressive and risk taking....they are the large majority of prison populations worldwide. Women, by comparison, commit less imprison-able offenses....

So it's odd to consider such things as aspects of gender identity....especially when mtf trans people have imprisonment rates similar to men, not women. Ftm trans people have rates more similar to women....not men.

I honestly can't think of a way that "being a man" has any sort of non-biological aspect to me.

Let "gender" be all that fluff that is essentially meaningless, and insist "sex" be the biological facts that actually have pertinence.

Lol somehow if this option were on the table, I doubt I could sell it to the trans activists.

We can then make standardized definitions as to what it means to be male/female,

I'm pretty sure we have those now....they're what the activists keep attacking

we won't be able to make any sort of standardized definition as to what it means to be man/woman, but who cares? That's all the leftover stuff we don't care about. We use words like that all the time. Define "tall".

That's an adjective. I don't think you support the use of those words that way....otherwise the question of the womanly penis wouldn't trouble you so much.

Because Dave looka-lika man.

You mean in a biological way? Or in this esoteric "he likes football" gender identity way?

The idea that Dave is masculine also exists in the pronou.

Does it? Dave may be a giggalo or he may be 2nd string in a ballet troupe. "He" doesn't really get into those details as a pronoun.

If your sex matches your gender, then you're cisgender.

So why wouldn't we just say "male" or "man"?

For a concept that is supposedly distinct from sex....we sure do end up referring to biological sex a lot. Cisgender includes biological information and it doesn't sound like it's necessary......

Why wouldn't I just say man?

They don't have to be identical to relate them. A red ball matches a red shirt. So what?

What is the distinct part of a gender identity? That part that isn't related to biological sex nor is it some hobby or interest.

It's not the forum's rule, it's my rule. You don't want to follow it, you don't have to. But you don't get whatever you want on demand either.

If it were 10 pages....sure....but I went back a few posts and you had wondered into some goofy territory about the Bible? It's not exactly encouraging that the answer will appear if I dig deeper.

I never said they aren't related. I said they're distinct concepts. You can relate anything to anything else in some way, shape, or form.

Definition of DISTINCT

Do you have some new definition for "distinct" as well?

If I was correct about the word "cisgender"....then it's not a gender....it's a category of gender that's directly related to biology, as is transgender.

The words we use for biological sex....male/female and man/woman....seem to be the same as we use for gender.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's recap the conversation...

















So there is a genetic and biological part of what makes us who we are, yet there is also a very large part that is built from the experiences we have. You can take two people who are genetically identical and give them different experiences, and they'll turn out to be very different people. I would suggest that the part of who we are that is formed from those experiences makes up a very large part.

So essentially....environment.

Things like culture, society, our choices, etc....these are the things that you think make up a large part of your identity....

I think the word experiences is a bit difficult because it's the connection between the environmental and biological.

And on the issue of trans people, you think they're coming from this aspect? The environmental aspect?

 

[Moral Orel]

Ana, you chop stuff up too much. You seem to think every single sentence I write is wrong, so I'm just going to go one at a time in my replies. Maybe I'll get back to the rest of it, maybe you'll find ways to chop these up into finer bits and we'll do it again.

An "identity" is a collection of all those things, maybe more.

We have terms for those things though....terms like fashion work pretty well when describing fashion.

Orel: Atoms are a collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Ana: We have terms for those things though....terms like proton work pretty well when describing protons.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The term is transgender, not transsexual.

Do you think that is the better word?

 

[Kylie]

And on the issue of trans people, you think they're coming from this aspect? The environmental aspect?

I wouldn't say that. I don't think trans people are trans because of some experience they had. It could be something like some hormone was produced in sufficient quantities, that kind of thing. Or their bodies aren't sufficiently receptive to a hormone.

 

[Kylie]

Do you think that is the better word?

What I think is irrelevant, since I am not trans.

Transgender vs. transsexual: Definitions and differences

 

[RDKirk]

I wouldn't say that. I don't think trans people are trans because of some experience they had. It could be something like some hormone was produced in sufficient quantities, that kind of thing. Or their bodies aren't sufficiently receptive to a hormone.

However, I've seen trans people describe their decision as the culmination of experiences that caused them to feel that way, rather than having had a medical hormone evaluation.

If it's merely a matter of hormone imbalance, why not take the same kind of hormone therapy regimen that people take for other issues?

 

[didactics]

Well, bottom line, I don't really care if we came to the same conclusion via different routes. If I did, that would be an attempt at thought control.

I think @Moral Orel has a point here. If it doesn’t matter how we come to our conclusions, then it might as well be one subjective opinion against another’s subjective opinion. How about you, do you think gender roles still matter today? I personally believe so and I think it’s needed that we appeal to the authority of God’s Word. It goes back to Genesis 2:18.



Then Yahweh God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

 

[didactics]

If you can't understand why you should use the pronouns people ask you to, then there's nothing I can say.

Well there is something I can say. I don’t do it because it’s like they’re asking me to adopt some of their ideology. It’s really a worldview that I’m expected to treat as a religion. You can’t appease everyone. There’s always someone out there that you’re going to offend whether intentionally or not.

 

[didactics]

You know what’s nuts? Is Harry Styles coming out with androgynous clothing, that it’s okay because in Bible times men wore togas. What is he doing? Rejecting the gender binary? Yet if a boy wears a dress, the parents take note — oh snap! Give that kid some hormone blockers! Just because cultures have different dress during different times doesn’t mean anything; those same cultures still had distinctions about what women wore and what men wore. It doesn’t make it okay to undermine masculinity.

 

[MehGuy]

You know what’s nuts? Is Harry Styles coming out with androgynous clothing, that it’s okay because in Bible times men wore togas. What is he doing? Rejecting the gender binary? Yet if a boy wears a dress, the parents take note — oh snap! Give that kid some hormone blockers! Just because cultures have different dress during different times doesn’t mean anything; those same cultures still had distinctions about what women wore and what men wore. It doesn’t make it okay to undermine masculinity.

More than likely Harry Styles is just wearing feminine clothing to draw attention to himself and get a pat on the back from his fellow progressives. A few months ago, I remember seeing a trending topic on Twitter featuring Harry Styles wearing a dress. He claimed he was doing so to fight "toxic masculinity". I personally find this exhibitionism very shallow. If you want to fight toxic masculinity you need to address how society at large mocks men for being vulnerable. The hatred men receive when they want to talk about the problems they face, instead of focusing solely on women's issues.

One of the many things that annoy me about "progressives". They have a shallow view about gender issues. Men wearing dresses is encouraged, but when it comes to men actually psychologically acting more feminine the hatred begins. Sadly, I think most progressives are more concerned with angering conservatives than addressing anything of real substance. Most of its phony and probably has roots in class warfare.

One thing I disagree with conservatives on, progressives are not trying to make men more feminine. Gender roles exist, just in a slightly modified form.

 

[MehGuy]

But as far as anomalies go, how marred can humans become by the curse of the fall? I’m supposing that there are limits, in that a male cannot have a female brain. There can only be deficiencies, but I don’t believe the male can have his brain mapped out just as a female.

@MehGuy @RDKirk

Or a female brain cursed with a male body?

Do you have any reason to suppose one way or the other? Or are you just basing these feelings on mere emotions like disgust? Regarding spirituality, I'd think the outside body in many respects is of less importance.

As I said before, I view transgenderism as a philosophical problem. I do believe men and women have evolved a notion of gender. The main theme being psychological neoteny. A parental (masculine) childlike (feminine) dynamic. Women on average are more neotenous than men, they have reduced brow ridges, smaller skeletal structure, less muscle mass, higher pitched voice (like a child's) larger tear ducts for crying. Women who have the burden of pregnancy are more reproductively valuable than men. A woman's reproductive cycle takes months, while a man can quickly plant his seed. As a consequence, men are reproductively less valuable in a population. Understandably women evolved to exhibit traits (psychical and psychological) that encourage care. Evolution taking the path of least resistance simply piggy backed the already evolved cues to care and protect for infants with women exhibiting these childlike traits.

While I don't believe the entire psychology of femininity and masculinity can be boiled down to neoteny, I do think it's played a significant role in the human evolution of gender. I do believe in some species it's the males who exhibit more neotenous traits than the females. In a greater sense I don't believe in objective "masculinity" or objective "femininity".

The psychology (gender) and the body (sex) have a complimentary relationship. When one doesn't match well with the other gender dysphoria can manifest. This is even true for the cis community as well. A large part of what we base on women's beauty is if they exhibit neotenous feature or not. I've frequented female incel forums before, and those who have more masculine features talk about the heart break they feel when they're treated less as a woman and more as a man in society (while still being viewed as cis women). Such as being expecting to take on more physical work, and their safety being of less concern compared to the pretty (more neotenous) women.

Of course, a transgender person is prone to experiencing much more severe gender dysphoria.

 

[didactics]

Or a female brain cursed with a male body?

Do you have any reason to suppose one way or the other? Or are you just basing these feelings on mere emotions like disgust? Regarding spirituality, I'd think the outside body in many respects is of less importance.

As I said before, I view transgenderism as a philosophical problem. I do believe men and women have evolved a notion of gender. The main theme being psychological neoteny. A parental (masculine) childlike (feminine) dynamic. Women on average are more neotenous than men, they have reduced brow ridges, smaller skeletal structure, less muscle mass, higher pitched voice (like a child's) larger tear ducts for crying. Women who have the burden of pregnancy are more reproductively valuable than men. A woman's reproductive cycle takes months, while a man can quickly plant his seed. As a consequence, men are reproductively less valuable in a population. Understandably women evolved to exhibit traits (psychical and psychological) that encourage care. Evolution taking the path of least resistance simply piggy backed the already evolved cues to care and protect for infants with women exhibiting these childlike traits.

While I don't believe the entire psychology of femininity and masculinity can be boiled down to neoteny, I do think it's played a significant role in the human evolution of gender. I do believe in some species it's the males who exhibit more neotenous traits than the females. In a greater sense I don't believe in objective "masculinity" or objective "femininity".

The psychology (gender) and the body (sex) have a complimentary relationship. When one doesn't match well with the other gender dysphoria can manifest. This is even true for the cis community as well. A large part of what we base on women's beauty is if they exhibit neotenous feature or not. I've frequented female incel forums before, and those who have more masculine features talk about the heart break they feel when they're treated less as a woman and more as a man in society (while still being viewed as cis women). Such as being expecting to take on more physical work, and their safety being of less concern compared to the pretty (more neotenous) women.

Of course, a transgender person is prone to experiencing much more severe gender dysphoria.

I wouldn’t say disgust. Although man is responsible for the fall, God’s punishment is to be instructive. God set limits on us by making us age and die. God called what he created very good and that includes male and female during creation week. Now I could always be wrong on this, maybe it could happen that a male ends up with a brain that’s almost like a female. I think it would take careful analysis of specialist(s) to recognize distinction from an actual female brain and one that’s almost like it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana, you chop stuff up too much. You seem to think every single sentence I write is wrong, so I'm just going to go one at a time in my replies. Maybe I'll get back to the rest of it, maybe you'll find ways to chop these up into finer bits and we'll do it again.

I'm sorry....you should take it as a compliment. I've discarded large amounts of some posts because I saw nothing to engage with in them. Then people tell me that I'm ignoring the important part of their argument.

You said....

Let "gender" be all that fluff that is essentially meaningless, and insist "sex" be the biological facts that actually have pertinence.

The word "let" here makes it sound like a suggestion instead of a description of what categorically belongs under the term "gender identity". I assumed it was a suggestion because so far....you make it sound like anything could be considered under the category of gender identity. This isn't a useful category for describing anything if that's the case.

The reason why I wanted to avoid these roles and norms is because they can be part of either sex's identity and wouldn't require any medical or social transitioning.

In other words, if little 6yo Jimmy likes the color pink and plays with dolls....he can do those things as a boy.

Orel: Atoms are a collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Ana: We have terms for those things though....terms like proton work pretty well when describing protons.

Here's why this is a bad analogy....

"Things that make up an atom" is a pretty exclusive category.

Now let's imagine 2 other categories....

1. Things people generally like or enjoy doing.

2. Gender identity.

Now....is there anything that I can put in category 2 that wouldn't work in category 1?