[Noob]

I have no idea why you're talking about my 'superiority'. Speaking forcefully doesn't make one a narcissist. Try harder.

I've not said anything about dignity or rights. Are we just making things up now?

Cool. You haven't said much of anything at all.

As long as we agree that your feelings don't have a rational basis.

Sure. But I'm not sure what my feelings have to do with anything. So long as we also agree that your feelings don't have rational basis. Because feelings aren't rational. Did you consider that?

I calls em like I sees em.

Sure. Likewise: insufferable and rather typical American centre-leftist, enthusiastic about identity politics.

You didn't describe gender theory, you charactured two peoples position on gender theory. Do you consider not mentioning people to be using them as sources? You made blank assertions that your views were true and didn't reference or source any of these people. If your going to make stuff up about your own posts at least edit them.

I quoted one directly. I'm not sure how that is tantamount to caricaturising. Here's what that looks like in Google.

I've engaged what you've said at your own level, you make long winded emotional appeals that your intuitions and feelings are right without actually argument and try to cloak them in some sort of respectability. I have never seen you make an actual argument, you always just pop into a thread to complain about how you don't like X,Y, or Z.

Your generalisations of my supposed behaviour isn't evidence of it - try to stay on topic. And yes, we've established that we don't attribute any value to one another's opinions already. It's telling that you think I'm going for 'respectability': I have no desire to be respected by you or your ilk. Feel free to despise me. I would have to ask again: why is it that you tried to engage me in the first place? Obviously we don't agree, and I'm not going to keep spelling out my disagreements in all kinds of different ways with somebody who supposedly isn't interested in the first place. My opinions on this matter are built on top of New Rightist Benoist and neo-Marxist Fusaro, as I've said: if I'm hateful, I suppose they are too.

Any actual arguments against trans people that go beyond you feeling like their icky and feeling like you don't know modern gender theory which you apparently haven't even read?

I fail to see where I have made any argument "against trans people", as though to suggest I am against their existence. It's something of a tradition in Thailand: I'm not interested in it, but I have no problem with it. I fail to see where I have used the word "icky" or have "expressed hatred". The above link links to a search query. Rest assured that I have read the first link, which contains the relevant article, so it seems as though you have invented that claim. I have simply said that there are two biological sexes, and that individuals, if they wish to undergo some sort of surgery should be allowed to do so, after exhausting all other avenues. I don't have to personally agree with the logic behind the 'gender continuum'.

Report me, or stop whining that it doesn't take more than a line or two to point out your emotional antics.

I've used the report button a total of three times in my time here, all to report advertisement. I don't see why I should make an exception for you. I fail to see how I am expressing much emotion here: I rarely do. Anyway, you've made it clear that you're more interested in word games and attacking my person, and you're unable to maintain and defend even that. I have no interest in dignifying that sort of thing with any further response, so if you don't mind (or do mind) I won't be spending any further time on this with you.

[Dystopian Darkness]

I utterly despise this argument, as a gay man I heard many people argue the same thing about gay people and it's basically nonsense. Both sides that argue this, both that it is natural and should be accepted and that it isn't natural and shouldn't be accepted, are committing the naturalism fallacy. Something being natural says nothing at all about it's morality or what should be done about it. The questions you need to ask are how allowing this specific case effects society and whether or not we should allow it. It in no way effects how we should view people who think they are animals if we accept transgenderism in our society.

And why shouldn't being an animal be classified as a gender identity? I know what a naturalistic fallacy is and I wasn't arguing that what is natural is ok and what isn't is not - Arguably everything that happens is natural because it is a result of evolutionary processes so to an outsider observing humans all our behaviors can be classified as according to natural law. My question is not if it's natural, but why it should be accepted - What do I gain from it? And why is trans as valid as cisgender? This has no comparison to being gay or bisexual as those are sexual orientations and not gender identities, quite the opposite in fact - Trans people are openly trying to change the way they were born while LGB are trying to bring acceptance to how they were born and developed in the first place. Homosexuality is present in nature and has been with us since the dawn of time, it constitutes perfectly predictable behavior as we are not all attracted to the same kind of people. But how does this relate to transgender people?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It really depends on what you mean by abolishing gender. Certainly labeling what gender you are on documents is essentially pointless, especially in countries with legal gay marriage. There isn't really much purpose to specifying gender. If you mean more active measures to remove the concept of gender from society, then it would depend on the specific program you planned to implement.

Well it can be useful for many purposes like surveys investigating what each gender prefers. You still didn't answer my question. What about biological sex? My citizen card says "sex" not "gender", should that be allowed or should it be banned? And how do we trace a line between gender and biological sex?

1.) There probably shouldn't be a legal criteria, we should just stop worrying about gender in legal matters. Social criteria would develop organically and depend on the society.

Don't trans people say that pretending gender doesn't exist and ignoring it is bad because it perpetuates oppression? If so, do you realize that stop worrying about it is against what trans people want? Why should I stop worrying about it? Do you think I should go on a date without caring about the person's gender?

2.) I wouldn't take you seriously, someone else might. I honestly think if we dropped the idea that men had to be a certain way and women had to be a certain way the point would become moot. There isn't really a reason why it should matter how you think of yourself.

I'm not a big fan of gender roles, but that's not the topic we are debating here. If you said there should be no legal criteria, why wouldn't you treat me seriously? If I need to look "feminine" to be a trans woman then are trans people perpetuating gender stereotypes by dramatically wanting to look feminine or masculine?

3.)Men and women are very physically similar in a lot of ways, humans actually don't have a lot of sexual dimorphism compared to most species. Yet we still find it perfectly easy to consider them substantially different. We often consider to men to be substantially different for a plethora of reasons that don't relate to genitals in the least. Unless you think all men are identical in every facet I fail to see why you wouldn't be able to tell a difference. Just the fact that the one man identifies as a woman is in itself a substantial difference. It's hardly like transgender people conform to every stereotypical activity of their born sex while identifying as the opposite sex.

It is but visually they can look pretty similar and because I'm not going to ask people to see their genitalia I'm left without knowing who is who and what is what.

4.) being male is an abstract idea about how men should act and behave in our society, biological sex is the literal biology that you are born with. Our idea's about how men should act and behave change frequently and from generation to generation. Biological sex never has.

Ok, so how do we identify biological sex if some people with characteristics of male or female identify as the opposite and want it to be taken seriously?
[quot€]
Well, are you referring to culture or literal biology? If someone identifies with African culture because they were raised in Africa that is an entirely different thing than believing your skin is actually brown.[/quote]
Biology and phenotype. I look pale, can I identify as black?

1.) It doesn't impact your life measurably to do so.

Everything that happens in this society can impact my life as much as my brain wants it to - Everything that exists affects me because it is there, even if it isn't pointing a gun at my head. How do you determine what affects my life measurably? What if I have panic attacks everytime time I see a transgender person? Is that enough? What if my religion is against them?

2.) These people believe they are animals and fictional characters, trans people identify with an abstract concept of how a man or woman should be that doesn't match their genetals. One is more harmful to the people involved and society in general. We can have men identify as women without damaging society, men shitting on statues not so much.

Define harmful

What about queers and other people who are neither man nor woman?

3.) The brain thing is a stupid stupid argument.

Why? Are brains stupid?

Skepticism is good, and so is not killing people who aren't hurting you.

Paedophiles aren't hurting me as well but I hate them so much damn!!!....

The argument is that it still falls within the realm of human experience. A canine or a fictional creature will necessarily fall outside this realm, as you have no capacity for an experiential identification with these beings. But then you have those wilderness children growing up with animals, which posits the philosophical query of what the difference is between humans and animals.

I believe under certain conditions the children are also lastingly damaged in their lingual faculties.

How does being a woman when I'm born a man an experience I can try? How can it happen if I'm not a woman? I fail to see the difference. What about gender queer or genderfluid? How does that work?

Anyway, in that it becomes more a question of being able to function in society and preserving a measure of autonomy. A socio-economic cost-benefit analysis of allowing people to transfer to a canine identity will become relevant. Perhaps they could arrange for certain legal provisions, analogous (in some respect) to the newly minted gay marriage institute. Where the 'transcanine' individual can only assume the canine identity, if he's legally bound to a human master. But that would infringe upon the legal principle of personal liberty and conjure up impressions of slavery.

Also, consider the exhaustive cosmetic procedures required for a proper transfer to a canine form. Full-body hair implantations, artificial musculo-skeletal deformations, dental work, finger amputations -- the radical alterations required would be fraught with risk and cost a substantial amount.

No, it's simply too impractical. But then so is artificial reproductive technology in order to facilitate and/or simulate parturition.

If costs mattered that much I wouldn't be paying other people's healthcare in the first place The canine part was an example, it could be a dragon, a ghost, a cat, literally anything. I've witnessed people on the web saying they want to be a rock - For real - How is this supposed to be treated? Fairness and equality? Or proper ridicule?

It's caused by a common genetic disorder, which occurs in one in 15,000 births. People with this disorder have 46XY chromosomes which have male hormones that cannot function properly because of a genetic mutation. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Those with the 46,XY disorder of sex development (46,XY DSD) are women who were born technically male and they look and behave like a girl. This kind of odd behaviours could start in their early childhood and transgender children should be able to pick one gender over another as their gender cannot be biologically specified.

How does this account genderqueer?

Great, so the only thing you want is to be allowed to be an asshole to trans people. So bitch away about how gross they are to your hearts content.

No no, it is one thing to debate about it and apparently you don't seem to be up for it without labeling other people as bigots - There goes rationality right out the window. To be honest, some transgender woman can be attractive if they pass.

Why should what a person does with their own body be any concern of yours? If they dress, look and behave as a female/male, where is the harm in treating them as such, since that is what they wish?

People against transgenderism are really just afraid of their own sexuality. They're afraid someone being a female, but not born to it, could "get them". Their discrimination and prejudice is just plain old PATHETIC!

Mwhahahah being a liberal must totally suck - Since this is a" harm" principle then can I argue that treating other people as a gender they're not doesn't harm anyone as well since I'm not pointing a gun at them? I don't give a fuck about what people wish, that's irrelevant to the validity of it. Identify as you please, but don't expect to be taken seriously just because you came up with a fancy word to describe yourself. You are also assuming I treat people differently because of their biological sex, which is mostly not true.

That is such a dramatic oversimplification of why people are transgendered that it has launched you in the wrong direction. You understand that when one's brain is convinced, one is convinced. It is not a notion. It is not a mild sensation to which one responds. It is a physiological certainty which is externally questioned by others.

Yes, but being convinced is not enough. I was and remain convinced of things that are later proven wrong or harmful.

As long as you don't eat the villagers, yes.

Some of us would assert that the true measure of democracy is its predilection to leave people alone absent some reason not to. Here goes the age thing again. I remember these exact same arguments being made with regard to both race and religion. Particularly race though because of the biological component. We still see them here from time to time. But this is the crux of the matter.[/quote]
And? Issues are not comparable. Using a comparison is not enough for the point you're trying to make. The fact we used the same argument for religion and race is irrelevant because the three topics at hand are all different. As far as I know, religion is merely what one believes and has nothing to do with gender - Race is a way of categorizing humans according to ethnic groups, culture and history. Gender is... Well it's what we are discussing. My argument is essentially that if you allow people to identify as anything it becomes ridiculous. Race was a problem because people were discriminated for something they had no control over and that didn't impact their behavior measurably. Religion is just a personal belief, and we have reached the conclusion freedom of religion is the way to go. Gender identification is a whole different problem - Specifically, I think there's no reason to classify gender identity disorder as "not a disorder". I'm going to ask an honest question - Why is it that paedophilia is classified as an illness but other things are not? I mean, seriously - I'm not saying trans people are as bad as paedos, that's not the point - But why is it that one preference regarding sexuality and sex is automatically a disease and another is ok ? What's the scientific criteria?

[Godstud]

And why shouldn't being an animal be classified as a gender identity?

Because an animal and gender are two different things.

This has no comparison to being gay or bisexual as those are sexual orientations and not gender identities

, There is scientific basis for it, in nature. http://mic.com/articles/109652/being-tr ... -all-along

Homosexuality is present in nature and has been with us since the dawn of time, it constitutes perfectly predictable behavior as we are not all attracted to the same kind of people. But how does this relate to transgender people?

In a similar way, albeit different. That you cannot understand it is not a rational argument for hating it.

Do you think I should go on a date without caring about the person's gender?

Ah so a FEAR of getting "tricked" is what it's about.

If I need to look "feminine" to be a trans woman then are trans people perpetuating gender stereotypes by dramatically wanting to look feminine or masculine?

It's not about looking as much as how they feel. I have encountered many transgender people who will never look female, but associate as one.

It is but visually they can look pretty similar and because I'm not going to ask people to see their genitalia I'm left without knowing who is who and what is what.

You can get transgender people who you'd never know were such. Again, it's that fear of yours rearing its ugly head... What they want to be and are is not your problem. You can always ask to check their ID if you are concerned, and pretend it's to make sure they are legal age.

Ok, so how do we identify biological sex if some people with characteristics of male or female identify as the opposite and want it to be taken seriously?

Fear, again.

Everything that happens in this society can impact my life as much as my brain wants it to

Society cannot be responsible for your fears. Fear only affects people who are ignorant. When you know about something you tend to stop fearing it.

I look pale, can I identify as black?

Actually, you could, but we won't get into that.

Define harmful

What about queers and other people who are neither man nor woman?

What about them? Are they going to hurt you physically, because that would be harmful. If a transgender person goes out with someone else, does this hurt you? Your whole argument centers around a "what if???" with no rational argument.

How does being a woman when I'm born a man an experience I can try? How can it happen if I'm not a woman?

Give er. There are operations. There are hormone therapies. You'll encounter prejudice and discrimination from people just like you. I can understand why doing this would be an appealing experience, if you weren't transgender...

I fail to see the difference.

You don't try to see the difference.

What about gender queer or genderfluid? How does that work?

If you can't understand transgenderism, why should anyone try to explain that to you? It's not about YOU. It's not about your fears of it. It's about THEM.

To be honest, some transgender woman can be attractive if they pass.

Heterosexuals can be attractive, and some can be very unattractive. What's your point? I've seen a lot more really attractive transgender people, than you'd believe. I live in Thailand, where transgenderism is relatively(compared to most Western cultures) commonplace, so I am familiar with it. There are attractive, and unattractive, transgender people. Everyone is different. That's how the world is.

But I'm not sure what my feelings have to do with anything.

Your whole argument is based on your feelings. You only use an iota of clumsy theory to try to prove your point.

I fail to see how I am expressing much emotion here: I rarely do.

You are expressing fear. That's quite obvious to most of us reading your arguments.

Acceptance of transgenderism is not necessary. You should allow it, however. If it's not for you, and you cannot accept it, then make sure people around you are not transgender. Ask them to make sure, since some are quite convincing, and you wouldn't want to be tricked, would you? It'll be OK, though, since most transgender people do not try to hide who they are. They've already had to deal with the bigots, so they are usually stronger people than you'd give them credit for.

Paedophiles aren't hurting me as well but I hate them so much damn!!!....

Pedophiles victimize and injure children(so there is indeed a great deal of harm done to individuals and society), and that is all we should say about it, since if you want to pursue this argument you'll find Pofo permanently BANS people who argue in favour of it, even unintentionally.

[Dystopian Darkness]

Pedophiles victimize and injure children(so there is indeed a great deal of harm done to individuals and society), and that is all we should say about it, since if you want to pursue this argument you'll find Pofo permanently BANS people who argue in favour of it, even unintentionally.

I think PoFo moderators are smart people who can distinguish someone who is consciously or indirectly writing a pro-paedophilia argument and someone who is just using paedophilia as a comparison - Rest assured, I was using the analogy but not advocating anything at all and that's clear if you read my argument again. I was saying that we care about paedophilia as adults even if we are not affected - At least those who don't have children are not affected by it directly in anyway as we are not attractive to pedos, but we still condemn it right? My point is that something not affecting you directly does not mean you need to agree or approve it, quite the contrary. Sometimes behavior is self-destructive and I believe we should put an end to it. I'm not even saying that's the case for transgender people, but it's a valid principle.

You are the one who accuses me of fear without evidence and thinks this is about feelings when I didn't express anything remotely close to it - You can't accept the fact some people just don't think like you but hey welcome to the internet world where sometimes free speech exists and unlike what happens in Europe you won't get censored much

[Godstud]

I think PoFo moderators are smart people who can distinguish someone who is consciously or indirectly writing a pro-paedophilia argument and someone who is just using paedophilia as a comparison - Rest assured, I was using the analogy but not advocating anything at all and that's clear if you read my argument again.

It's NOT a valid comparison, though. You are talking about something harmful and comparing it to something that is not. That's a very poor analogy.

At least those who don't have children are not affected by it directly in anyway as we are not attractive to pedos, but we still condemn it right?

That is because it damages people and society. Transgenderism does neither.

Sometimes behavior is self-destructive and I believe we should put an end to it. I'm not even saying that's the case for transgender people, but it's a valid principle.

It's a good thing that transgenderism is not self-destructive, then. Thus the validity of your principle is no consequence.

You are the one who accuses me of fear without evidence and thinks this is about feelings when I didn't express anything remotely close to it - You can't accept the fact some people just don't think like you but hey welcome to the internet world where sometimes free speech exists and unlike what happens in Europe you won't get censored much

You arguments have little logic to them and much emotion.

Look at your statements:

Do you think I should go on a date without caring about the person's gender?

This infers a fear that you might end up with a transgender person. Don't worry. I've found that transgender people don't want misunderstandings, in this regard.

I'm left without knowing who is who and what is what.

You can simply ASK a person if they are transgender, if you have suspicions. Your confusion is an emotional response.

Ok, so how do we identify biological sex if some people with characteristics of male or female identify as the opposite and want it to be taken seriously?

You make this seem like a personal assault on you. If you're an ugly girl, would you want to be called, HE? Likewise, if you were a feminine looking man, would you liked to be called SHE, even if you didn't identify as such? It's POLITE and GOOD to identify people by the gender they want you to see them as. The last time I looked that was a societal matter of etiquette.

Everything that happens in this society can impact my life as much as my brain wants it to - Everything that exists affects me because it is there, even if it isn't pointing a gun at my head. What if I have panic attacks everytime time I see a transgender person? Is that enough? What if my religion is against them?

As emotional a response as is humanly possible. It's the, "What about me?", argument. Panic attacks? I take it that would be from overwhelming fear, right?

Why should you impose your religion on other people? You are not obligated to sleep with a transgender male/female. You are not obligated to date them. Their gender is of no consequence to your religion. You can be polite to them, as human beings, and maintain your religious principles. If you see(visually) a prostitute, does it affect your religious convictions or principles?

Define harmful
What about queers and other people who are neither man nor woman?

If you are not going to be attracted to them, how does it affect you? You imply harm where there is none. That also implies fear.

Since this is a" harm" principle then can I argue that treating other people as a gender they're not doesn't harm anyone as well since I'm not pointing a gun at them? I don't give a fuck about what people wish, that's irrelevant to the validity of it. Identify as you please, but don't expect to be taken seriously just because you came up with a fancy word to describe yourself.

More of the 'ME ME ME!' argument. "What about how I feel?" Hurting someone's feelings, being rude, etc. IS harmful to them. If someone calls you by another gender name, eg. a SHE when you are a male, you might be upset about it, hence the HARM. You're just thinking solely of your little old outdated sensibilities being changed. You're afraid of change.

[Pants-of-dog]

Essentially the main argument use by the transgender community and its members/activists is based on some sort of gender theory that argues gender is entirely socially constructed and differs from biological sex - This is evidenced by studies done on trans people's brains that prove they don't feel comfortable in the body they were born into.

At first glance, this sounds reasonable, but here are some questions:

- If the explanation for being transgender is based on our brain properties (I don't know if this is the accurate terminology as I'm not a scientist) does that mean I can identify with whatever my brain tells me to? So if I feel like a dragon, why shouldn't I identify as such? Ok, dragons are fictional, but let's say I want to identify as a dog. Why is that any less valid than wanting to identify as queer, woman (being a man myself), gender-fluid, etc.?

If you want to identify as a dog or dragon, go ahead.

Whether or not that is as valid as identifying as trans is in the eye of the beholder. They are equally valid in that they are both things that I would not d,o but don't really harm anyone, so they are both in the "why should I care?" category.

- Should gender be legally abolished? If so, why should society support that measure?

The idea that there can only be two fixed genders should be abolished. Not for any moral reason. Just because it is wrong.

- What legal and social criteria should exist for someone to identify with a specific gender? Transgender people argue that you don't need the genitalia, so can I, as a cis looking young man, identify as a woman and be taken seriously?

That depends.

How can we consider two alike people who identify as a different gender as different, given that they are physically similar?

It's actually pretty easy.

If a penis isn't the equivalent of being male, what is? How do we identify people's biological sex then?

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/se ... itions.pdf

- Why should transgenderism be treated any differently than people who are visually part of an ethnic group wanting to identify as an opposite, totally different one? If I'm white, can I identify as African and be taken seriously? What if my brain thinks I'm African?

Because when people like Ms. Donezal pretend to be black, they cause a negative impact by their actions. Trans people don't.

- More importantly, why should being trans be accepted at all as normal behavior? Why should trans people be accepted more than someone who thinks they are a bird, a dog or Harry Potter? Why is it that one brain "difference" is seen as acceptable because it is good for progressivism but things like sexual fetishes can be seen as diseases?

And for the important question, here is the important answer:

It doesn't matter. We might think trans people are weird, or wrong, or confused, or making bad decisions. But since they are not harming anyone else with their actions, it doesn't matter.

I think people who wear ties and work in offices, making plastic crap to sell at Walmart, are weird, and wrong, and confused, and making bad decisions. But since there is no tradition of marginalising and targeting those people, we don't have threads about them, even though they make just as much of an impact on our lives as trans people; i.e. none.

[DrSteveBrule]

Yet, if some people are dead set on undergoing a potentially ruining 'sex-change surgery', then I really don't care. There are bigger problems for some to be dealing with. To sanction it or have an alternate set of values foisted upon a majority population for the sake of the 'rights' of an outlier population, however, can't be anything but a flood of nihilism.

There is no 'sanction', as the current issue on the rights of transgenders would fall within negative rights usually granted to the rest of citizens.

With regards to discrimination, it's clear that the meaning of 'tolerate' has been changed in the minds of some from 'passive indifference' to 'active acceptance'. I've already addressed this above in that the demand to be seen as 'equal' means acknowledging others' confused conditions in the public sphere, and ultimately, their 'dignity'. 'Discrimination' becomes 'not discriminating for'.

Do you denounce everything that you dislike as 'liberalism', or are you willing to elaborate factually as to why such viewpoints are harmful? If you (or any other person) truly care about values, then feel free to hold them. No one is forcing anybody to actively accept anyone, and freedom of association still remains. Most citizens of the west are personally free to conduct their lives according to their values and beliefs, so long as it does not infringe upon the self determination of others.

Outliers from gender role archetypes so long as roles themselves are upheld (ie, so long as there are roles, and everybody isn't categorised as one homogeneous androgynous blob) aren't an issue

I see no compelling reason to uphold gender roles : If a man wishes to live his life as a household caretaker, all the better for him. If a woman wishes to become a high paid executive, all the better for her. If people want to abide by traditional family customs, all the better for them.

If you want to identify as a dog or dragon, go ahead.

skyrim.jpg

[Drlee]

This entire argument is absurd at its most basic level.

Answer these questions for me DD:

Is a man who marries a pre-operative transsexual a straight or a gay?

Is a man who marries a post operative transsexual straight or gay?

For the Christians:

If a man has sex with another man is he guilty of so-called the sin of Sodom?

If the same man has sex with a post operative transsexual guilty of this sin?

Explain your answers.

[Noob]

There is no 'sanction', as the current issue on the rights of transgenders would fall within negative rights usually granted to the rest of citizens.

Pedantry. Assume that I meant 'having 'sex-change operations' funded by taxpayer's money'.

Do you denounce everything that you dislike as 'liberalism', or are you willing to elaborate factually as to why such viewpoints are harmful?

I'm afraid I wasn't talking about liberalism (bear in mind that I also traced certain themes in liberalism to Christianity, so I'm not talking about lib-rul-izm in isolation - for instance, the theme of automatic dignity attributed to all comes of Christianity, opposed to it is the view of honour attributed to the few) in the quoted piece, so you'll have to clarify your point (if there is one). I'm afraid I won't be dignifying vague generalisations of my supposed behaviour with a response (or going out of my way to please North American centre-leftists and social-liberals-before-all-else in my arguments).

I see no compelling reason to uphold gender roles : If a man wishes to live his life as a household caretaker, all the better for him. If a woman wishes to become a high paid executive, all the better for her. If people want to abide by traditional family customs, all the better for them.

I see no reason to do away with the conception of 'roles' themselves - whatever those roles may look like (roles acknowledging that biological sex and gender identity are linked and the latter relies on the former to at least some degree, as a starting point). Note that I'm not defending 'traditional roles' per se. I see no reason to uphold the 'liberty' of individuals to whatever whacky things they please.

___

This entire argument is absurd at its most basic level.

You're right there, although we're on different sides here. Does anybody in this thread seriously believe that there is no necessary connection between biological sex and gender identity as, for instance, Judith Butler, pioneer of modern unisex / gender theory does (or, that social influences capture the entirety of what makes up 'gender identity')? Or that the brains of males and females aren't 'sexed'? Or as Christine Delphy said, "Up till now, most work on gender, including most feminist work on gender, has been based on an unexamined presupposition: that sex precedes gender. However, although this presupposition is historically explicable, it is theoretically unjustifiable, and its continued existence is holding back our thinking on gender. It is preventing us from rethinking gender in an open and unbiased way"? Or, as Monique Wittig opined, "There is no sex. There is but sex that is oppressed and sex that oppresses. It is oppression that creates sex and not the contrary" (a puzzle, if men exist ontologically before oppression, which they supposedly engender)? Or perhaps in a similar vein, that we must "destroy politically, philosophically, and symbolically the categories of 'men' and 'women'"?

Really? Does anybody believe any of that? (Please provide coherent arguments for any of that or why any of that should be so.)

Simone de Beauvoir wrote in The Second Sex that “one is not born a woman, but rather becomes one.” The phrase is odd, even nonsensical, for how can one become a woman if one wasn’t a woman all along? And who is this “one” who does the becoming? Is there some human who becomes its gender at some point in time? Is it fair to assume that this human was not its gender before it became its gender? How does one “become” a gender? What is the moment or mechanism of gender construction? And, perhaps most pertinently, when does this mechanism arrive on the cultural scene to transform the human subject into a gendered subject? [...]

But sex does not cause gender, and gender cannot be understood to reflect or express sex; indeed, for Beauvoir, sex is immutably factic, but gender acquired, and whereas sex cannot be changed—or so she thought—gender is the variable cultural construction of sex, the myriad and open possibilities of cultural meaning occasioned by a sexed body.

Beauvoir’s theory implied seemingly radical consequences, ones that she herself did not entertain. For instance, if sex and gender are radically distinct, then it does not follow that to be a given sex is to become a given gender; in other words, “woman” need not be the cultural construction of the female body, and “man” need not interpret male bodies. [...]

If gender is not tied to sex, either causally or expressively, then gender is a kind of action that can potentially proliferate beyond the binary limits imposed by the apparent binary of sex. Indeed, gender would be a kind of cultural/corporeal action that requires a new vocabulary that institutes and proliferates present participles of various kinds, resignifiable and expansive categories that resist both the binary and substantializing grammatical restrictions on gender. But how would such a project become culturally conceivable and avoid the fate of an impossible and vain utopian project? [...]

But further, a lesbian has no sex; she is beyond the categories of sex. Through the lesbian refusal of those categories, the lesbian exposes (pronouns are a problem here) the contingent cultural constitution of those categories and the tacit yet abiding presumption of the heterosexual matrix. Hence, for Wittig, we might say, one is not born a woman, one becomes one; but further, one is not born female, one becomes female; but even more radically, one can, if one chooses, become neither female nor male, woman nor man. Indeed, the lesbian appears to be a third gender or, as I shall show, a category that radically problematizes both sex and gender as stable political categories of description.

This shit is hilarious. "Oh, we are beyond description!"

There's whole books on these sorts of crazed and hollow pseudo-theological incantations. Really?

"[P]ronouns are a problem here"!

[Pants-of-dog]

Assume that I meant 'having 'sex-change operations' funded by taxpayer's money'.

Medical funding is based on the opinions of medical professionals, not the opinion of social conservatives.

I see no reason to do away with the conception of 'roles' themselves - whatever those roles may look like (roles acknowledging that biological sex and gender identity are linked and the latter relies on the former to at least some degree, as a starting point). Note that I'm not defending 'traditional roles' per se. I see no reason to uphold the 'liberty' of individuals to whatever whacky things they please.

So you can't see a reason to uphold gender roles either.

You're right there, although we're on different sides here. Does anybody in this thread seriously believe that there is no necessary connection between biological sex and gender identity as, for instance, Judith Butler, pioneer of modern unisex / gender theory does (or, that social influences capture the entirety of what makes up 'gender identity')?

Who cares about Judith Butler? If your problem is that some people have theories about gender you oppose, that's your deal.

Conflict over gender theories is no reason fro me to care about trans people, one way or the other.

Or that the brains of males and females aren't 'sexed'?

......

"[P]ronouns are a problem here"!

Why is any of this important?

[Noob]

Medical funding is based on the opinions of medical professionals, not the opinion of social conservatives.

And yet, suicide rates for post-operation transgenders remains exceedingly high (note the two articles posted in the first page of this thread). Furthermore, I don't doubt that this industry is fairly profitable, so I see no reason to buoy it with taxpayer's money, based on the (possibly biased) opinions of medical professionals. Moreover, in the developed world (ie, not the United States) medical funding is limited by the constraints of the budget, and funding is decided by politicians. Opinions basically play little role on this subject besides the opinions of activists.

So you can't see a reason to uphold gender roles either.

I don't see a reason to do away with any notion of 'roles', based on the notion that men and women do actually exist as categories, as I said. (This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be 'feminine men' or 'masculine women', but it means acknowledging that they are in fact men and women, not some ridiculous 'third sex', nor placed on some unisex 'gender continuum'.) Learn to read.

Who cares about Judith Butler? If your problem is that some people have theories about gender you oppose, that's your deal.

Cool. However, I feel like poking fun at some of the apostles of 'modern ideals', so if you don't mind (or do), I'll be continuing that.

Conflict over gender theories is no reason fro me to care about trans people, one way or the other.

Why is any of this important?

Do you agree with any of the quoted passages? Are sex and gender linked in any meaningful way, do you think?

[Pants-of-dog]

And yet, suicide rates for post-operation transgenders remains exceedingly high (note the two articles posted in the first page of this thread). Furthermore, I don't doubt that this industry is fairly profitable, so I see no reason to buoy it with taxpayer's money, based on the (possibly biased) opinions of medical professionals. Moreover, in the developed world (ie, not the United States) medical funding is limited by the constraints of the budget, and funding is decided by politicians. Opinions basically play little role on this subject besides the opinions of activists.

Why did you shift the discussion to the effectiveness of surgery? That has nothing to do with acceptance of trans people.

Medical funding is not decided solely by politicians, simply because politicians do not have the requisite knowledge to make those decisions. It is decided by a varied group of stakeholders, including (but not limited to) politicians, doctors, nurses, patient representatives, medical suppliers, and admin staff. That has nothing to do with acceptance of trans people.

I don't see a reason to do away with any notion of 'roles', based on the notion that men and women do actually exist as categories, as I said.

No one asked you if you see a reason to get rid of gender roles. The question was whether or not you can identify a reason to uphold gender roles. You can't see a reason to uphold gender roles either.

More importantly, how does someone else being trans affect you in any way?

[Noob]

You can't see a reason to uphold gender roles either.

Actually, what I can't see is the reason for why anybody should buy into the notion of a 'gender continuum', in that there are no men and women per se, but only one mass of slightly different degrees of differentiation (read: indifferentiation). I don't have a preconceived notion of how these roles should exist, but roles should exist, since men and women exist. I fail to see why we should all be one homogeneous blob of sameness.

Why did you shift the discussion to the effectiveness of surgery? That has nothing to do with acceptance of trans people.

I already mentioned the efficacy of surgery in my second post in this thread. It's irrelevant whether transpeople affect me personally, because besides the fact that I'm not an individualist liberal-egalitarian, the onus is on the opposing side to explain why this is a good thing and why anybody bought to buy into it. Believe me, I live in quite socially conservative area, and in comparison to the people here, my opinions on this particular issue pale in comparison.

In any case, I see that you're incapable of discussing the underlying ideology and modern gender theory behind this phenomena and its acceptance: we aren't only discussing transgender people, but transgenderism. If your next reply asks me why I care about what a society looks like and what it values (ie, why do you care about other individuals?!), then I shan't be responding.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, what I can't see is the reason for why anybody should buy into the notion of a 'gender continuum', in that there are no men and women per se, but only one mass of slightly different degrees of differentiation (read: indifferentiation). I don't have a preconceived notion of how these roles should exist, but roles should exist, since men and women exist. I fail to see why we should all be one homogeneous blob of sameness.

So you disagree with the idea and refuse to understand it. Okay.

You can't see a reason to uphold gender roles either.

It's irrelevant whether transpeople affect me personally,

Not to me. Can we agree that they don't? And if that is the case, then your problem with trans people stems from your own dislike of them or some theoretical ideological disagreement.

In any case, it seems that you're incapable of discussing the underlying ideologies behind modern gender theory: you seem to create caricatures of liberal positions then attack them. I hope this suffices as an explanation as to why I am not addressing your "criticisms" of modern gender theory, as they are simply strawmen.

[DrSteveBrule]

Pedantry. Assume that I meant 'having 'sex-change operations' funded by taxpayer's money'.

No such thing occurs in the United States, at least not for now. In most nations with single payer healthcare systems, there is extensive work to assure that the person has an actual case of gender dysphoria, and that such operations are necessary.

I'm afraid I won't be dignifying vague generalisations of my supposed behaviour with a response (or going out of my way to please North American centre-leftists and social-liberals-before-all-else in my arguments).

Fortunately, I don't have to go out of my way to please ethnocentrists.
I will not dignify vague generalizations about liberalism, or Christianity for that matter. I see no reason to appease reactionaries who seek to act in a fickle manner over some behaviors which they may find 'strange'.

I see no reason to do away with the conception of 'roles' themselves - whatever those roles may look like (roles acknowledging that biological sex and gender identity are linked and the latter relies on the former to at least some degree, as a starting point). Note that I'm not defending 'traditional roles' per se. I see no reason to uphold the 'liberty' of individuals to whatever whacky things they please.

Humans have a degree of free will and autonomy that allows them to break away from roles that are defined by nature. The traditional role of male-breadwinner and female-homemaker is fine by all means, but there is no requirement to abide by such roles when it is clear that society has moved past the necessity to operate in that manner.

The right to make decisions that only affect the individual is a reciprocal agreement between members of society. If you don't like what someone else is doing, then don't do it. Better yet, feel free to not associate with others based on your own preferences. Unless your freedom to associate or disassociate is being threatened, I see no issue.

I don't have a preconceived notion of how these roles should exist, but roles should exist, since men and women exist. I fail to see why we should all be one homogeneous blob of sameness.

Ironically, implying that men and women easily fit into discrete groups implies that each group is a homogeneous blob of sameness. Why should two different sexes which encompass several different personalities and orientations be pigeon-holed into one role?

[Noob]

I hope this suffices as an explanation as to why I am not addressing your "criticisms" of modern gender theory, as they are simply strawmen.

I fail to see how direct quotations are 'strawmen': the fact that commentary is attached to them doesn't mean that they're strawmen, and also please explain how something is a strawman if you want to throw that accusation around. You don't have to address my musings about the trajectory of Christian and Enlightenment ideas: feel free to clarify whether you agree with modern gender theory as it appears in the writings of Judith Butler, Christine Delphy, and Monique Wittig, or any other representative of (what is in my opinion) this school of nonsense.

___

ethnocentrists

Actually, SteveBrule, I'm no longer an ethnocentrist (or an 'ethnic nationalist', in the proper sense of the word and I don't think I ever really was), since the logic of ethnocentrism is ultimately incompatible with ethnoregionalism. (And indeed, one can protect ethnic identities (as with gender identities, in a sense) without requiring homogenisation and centralisation.) In reality I'm rather cosmopolitan in my tastes and dispositions.

I see no reason to appease reactionaries who seek to act in a fickle manner over some behaviors which they may find 'strange'.

Sure, if you say so. Feel free to keep your distance.

I will not dignify vague generalizations about liberalism, or Christianity for that matter.

Sure, you don't have to address me. But the idea that all individuals should for some wild reason be treated as 'equal' derives from Christianity's conception of dignity, since Christianity gives a purely individual explanation of freedom, in that Christianity gives man a soul that puts him in a direct relationship with God, which can't be confused with belonging to collectivities or his personal qualities (or lack of them), and overrides them. In this, Christianity lays down the framework for an individualist anthropology: before Christian doctrines became prominent and then the secularised ideals after them (the 'Enlightenment'), the view of society was holistic and individuals weren't acknowledged as self-sufficient atoms. You are of course allowed to continue believing that this is just the theology that I have adapted around my own thought if you don't want to address it.

Humans have a degree of free will and autonomy that allows them to break away from roles that are defined by nature. The traditional role of male-breadwinner and female-homemaker is fine by all means, but there is no requirement to abide by such roles when it is clear that society has moved past the necessity to operate in that manner.

The right to make decisions that only affect the individual is a reciprocal agreement between members of society. If you don't like what someone else is doing, then don't do it. Better yet, feel free to not associate with others based on your own preferences. Unless your freedom to associate or disassociate is being threatened, I see no issue.

I agree with the first paragraph, so long as such a breaking away is relative and not absolute. Also, the second paragraph is all true in the theory of a liberal society where people become social and chalk up contracts so as to "avoid the war of all against all", but since I'm rather illiberal, I don't agree with it.

Ironically, implying that men and women easily fit into discrete groups implies that each group is a homogeneous blob of sameness. Why should two different sexes which encompass several different personalities and orientations be pigeon-holed into one role?

Unfortunately I neither follow your thought nor see how what you're saying is ironic. Can you elaborate? If you are saying that upholding roles leads to sameness, I would disagree. Agreeing with the logic that there are just two sexes and from them, genders, doesn't imply that there can't be a plurality of practices within those two genders. There can be equality between the sexes and without requiring them to assimilate into one androgynous blob.

[Pants-of-dog]

I fail to see how direct quotations are 'strawmen': the fact that commentary is attached to them doesn't mean that they're strawmen, and also please explain how something is a strawman if you want to throw that accusation around.

It's because your interpretations of these quotes is so biased as to be a caricature of these theories rather than valid representation.

Now, since you have ignored my point about the negative impact of trans people (i.e. none), I will assume that you agree that they actually have no negative impact?

Sure, you don't have to address me. But the idea that all individuals should for some wild reason be treated as 'equal' derives from Christianity's conception of dignity, since Christianity gives a purely individual explanation of freedom, in that Christianity gives man a soul that puts him in a direct relationship with God, which can't be confused with belonging to collectivities or his personal qualities (or lack of them), and overrides them. In this, Christianity lays down the framework for an individualist anthropology: before Christian doctrines became prominent and then the secularised ideals after them (the 'Enlightenment'), the view of society was holistic and individuals weren't acknowledged as self-sufficient atoms. You are of course allowed to continue believing that this is just the theology that I have adapted around my own thought if you don't want to address it.

If Christianity is the logical underpinning of trans liberation, why are non-Xian cultures often more open to non-binary gender expressions?

Unfortunately I neither follow your thought nor see how what you're saying is ironic. Can you elaborate? If you are saying that upholding roles leads to sameness, I would disagree. Agreeing with the logic that there are just two sexes and from them, genders, doesn't imply that there can't be a plurality of practices within those two genders. There can be equality between the sexes and not require them to assimilate into one androgynous blob.

You do realise that there are people who are neither sex, right?, and thus the idea of sex as a discrete binary rather than a continuum is not consistent with biological reality?

I will agree that it certainly looks like a binary if you look at in a general way. But that does not mean that we necessarily have to follow the conservative European viewpoint that there must therefore be two and only two genders.

[Noob]

It's because your interpretations of these quotes is so biased as to be a caricature of these theories rather than valid representation.

And that is understandable, since people have biases. As I say, feel free to pop the quotes into a search engine so that you can read the relevant material for yourself, unclouded by my commentary. Feel free to clarify what you think the relation between gender and sex is, if any, with a general comment.

If Christianity is the logical underpinning of trans liberation, why are non-Xian cultures often more open to non-binary gender expressions?

I wouldn't use the term 'trans liberation' with relation to Christianity since that borders caricaturisation, but ideas and their passage through time aren't static: the individualist anthropology remains. The founding of the Christian religion was built atop extreme intolerance and violence. Furthermore, it has a ridiculous God who decided to give his opinion on everything (my opinions are obviously better).

You do realise that there are people who are neither sex, right?, and thus the idea of sex as a discrete binary rather than a continuum is not consistent with biological reality?

I will agree that it certainly looks like a binary if you look at in a general way. But that does not mean that we necessarily have to follow the conservative European viewpoint that there must therefore be two and only two genders.

The statistical relevance of people who are born "neither sex", or "both sex", approaches null. It doesn't follow that if some people have faulty genes or deformations that the categories of male and female become irrelevant. Furthermore, I am not equating sex with gender: I simply say that the former informs the latter to a certain degree, and what's left is open to societal influences. But to suggest that gender precedes sex (see direct quotation above, feel free to pop it into a search engine), is nonsensical and no evidence is presented by the author for this.

[Pants-of-dog]

I wouldn't use the term 'trans liberation' with relation to Christianity since that borders caricaturisation, but ideas and their passage through time aren't static: the individualist anthropology remains. ...

Even if you can ascribe individualism to Christianity (Judaism makes more sense, by the way), Christianity is also responsible for perpetuating transphobia.

This, in turn, suggests that the relationship between Christianity and trans rights is more complicated than simply individualism.

The statistical relevance of people who are born "neither sex", or "both sex", approaches null. It doesn't follow that if some people have faulty genes or deformations that the categories of male and female become irrelevant. Furthermore, I am not equating sex with gender: I simply say that the former informs the latter to a certain degree, and what's left is open to societal influences.

As long as we agree that intersex people exist. Now, in order to successfully reproduce the old fashioned way, you need 2 sets of equipment: one male and one female. Also, intersex people are either one of the two sexes with a twist, or they are somewhere between the two. In other words, they are not some different third thing.

So, I think of it as a continuum between two poles where the vast majority of us are really close to one of the two poles, but it is still a continuum.

Nothing about any of this suggests that we should treat trans people any differently.

[Noob]

Even if you can ascribe individualism to Christianity (Judaism makes more sense, by the way)

I don't see why: Christianity is substantially different to Judaïsm. It draws on it significantly, but does not derive wholly from it. Further, there is only one 'Jewish society', from which to observe if you want to call it that, and we were talking about Christian societies and non-Christian ones.

Christianity is also responsible for perpetuating transphobia. This, in turn, suggests that the relationship between Christianity and trans rights is more complicated than simply individualism.

Indeed it does: I wouldn't claim otherwise.

As long as we agree that intersex people exist.

There are only two clear sexes. Until you've clarified what you believe the connection if any of gender to sex to be, I can't comment further here, and I'm not going to.