• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

sex and gender are two different things. where is the trans movement headed?

Are you able to read this?




Are you attempting to claim that you posted that in post #65, which was the post I was addressing? You know that we can just scroll up and see what you actually posted right?

At any rate, the way the conclusions were described in that abstract is at odds with the actual conclusions of the study. The actual conclusions (as opposed to the poorly-worded abstract) were that sexual differentiation of the brain occurs during the second half of pregnancy, independent of sexual differentiation of the genitals, which occurs much earlier. Though direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells normally occurs in males, this is not always the case. Sometimes a biological male might not have this hormonal surge, and sometimes a biological female might have it. This could lead to brain chemistry in a biological male more similar to the brain chemistry normally found in biological females, and vice versa.

Gender, as defined by the World Health Organization, refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. Brain chemistry is not socially constructed, so the writer of the abstract clearly misspoke by equating brain chemistry with gender.

Insofar as brain chemistry might have some later effect on gender identity, it can obviously only do so in an environment in which the subject is exposed to the constructs of society.
 
Ecoform literally called you a bigot and said you wanna shit on transgender people. Do you really believe he doesn't think you're a TERF?

Whether you support transgender people is irrelevant; you strayed from the ideological message and must be excommunicated. Don't worry, even transgender people who don't stay on message are labelled TERFs.
Oh I know. I find it amazing when some people, who aren't even gay or trans, are calling actual gay or trans people homophobic or transphobic. I consider myself lucky that my local communities rarely see such types. It simply shows where he cannot support his position when he has to engage in ad homs and change what I say in order to try to discredit me. Especially when nothing I wrote was against any transgender ideology.
 
Newborns do not have an understanding of social constructs or even an understanding of themselves, which is why every source you can find says gender identity is formed at around the age 3-4 years.

Yes, gender identity is about a social construct a person identifies with, but that can't be done in the womb, because a fetus has no concept of socially constructed gender roles.

But is it really? A social construct that it? I think we can agree that any gender expectations, gender roles, and ideas of gender expression would fall under social constructs, and is evidenced by the large variations of such over history and culture. But the identity itself, is another matter.

As I noted before, we all have a sexual identity, keeping in mind that we are using sex and gender as two separate things here. Sex, being the biological aspect of the person, the physical body, is something that others can see externally. For the purposes of the my argument I am going to use (fe)male for sex and (wo)man for gender. A baby has no sexual identity when born, but develops it over its first few years. Even if it is intersexed, it forms the identity based on the external. It might develop a female identity even though it has an XY pair and AIS. Or even develop an intersexed identity if it has ambiguous genitalia, assuming no corrective action before the identity develops.

Gender identity is internal, and as such we don't see the basis of it. And, yes, I am claiming that there is some kind of basis for it, present at birth. A baby doesn't have a gender identity when born but develops it in its first few years, based upon whatever this internal thing is, much like it develops its sexual identity based upon its external genitalia. Transgenderism occurs when those two identities do not align in the typical statistically common fashion. Keep in mind that the lack of alignment does not automatically cause GD, although it does seem to in most cases. The basis for this postulation, if you will, is the observation that there are many transgenders who will claim a gender opposite their sex, yet do not, nor want to, conform to the social constructions of gender presentation, roles and/or expectations. I cannot see, if gender itself was a social construction, why these people would not conform those other constructions. Thus it is more logically a separate, non constructed thing within the person, by which the gender identity is based upon.

Keep in mind that the word symbol gender might not be the most accurate one to use here. But we are looking as something previously unknown and unrealized (gender as separate from sex), so it's the best we currently have. Regardless of whether we continue call it gender or develop a newer symbol for it, it still is. Rose by any other name and all.
 
But is it really? A social construct that it? I think we can agree that any gender expectations, gender roles, and ideas of gender expression would fall under social constructs, and is evidenced by the large variations of such over history and culture. But the identity itself, is another matter.

As I noted before, we all have a sexual identity, keeping in mind that we are using sex and gender as two separate things here. Sex, being the biological aspect of the person, the physical body, is something that others can see externally. For the purposes of the my argument I am going to use (fe)male for sex and (wo)man for gender. A baby has no sexual identity when born, but develops it over its first few years. Even if it is intersexed, it forms the identity based on the external. It might develop a female identity even though it has an XY pair and AIS. Or even develop an intersexed identity if it has ambiguous genitalia, assuming no corrective action before the identity develops.

Gender identity is internal, and as such we don't see the basis of it. And, yes, I am claiming that there is some kind of basis for it, present at birth. A baby doesn't have a gender identity when born but develops it in its first few years, based upon whatever this internal thing is, much like it develops its sexual identity based upon its external genitalia. Transgenderism occurs when those two identities do not align in the typical statistically common fashion. Keep in mind that the lack of alignment does not automatically cause GD, although it does seem to in most cases. The basis for this postulation, if you will, is the observation that there are many transgenders who will claim a gender opposite their sex, yet do not, nor want to, conform to the social constructions of gender presentation, roles and/or expectations. I cannot see, if gender itself was a social construction, why these people would not conform those other constructions. Thus it is more logically a separate, non constructed thing within the person, by which the gender identity is based upon.

Keep in mind that the word symbol gender might not be the most accurate one to use here. But we are looking as something previously unknown and unrealized (gender as separate from sex), so it's the best we currently have. Regardless of whether we continue call it gender or develop a newer symbol for it, it still is. Rose by any other name and all.

Maybe this isn't relevant to what you've said, but I've wondered whether transgenderism is just on the extreme ends of a feminine/masculine spectrum. After all, what is the actual difference between a male who identifies as a man and who is feminine likes to wear women's clothing and a male who identifies as a transwoman other in how they self-identify? Also, what gender is a transwoman who regards themselves as a man (of which there are plenty)?
 

sex and gender are two different things. where is the trans movement headed?​

it's a sad malady that I am thankful to not have been stricken with.

I wish those suffering well.
 
Maybe this isn't relevant to what you've said, but I've wondered whether transgenderism is just on the extreme ends of a feminine/masculine spectrum. After all, what is the actual difference between a male who identifies as a man and who is feminine likes to wear women's clothing and a male who identifies as a transwoman other in how they self-identify?

Drag Queens are a good example of male who identify as men and still present feminine. I am guessing that you are using feminine/masculine as separate from (fe)male, yes? But in closer answer to your question, we have to step back a bit. When we talk about what is masculine or feminine or man or woman, or more accurately the external cues to those, they are the constructs. Wearing dresses is a woman's thing or feminine.....except when it was masculine or a men's thing at other points in history. Even in the relevantly recent time of my grandfather, boys were put into dresses until a certain age. In fact, with the possible exception of skorts, there is not a type of clothing out there that hasn't been worn by both men and women, or males and female if you prefer, at some point in history. They might go by different names. A kilt is nothing more than a clan specific patterned wrap around skirt. High heels, when first invented, were a men's fashion. So the actual self identity isn't based upon whatever the current social construct is. I will grant that such is how we typically make our determination of others. But even that is moving by the wayside, especially when it comes to women wearing "men's" clothing, regardless of cut.

Also, what gender is a transwoman who regards themselves as a man (of which there are plenty)?
I need you to expand on this, as I am not following what you are trying to say.
 
Drag Queens are a good example of male who identify as men and still present feminine. I am guessing that you are using feminine/masculine as separate from (fe)male, yes? But in closer answer to your question, we have to step back a bit. When we talk about what is masculine or feminine or man or woman, or more accurately the external cues to those, they are the constructs. Wearing dresses is a woman's thing or feminine.....except when it was masculine or a men's thing at other points in history. Even in the relevantly recent time of my grandfather, boys were put into dresses until a certain age. In fact, with the possible exception of skorts, there is not a type of clothing out there that hasn't been worn by both men and women, or males and female if you prefer, at some point in history. They might go by different names. A kilt is nothing more than a clan specific patterned wrap around skirt. High heels, when first invented, were a men's fashion. So the actual self identity isn't based upon whatever the current social construct is. I will grant that such is how we typically make our determination of others. But even that is moving by the wayside, especially when it comes to women wearing "men's" clothing, regardless of cut.


I need you to expand on this, as I am not following what you are trying to say.

Some transwomen disagree with the premise that they are women; they claim they are men and that being a transwoman doesn't make you a woman. Debbie Hayton is one such transwoman, there are others. If transwomen are women, then what is a transwoman who says they're not a woman?

Regardless of your views, this article about transwomen who reject the idea they are actually women is very interesting and I would recommend reading it.

 
Drag Queens are a good example of male who identify as men and still present feminine. I am guessing that you are using feminine/masculine as separate from (fe)male, yes? But in closer answer to your question, we have to step back a bit. When we talk about what is masculine or feminine or man or woman, or more accurately the external cues to those, they are the constructs. Wearing dresses is a woman's thing or feminine.....except when it was masculine or a men's thing at other points in history. Even in the relevantly recent time of my grandfather, boys were put into dresses until a certain age. In fact, with the possible exception of skorts, there is not a type of clothing out there that hasn't been worn by both men and women, or males and female if you prefer, at some point in history. They might go by different names. A kilt is nothing more than a clan specific patterned wrap around skirt. High heels, when first invented, were a men's fashion. So the actual self identity isn't based upon whatever the current social construct is. I will grant that such is how we typically make our determination of others. But even that is moving by the wayside, especially when it comes to women wearing "men's" clothing, regardless of cut.

But why do you think a transwoman is actually a woman as opposed to a very feminine man or a more extreme or permanent form of crossdressing? Are men only allowed to express a certain amount of femininity before they're regarded as women?
 
Another johnny come lately lol….
 
This was in stable mental health house, not a hospital. I've just literally never come across people like this. For one thing I really don't bother to ask peoples sex or gender, I use "hey man" to the point that its now multi sex / gender, another thing is I've met a few guys in hospital that have been shit, I've met a few girls that have been shit, but the majority are fine. those are extremely large group when compared to the trans community. Wasn't just them it was the workers that didn't care if anyone did anything during the day then just getting ****ed up at night. What I'm saying is my experience has been that the community starts trying to get people fired because they weren't trans, that's ****ed a minority spreading discrimination. A MINORITY SPREADING DISCRIMINATION, you know what else fits that description. Japanese supremacy, Chineese han supremacy, White supremacy - trying to shut down conversations gives me really bad new dark age vibes, when the church wiped out science because they didn't agree.
Sociology needs to stay in its ****ing place.
You know the thing about anecdotes, the more spastic they are the more unbelievable they are especially in opening posts.
 
Some transwomen disagree with the premise that they are women; they claim they are men and that being a transwoman doesn't make you a woman. Debbie Hayton is one such transwoman, there are others. If transwomen are women, then what is a transwoman who says they're not a woman?

Regardless of your views, this article about transwomen who reject the idea they are actually women is very interesting and I would recommend reading it.

I did scan through it, and I am going to have to go back and look it over more in depth (along with the 20 million things I want to review more in depth). And I am aware of trans people who have views similar to this. And some of it is simply use of words. I can comprehend the idea that a trans woman is not a woman because she doesn't grow up with the same experiences a female does. However, I have to wonder 1) how accurate that will be for those children who are identifying now and grow up presenting as their gender, and 2) are they holding to that same standard for intersex people who look female externally?

In the case of some of those who make claims like Hayden, some are just not making the separation between (fem)male and (wo)man as I try to do. So saying they are a transwoman who is a man, is closer to saying they are a transwoman who is a male. Which to me makes the case for a new words and related labels for what we are currently trying to call "gender".

But I don't think any of that takes away from my assertion and point that the internal aspect of a person, currently being associated with the term gender, is an actual thing as opposed to a social construct.

But why do you think a transwoman is actually a woman as opposed to a very feminine man or a more extreme or permanent form of crossdressing? Are men only allowed to express a certain amount of femininity before they're regarded as women?

It has a lot to do with how I separate out one's gender and the expressions thereof. A person can be a woman and do every gender expression we typically associate with a man, be they male or female. The connection of those expressions with a given sex or gender are the social constructions, but not the sex or gender itself.
 
Newborns do not have an understanding of social constructs or even an understanding of themselves, which is why every source you can find says gender identity is formed at around the age 3-4 years.

Yes, gender identity is about a social construct a person identifies with, but that can't be done in the womb, because a fetus has no concept of socially constructed gender roles.
The fact that they do not have an understanding of it doesn't mean that it isn't already predetermined and will become known as they mature. A baby has no idea about sexual orientation or even sex but our sexual orientation isn't a choice and it is also predetermined in utero but that doesn't become known for 10-12 years. When a baby is born we are usually little more than our reptilian brain. A baby doesn't even gain the understanding that it is alive and conscious until a year or more of age.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
 
Referencing the OP?
Yes. Filled with incredibly grandiose claims from a very anecdotal source, i tend to not take them seriously.
 
Newborns do not have an understanding of social constructs or even an understanding of themselves, which is why every source you can find says gender identity is formed at around the age 3-4 years.

Yes, gender identity is about a social construct a person identifies with, but that can't be done in the womb, because a fetus has no concept of socially constructed gender roles.
I agree, I come from a family where my dad ****ed off and I was raised by females who are extremely motivated.
My eldest sister is going to become apart of the 1%, because she has the work ethic of doing everyone's work till 3 in the morning
Why? because she wants to earn favours that will benefit her.

A trans person will not have the same life as a born male or female. why would you consider them the same then?
 
The fact that they do not have an understanding of it doesn't mean that it isn't already predetermined and will become known as they mature. A baby has no idea about sexual orientation or even sex but our sexual orientation isn't a choice and it is also predetermined in utero but that doesn't become known for 10-12 years. When a baby is born we are usually little more than our reptilian brain. A baby doesn't even gain the understanding that it is alive and conscious until a year or more of age.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
XD I was raised with a girl we use to sit in the bathtub staring at each others junk this was before 3, so I'd say there is some understanding of this is a girl and this is a boy this is how we differ. sex definitively has more credibility than gender when you said "it add on information" how??? all that's doing is getting rid of sex and accepting gender norms
 
You know the thing about anecdotes, the more spastic they are the more unbelievable they are especially in opening posts.
XD I love how all you have are insults, not a great argument
 
Are you attempting to claim that you posted that in post #65, which was the post I was addressing? You know that we can just scroll up and see what you actually posted right?

At any rate, the way the conclusions were described in that abstract is at odds with the actual conclusions of the study. The actual conclusions (as opposed to the poorly-worded abstract) were that sexual differentiation of the brain occurs during the second half of pregnancy, independent of sexual differentiation of the genitals, which occurs much earlier. Though direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells normally occurs in males, this is not always the case. Sometimes a biological male might not have this hormonal surge, and sometimes a biological female might have it. This could lead to brain chemistry in a biological male more similar to the brain chemistry normally found in biological females, and vice versa.

Gender, as defined by the World Health Organization, refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. Brain chemistry is not socially constructed, so the writer of the abstract clearly misspoke by equating brain chemistry with gender.

Insofar as brain chemistry might have some later effect on gender identity, it can obviously only do so in an environment in which the subject is exposed to the constructs of society.
wtf man talking about that sex is purely sexual organs not chromosomes and not gender.
This is to just simply what sex is how gender can't replace is because its completely different subject.
XD were you the type of person who got mad at insurance agency's saying only sex is allowed. why? because that has useful information. the information you keep posting should not involve children they are still developing
 
Yes. Filled with incredibly grandiose claims from a very anecdotal source, i tend to not take them seriously.
The pic and the "I am offended sir! Why you are impugning upon my right to a minor genocidal act or two!"
makes me think you believe that you are an academic but realistically you're the person who says "****ing white males"
if you like making enemies no reason then yeah thats a great plan
 
Are you attempting to claim that you posted that in post #65, which was the post I was addressing? You know that we can just scroll up and see what you actually posted right?

At any rate, the way the conclusions were described in that abstract is at odds with the actual conclusions of the study. The actual conclusions (as opposed to the poorly-worded abstract) were that sexual differentiation of the brain occurs during the second half of pregnancy, independent of sexual differentiation of the genitals, which occurs much earlier. Though direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells normally occurs in males, this is not always the case. Sometimes a biological male might not have this hormonal surge, and sometimes a biological female might have it. This could lead to brain chemistry in a biological male more similar to the brain chemistry normally found in biological females, and vice versa.

Gender, as defined by the World Health Organization, refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. Brain chemistry is not socially constructed, so the writer of the abstract clearly misspoke by equating brain chemistry with gender.

Insofar as brain chemistry might have some later effect on gender identity, it can obviously only do so in an environment in which the subject is exposed to the constructs of society.
The WHO. really? after bowing to china and refusing to allow facts and instead accepted the story they gave? or would this be the UN human rights council which has the worst offenders on it's board?

Just like the league of nations, world organisations are just corrupt and meant to fail
I'm not taking advice from WHO.

That's still not talking about reproductive organs as which most life reproduces.
That's sex

Chromosomes and brain chemistry are both different
 
I don't get whats so hard to get. Sex is sexual organs, which still exists even if we don't define it.
What's happening with gender is it has already been defined but it doesn't exist without it. It's sociology
Sociology is a social science that focuses on society, human social behaviour, patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and aspects of culture associated with everyday life.[1][2][3] It uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis[4]: 3–5  to develop a body of knowledge about social order and social change.[4]: 32–40  While some sociologists conduct research that may be applied directly to social policy and welfare, others focus primarily on refining the theoretical understanding of social processes. Subject matter can range from micro-level analyses of society
it doesn't actually exist unless we define it. science fact - proven, social construct doesn't actually exist. when you bring attention to it then it becomes something. WITHOUT DEFINING DOES IT EXIST? if we don't define sex it still exists. Gender = doe's not exist without definition
 
Speaking of ignorance, the word gender predates biology departments, and was used interchangeably with biological sex 300 years before the term sociology was even coined. Gender and sex were synonyms from the 15th century until the 20th century when it first started being used to represent the socialized obverse of sex.
just because it predates something does not mean its better.
Really are you saying because religion existed before science that we should scrap science and continue with religion.
We were extremely young then we are not now. A lot of opinions have been put in the difference and that needs to be broken down
 
One's personal sense of identity is established in the womb.

Society creates genders. People relate to a gender. Gender identity is about what social construct a person identifies with. A person identifies with that construct from birth.
Can you provide evidence pls?
 
XD I was raised with a girl we use to sit in the bathtub staring at each others junk this was before 3, so I'd say there is some understanding of this is a girl and this is a boy this is how we differ. sex definitively has more credibility than gender when you said "it add on information" how??? all that's doing is getting rid of sex and accepting gender norms

This is rambling nonsense. These are incoherent claims because I have said nothing of the sort.
 
I'm talking about the typical uneducated bs used to support bigotry. They try to pretend gender was a term used commonly since long ago by finding an obscure reference.

I've seen the transgender hate before. I believe you have as well. You're supporting it with argument from ignorance.

Look at you arguing from ignorance for bigotry. Nice work.

"But I don't know, I think maybe..."

Ignorant bigotry.
Really when I'm trying to support actual facts of sex and how it can't be replaced by gender because they are different topics.
I'd like to think there are better members of the community but i haven't seen it.
When talking about people I've come across they were facist in that they constantly discriminated against others. grouping all white males together is a bad idea. you're just picking fights unnecessarily, demanding rights to shut people up that don't agree.
I've honestly never met a bunch of people so hateful because "white males have ****ed life"
I loved watching the video in the states where the guy stated "I don't want my children thinking that they can't get ahead because of white people".


Please bring some people from the community that have different thoughts but still, it's just trying to push gender and trying to justify it replacing sex. They are different things why try and push something that doesn't fit
 
Back
Top Bottom