Nah
Super Straight - a new sexuality???
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Nah
For the record, I don't believe anybody can change their sex. I find it quite troubling that people should believe that they need to. That they can't be who they want to be in the body they were born with.
I also don't dislike people just because they are trans. I only dislike the people who insist we should all comply with their beliefs; also the people who believe their "rights" trump everybody else's.
But @Angilion is completely correct about the meaning of my previous post.
Were often means present tense, hypothetical.
"If I were a rich man, I'd hire a butler."
"If you were taller, you'd be able to open the cupboard."
"If I were you, I wouldn't do that!"
"If he was attractive, she wouldn't have complained to HR."
In all of those sentences, were/was means present tense hypothetical, not past tense.
"Transphobes will never call a person a woman if they were a man."
Which I would read (every time) as "they wouldn't call a man a woman." Quite right too!
"If they were once a man" - completely different meaning.
What about change their gender?
Tbh, I don't really understand the need for genders, in addition to biological sex. We've largely challenged and broken down most "gender roles," and no doubt will continue to do so in future.
I'd prefer it if we ditched gender completely, or it was simply a synonym for sex.
Why would a biological male want a different gender, and what would it mean exactly if he did just that? If gender is entirely separate to (and disconnected from) sex, then how could you accept your sex but want to change your gender, and what would that achieve? What would a biological male gendered female *be* exactly? If that person believed both that his sex *was* male that his gender *was* female? Ie wasn't challenging the sex part.
Really shouldn't men and women simply be free to ignore "gender norms" and decide for themselves if they want to wear skirts, or ride dirt bikes, or take up knitting.
I don't see how genders that are separate from sex make anything better.
I'll chuck my ha'porth in here...
My position is that seperating gender from sex makes things better for the situation you want - people being able to "decide for themselves if they want to wear skirts, or ride dirt bikes, or take up knitting." Or anything else gendered.
Gender describes trends and it does exist. Some of it is inherent due to the sexual dimorphism in humans. Some of it is just fashion. Some of it is a combination of both. For many aspects of gender, it's not yet known how much is nature and how much is nurture. But gender does exist. What I see as the big problem with having gender and sex treated as being the same thing is that those trends would be treated as being sexed rather than as being gendered, i.e. that it would make gender roles much worse. The second (and related) problem I see with the idea is that sex is discrete groups (in humans) and gender is not just one spectrum but a multitude of spectrums. The same person can be masculine and feminine to varying extents in different things. Or in the same thing at different times.
For example, at the moment and in this country there are more male people than female people who are into cars. That makes being into cars gendered masculine. Probably not as masculine as in the past, but still definitely masculine. Which doesn't make it bad for a female person to be into cars. It just makes them different to average for female people in that one specific way. But if sex and gender are the same thing, then being into cars is male. Which makes it bad for a female person to be into cars. Which is why, for example, TRAs have told girls who are interested in cars that they're boys. That's a bad thing to be telling 8 year olds. But if sex and gender are the same thing, it would be true.
I'd prefer it if we treated gender as what it is - trends - and it was never applied to any individual. Doing that is like insisting that, for example, every man in the UK wear size 9.5 shoes because that's the average shoe size for men in the UK (I think). The silliness of it is obvious for shoe size, but I think it's silly for every aspect of gender.
I'd also prefer it if we got rid of the artificial aspects of gender, but we'd probably never know if we did because for most aspects of gender we don't know how much is nature and how much is nurture.
@Angilion Well on that basis identifying as one "gender" is a bit meaningless.
Say you're a biological male, you're not into cars, but you love horse riding, rugby, floristry, and DIY.
Some of those things are probably gendered male and some probably gendered female (personally I object to this gendering of activities and can't see a usefulness in so doing).
So if you describe your gender as male, or female, you'll be at odds with some of the things on that list.
Which then means, well, I'm not sure.. does that mean you have to identify as "gender fluid" or somesuch?
Say you're a biological male, you're not into cars, but you love horse riding, rugby, floristry, and DIY.
Some of those things are probably gendered male and some probably gendered female (personally I object to this gendering of activities and can't see a usefulness in so doing).
So if you describe your gender as male, or female, you'll be at odds with some of the things on that list.
Which then means, well, I'm not sure.. does that mean you have to identify as "gender fluid" or somesuch?
Well. In this context it's throwing a bone to the tiny minority who have the understanding that their life would be better if they were the sex they are not.
Major problem with "trans" from the superficial gender-isn't-sex labels to hormones and serious plastic surgery is that it's all quite pitiful if it doesn't achieve the external or even internal recognition of being that other sex that they're after. People do not react well to someone they recognise as an imitator whether its someone else. Or themselves.
Completely meaningless. As I said, I think that gender should never be applied to any individual because it's a matter of a multitude of trends. Also that there's no such thing as one gender about anything (let alone all things together) because gender is a spectrum rather than discrete groups. Gender is only relevant on a statistical basis, which is sometimes relevant though never on an individual basis. For example, a shoe manufacturer making large quantities of off the shelf shoes would have to consider the gendered aspect of foot size when deciding how many shoes of each size to make whereas a bespoke cobbler making shoes should ignore the gendered aspect of shoe size because they're making shoes on an individual basis.
You'd also be at odds with the idea that sex and gender are different things, since you'd be describing gender as sex. Which is why I referred to being into cars as (currently, here and now) being gendered masculine. Not male. The examples you give are gendered feminine or masculine to varying degrees, but they're not sexed so they're not male or female in any way. The whole idea of "gendering" something with a sex is treating sex and gender as the same thing, which is what I was arguing against.
Everybody is "gender fluid" because nobody is average for their sex in every way at every time. Even if they were, they would still be "gender fluid" because gender itself changes since some of it is just fashion.
I identify as "person". I identify every other person as "person". Of course, the people who believe in biological group identity hate me for it. Oh dear, how sad but never mind.
See this is why I don't talk about gender. It's a minefield 
Sex is so much simpler
If gender is not sex, and given the above, then even the attempt to define your (singular) gender seems either arbitrary or at worst utterly meaningless.
So, er, @hurfdurf, make of that what you will I don't see that we can change our sex, and I don't really care for gendering things.
Sex is so much simpler If gender is not sex, and given the above, then even the attempt to define your (singular) gender seems either arbitrary or at worst utterly meaningless.
So, er, @hurfdurf, make of that what you will
I don't see that we can change our sex, and I don't really care for gendering things.See this is why I don't talk about gender. It's a minefield
If gender is not sex, and given the above, then even the attempt to define your (singular) gender seems either arbitrary or at worst utterly meaningless.
So, er, @hurfdurf, make of that what you will
If you were going to meet someone for lunch, and the maître d asked you who you were there to meet. How would you describe the person if you didn't know what clothing they were wearing in advance?
Gender very quickly takes the range of people you would be meeting down by 50%.... Would you say person and refuse to gender someone?
Does it tho? I thought we had dozens of genders now. What's your take on gender vs sex in any case?
I could say I'm here to meet a woman, tho, which would do as you say. I'm starting to think we should limit ourselves to talking about sex because introducing genders is just leading to crossed wires and confusion.
Perhaps by design.
Just try and follow my logic here, I appreciate you going along so far.
So let’s say the person you are meeting is trans. They were born male. They present and pass fully as female now. Would you still say you were there to meet a woman, or would you insist on saying man?
I would in such a situation be describing appearances only. I would say "woman" because the person would appear to be a woman.
However being a woman is not purely cosmetic, is it.
Ok, so you would gender them with their chosen gebder, even though sex wise, it doesn’t match their gender they have chosen to identify as. Congratulations, you’ve achieved the basic level of decorum and politeness it takes to respect trans people. That’s all anyone is asking really.
This super straight stuff has only come around because of people blowing up that request, and conflating it with the likes of the deplorable trans community like Jessica Yaniv acting in bad faith as if they are anyone but an outlier, demanding you be attracted to them as a “woman”.
I think we all know that's not quite true. A lot of time, effort and money is usually spent granting tiny minorities power. Arguably, more power than they should wield. Case in point, you can be hamstrung, dragged and portrayed in the most abysmal light if you don't, quite literally, accept the views. If you have opposing views, you're transphobic.
Believe me, I'm highly of the opinion of let people be. If a guy wants to dress up and call himself a chick, fine. I have no business to judge, if it makes them happy it's none of my business so long as it doesn't harm others. However (and this to me is the most important point), you're not a woman if you modify your genitals. Your chromosomes define that fact for you. Any degree of open wound between your legs will not define you as being a woman. A genital change does not make you a woman. I can identify as a wooden chair if I like, it doesn't mean I am. Furthermore, if someone seemed intent on chopping their own arms off, we wouldn't just facilitate that request and congratulate them on their "transition" to whatever state they desire. We'd treat their mental situation and protect them from self harm.
So yes, power is wielded, and it's often in a manner to lay the guilt on the rest of society to bend to their will.
N.B. I too have been propositioned by cross dressers and transsexuals, it's nothing special.
This, frankly. Something also represented in older dictionaries before some good ol' post-modern revisionism kicked in and caveats began to be introduced (e.g. they aren't the same, gender is instead a social factor). It's a pretty common part of the playbook now, either appropriate and redefine or spin something else off.
I'm curious to know how a persons psychological identity has any bearing on their physical construction?
The fact that there exists men who are exceedingly feminine and women who are exceedingly masculine in behaviour yet remain sexually attracted to their counterparts ought to defy any notion that it's remotely binary.
The fact that there exists men who are exceedingly feminine and women who are exceedingly masculine in behaviour yet remain sexually attracted to their counterparts ought to defy any notion that it's remotely binary.
How did that end up for Jessica Yaniv?
Can you show me someone who has been hamstrung, dragged and portrayed in the most abysmal light for not wanting to sleep with a transwoman?
Because there's examples like Glinner, but he wasn't cancelled for just being a transphobe to a severe degree, but actively trolling and abusing people, and calling people podophiles. The fact his wife left him because of his descent into madness and obsession says it all.
Indeed, gender appears to be a spectrum, and not really fit for purpose when it comes to a lot of characteristics.