There have been several court cases where transwoman have successfully sued to be allowed into female only nude spas where little girls go with their moms including King's Spa in New Jersey and Olympus Spa in Washington. Then there is the Wii Spa incident in Los Angeles where trans advocates violently protested to allow a tranny to walk around with a boner
Then they are all of a sudden all quiet when it came out that tranny was a convicted sexual predator.
Then there was the while drag queen story hour push.
Things like that is why people accuse trans advocates of being PDF files.
You might want to look up John Money's wiki before you go around gloating about that creep.
Where is this convincing scientific research proving that gender and sex are completely different? You've essentially posted nothing so far other than calling the guy a moron for being logical. Enough gloating about the meaningless qualifications of others and start stating all this science that you think exists on this topic.
If you have a convincing argument, then write it out and be prepared to defend it. I'll let you state your side before I go for the knockout blow by asking you what a woman is.
I didn't say Money was not a creep. But he was not an activist, and he was a scientist and sexologist. I gave the history behind the introduction of the distinction. That was what was at issue, not his own moral qualities.
I never said sex and gender are "completely different". I already cited many different papers that track specific issues. I said that there is a community consensus on the conceptual distinction, even if the concepts themselves are still hazily defined. To say they are different concepts is not to say that they are not referentially coextensive in many cases, or that they do not have semantic overlap.
Transsexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The possible psychogenic or biological aetiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of...
Medical care of transgender patients, including surgical and hormonal treatment, has largely been met with resistance by physicians in favor of psychiatric treatment, owing to misconceptions that gender identity can be changed. There is increasing evidence of a biological basis for gender...
www.sciencedaily.com
This is a good review of the conceptual taxonomical issues across disciplines:
You can continue to research at your own leisure, or ask specific questions. You want me to lay out an argument for the distinction between sex and gender.
1) There is a distinction between biological and social factors
2) Biological factors include sexual determination, dividing between male/female, intersex, and other types.
3) Certain social roles are commonly associated with specific sexual types, and these roles are context dependent as well as historically mutable.
4) Such roles include descriptive generalizations ("girls play with dolls, boys play with guns") and prescriptive norms ("women belong in the kitchen").
5) Such social roles determine how individuals identify one another and themselves, in relation to a variety of other determinations, including biological sex, sexual orientation, psychological and social roles, and belonging to specific communities.
6) The set of concepts comprising such social classification terms are commonly labelled under the rubric "gender".
7) Gender concepts are sometimes syntactically equivalent to biological-sex concepts (e.g. the term "male" can refer either to the biological concept, or to the gender concept) but are not semantically identical, i.e. they are not invariant under substitution; e.g. "Biological males express X-Y chromosomes" is not synonymous with "Male identifying individuals express X-Y chromosomes," since they are not co-referential nor sense-equivalent.
8) The concepts "sex" and "gender" while correlated to sexual determination in different ways, and always (trivially) coextensive with biologically sexed individuals, therefore are not coextensive (extensionally identical) nor sense-equivalent (intensionally identical).
I can formalize this with basic predicate calculus (quantificational logic):
1) ∃x (Sex(x) Biological(x)) and ∃x (Gender(x) ∧ Social(x))
There exist classifications of individuals that are biologically grounded (Sex) and classifications that are socially grounded (Gender).
2)Sex(x) is by B-properties (e.g., chromosomal type, reproductive anatomy).
Sexual classification tracks biological factors.
3) Gender(x) is a function of S-properties, including descriptive norms (e.g., behavioral generalizations) and prescriptive norms (e.g., normative role expectations).
Gender classification tracks socially constructed roles and expectations.
4) ∃x,y (Sex(x) = Sex(y) ∧ Gender(x) ≠ Gender(y))
There exist individuals who share a biological sex but differ in gender identity.
5) ∃x,y (Gender(x) = Gender(y) ∧ Sex(x) ≠ Sex(y))
There exist individuals who share a gender identity but differ in biological sex.
6) For some term t (e.g., "male"), t may refer either to Sex(x) or Gender(x), but such terms are not generally substitutable. "Male" is syntactically ambiguous and context-sensitive; semantic content varies across uses.
7) Let C(x) be a classification concept (e.g., "male") applied to the set x of human individuals. Then:
If C(x) = Sex(x), it refers to B-properties.
If C(x) = Gender(x), it refers to S-properties.
But C(x) ≠ C(y) unless both sense and reference are preserved.
Conclusion) Sex and Gender are distinct but partially correlated classification schemes.
That is, Sex and Gender are neither coextensive (extensionally identical) nor sense-equivalent (intensionally identical).
Have a good day.
Oh, and with regard to what is a woman?
The term "woman" refers to the set of individuals who are members of the human species, and who are traditionally identified with either (a) specific biological sex, itself determined by specific physiological/anatomical (they have a vagina), developmental ("ovulation begins in puberty..."), and genetic properties (XX chromosome), or (b) specific gender roles, determined a variety of historically and culturally varied social (women are mothers), cognitive (women are more emotional than men), behavioral (women lie more than men), normative determinations (women belong in the kitchen).
As the disjunctive in the definition indicates, the term "woman" refers therefore to an indeterminate plurality of concepts that are semantically/extensionally divergent, while also overlapping to varying extents, i.e. there is no singular concept woman that everyone uses, but divergent concepts share partially in reference and sense, e.g. the set of all female-identifying individuals includes but is not limited to a subset of biological females.
To dismantle rigidly binary sex categorization, we propose the adoption of a biocultural and queer theoretical approach to forensic sex estimation and in sexual dimorphism research that challenges heteronormative assumptions, questions typological two-sex categorization, and combats the presumptions that gender and sex are stable, independent entities that convey universal meaning. Relatedly, the expansion of trans-oriented research, which is supported by 95.8% of respondents, will further improve methodological accuracies."
The term "woman" refers to the set of individuals who are members of the human species, and who are traditionally identified with either (a) specific biological sex, itself determined by specific physiological/anatomical (they have a vagina), developmental ("ovulation begins in puberty..."), and genetic properties (XX chromosome), or (b) specific gender roles, determined a variety of historically and culturally varied social (women are mothers), cognitive (women are more emotional than men), behavioral (women lie more than men), normative determinations (women belong in the kitchen).
it sure is limited to the biological females. the rest are just creepy queers in drag.
no matter how many queers infiltrate scintific circles and put out horseshit "studies", a biological male will never, in any circumstance, and especially not linguistic, be a woman or anything even close to resembling one.
The term "woman" refers to the set of individuals who are members of the human species, and who are traditionally identified with either (a) specific biological sex, itself determined by specific physiological/anatomical (they have a vagina), developmental ("ovulation begins in puberty..."), and genetic properties (XX chromosome), or (b) specific gender roles, determined a variety of historically and culturally varied social (women are mothers), cognitive (women are more emotional than men), behavioral (women lie more than men), normative determinations (women belong in the kitchen).
As the disjunctive in the definition indicates, the term "woman" refers therefore to an indeterminate plurality of concepts that are semantically/extensionally divergent, while also overlapping to varying extents, i.e. there is no singular concept woman that everyone uses, but divergent concepts share partially in reference and sense, e.g. the set of all female-identifying individuals includes but is not limited to a subset of biological females.
I didn't say Money was not a creep. But he was not an activist, and he was a scientist and sexologist. I gave the history behind the introduction of the distinction. That was what was at issue, not his own moral qualities.
I never said sex and gender are "completely different". I already cited many different papers that track specific issues. I said that there is a community consensus on the conceptual distinction, even if the concepts themselves are still hazily defined. To say they are different concepts is not to say that they are not referentially coextensive in many cases, or that they do not have semantic overlap.
Transsexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The possible psychogenic or biological aetiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of...
Medical care of transgender patients, including surgical and hormonal treatment, has largely been met with resistance by physicians in favor of psychiatric treatment, owing to misconceptions that gender identity can be changed. There is increasing evidence of a biological basis for gender...
www.sciencedaily.com
This is a good review of the conceptual taxonomical issues across disciplines:
You can continue to research at your own leisure, or ask specific questions. You want me to lay out an argument for the distinction between sex and gender.
1) There is a distinction between biological and social factors
2) Biological factors include sexual determination, dividing between male/female, intersex, and other types.
3) Certain social roles are commonly associated with specific sexual types, and these roles are context dependent as well as historically mutable.
4) Such roles include descriptive generalizations ("girls play with dolls, boys play with guns") and prescriptive norms ("women belong in the kitchen").
5) Such social roles determine how individuals identify one another and themselves, in relation to a variety of other determinations, including biological sex, sexual orientation, psychological and social roles, and belonging to specific communities.
6) The set of concepts comprising such social classification terms are commonly labelled under the rubric "gender".
7) Gender concepts are sometimes syntactically equivalent to biological-sex concepts (e.g. the term "male" can refer either to the biological concept, or to the gender concept) but are not semantically identical, i.e. they are not invariant under substitution; e.g. "Biological males express X-Y chromosomes" is not synonymous with "Male identifying individuals express X-Y chromosomes," since they are not co-referential nor sense-equivalent.
8) The concepts "sex" and "gender" while correlated to sexual determination in different ways, and always (trivially) coextensive with biologically sexed individuals, therefore are not coextensive (extensionally identical) nor sense-equivalent (intensionally identical).
I can formalize this with basic predicate calculus (quantificational logic):
1) ∃x (Sex(x) Biological(x)) and ∃x (Gender(x) ∧ Social(x))
There exist classifications of individuals that are biologically grounded (Sex) and classifications that are socially grounded (Gender).
2)Sex(x) is by B-properties (e.g., chromosomal type, reproductive anatomy).
Sexual classification tracks biological factors.
3) Gender(x) is a function of S-properties, including descriptive norms (e.g., behavioral generalizations) and prescriptive norms (e.g., normative role expectations).
Gender classification tracks socially constructed roles and expectations.
4) ∃x,y (Sex(x) = Sex(y) ∧ Gender(x) ≠ Gender(y))
There exist individuals who share a biological sex but differ in gender identity.
5) ∃x,y (Gender(x) = Gender(y) ∧ Sex(x) ≠ Sex(y))
There exist individuals who share a gender identity but differ in biological sex.
6) For some term t (e.g., "male"), t may refer either to Sex(x) or Gender(x), but such terms are not generally substitutable. "Male" is syntactically ambiguous and context-sensitive; semantic content varies across uses.
7) Let C(x) be a classification concept (e.g., "male") applied to the set x of human individuals. Then:
If C(x) = Sex(x), it refers to B-properties.
If C(x) = Gender(x), it refers to S-properties.
But C(x) ≠ C(y) unless both sense and reference are preserved.
Conclusion) Sex and Gender are distinct but partially correlated classification schemes.
That is, Sex and Gender are neither coextensive (extensionally identical) nor sense-equivalent (intensionally identical).
Have a good day.
Oh, and with regard to what is a woman?
The term "woman" refers to the set of individuals who are members of the human species, and who are traditionally identified with either (a) specific biological sex, itself determined by specific physiological/anatomical (they have a vagina), developmental ("ovulation begins in puberty..."), and genetic properties (XX chromosome), or (b) specific gender roles, determined a variety of historically and culturally varied social (women are mothers), cognitive (women are more emotional than men), behavioral (women lie more than men), normative determinations (women belong in the kitchen).
As the disjunctive in the definition indicates, the term "woman" refers therefore to an indeterminate plurality of concepts that are semantically/extensionally divergent, while also overlapping to varying extents, i.e. there is no singular concept woman that everyone uses, but divergent concepts share partially in reference and sense, e.g. the set of all female-identifying individuals includes but is not limited to a subset of biological females.
not at all indeterminate. they're quite determinate. no place for relativism. And it looks like you're fumbling desperately trying to sound astute.
yes there is, only mentally ill creeps think it's not singular. it is quite singular for the ovewhelming majority of humanity.
not at all divergent. they're actually quite convergent, converging towards "woman" and not trannies.
it sure is limited to the biological females. the rest are just creepy queers in drag.
no matter how many queers infiltrate scintific circles and put out horseshit "studies", a biological male will never, in any circumstance, and especially not linguistic, be a woman or anything even close to resembling one.
Are you for or against biological males competing with biological females in sports and using their female locker room? Answer this question, it's simple.
Are you for or against biological males competing with biological females in sports and using their female locker room? Answer this question, it's simple.
Gender and sex used synonymously before the 1940s, but Bentley who was a psychologist drew a conceptual distinction in 1945, and later in the 1950s John Money (sexologist and psychologist) among others proposed to distinguish the two in order to separate biological and social determinations. Money and Bentley were scientists who pioneered research in the field. Money was a professor at Johns Hopkins. Bentley was a psychologist.
Neither were "activists".
The distinction became developed in the humanities (philosophy, political theory...) throughout the 60s and 70s, partially trough second wave feminists, and later in the 90s was developed among others by people like Judith Butler (who takes an even more radical social constructivist approach).
Many were activists, many were academics who were not activists.
The paper that you quote the abstract from has a section that defines the methodology and the process of certification by the IRB, and was published in Forensic Anthropology, a leading peer-reviewed journal. The authors are all professors and academics. The leading author, Sean Tallman, is an authority in the field of forensic biology.
About Professor Tallman
Professor Sean Tallman is presently a 2023-2024 Fulbright U.S. Scholar in Public Health at the University of Cape Town and Stellenbosch University, South Africa. He is an Associate Professor in the Department of Anatomy & Neurobiology at the Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine with secondary appointments in the Department of Anthropology and Program in Archaeology at Boston University. He heads the Forensic and Bioanthropology Laboratory (FAB Lab) Group, teaches, and advises students the M.S. Program in Forensic Anthropology at the Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine. Sean teaches courses in human osteology, method and theory in biological anthropology, bioarchaeology, forensic anthropology, and human rights. Additionally, he is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), and Associate Editor for American Anthropologist and Yearbook of Biological Anthropology. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, M.A. from the State University of New York, Binghamton, B.A. from the University of Washington, and A.A. from Shoreline Community College.
Sean has held positions of Forensic Anthropologist, Osteologist, Archaeologist, Consultant, and Anthropology Instructor in various contexts. In particular, he served as a Forensic Anthropologist with the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command’s Central Identification Laboratory (now DPAA), where he contributed to the identification of numerous U.S. service members killed during past conflicts, and led archaeological recovery missions in France, Germany, Laos, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vietnam. He has conducted skeletal biology research in Japan, Thailand, and South Africa.
The paper is a survey about how forensic anthropologists treat and categorize gender/sex and transgendered individuals. It's a survey covering over one hundred and twenty researcher feedback responses.
Show me the "proof" that most research done on transgender and queerness is done by activists. Also, questions concerning the distinction between gender and sex do not exclusively bear on issues of transgenderism and queerness.
Who the fuck are you to say that a conceptual distinction drawn by scientists and accepted across the scientific community is a lie?
You talk as if science was always in a position to understand the relation between psychology and biology, and thus that the conceptual frameworks of the past must be somehow immutable.
It is not abnormal in science for concepts to be revised upon the acquisition of more information and new methods, theories, and approaches. The development of sexology in the 20th Century has been significant. People forget that the social sciences, like psychology and sociology, are not very old at all, and to this day are not terribly developed in relation to the natural sciences. The attempt to extend the principles of mechanistic and functional explanation from the 17th Century scientific revolutions in physics and cosmology to other domains is not exactly easy.
But let's see what you have to offer, in response to over 75 years of research across the social and natural sciences, and humanities.
"There are men that are more feminine and women who are more masculine, it doesn't mean they are the opposite gender/sex. Being a man or woman is not a feeling, it is a state of being. You are what you are."
Which shows that you are not only a liar, and ignorant, but a moron. Do you seriously, honestly think anyone serious thinks that the way one distinguishes sex and gender is by noticing that biological males/females can exhibit varying degrees of masculity/femeninity? You really think that gender is distinguished from sex that way? Really, is that your retort?
I stand by my statement. Nothing that you've posted supports the idea that we should be targeting children with this nonsense, or forcing women to put up with men in their private spaces. As several of your links suggested, this is a disease of the mind where they have an irrational fixation on their gender.
Do you think children should be given hormones and hormone blockers?
Do think the state should be able to take someone's child who doesn't want to "affirm" their gender and doesn't believe the lie that if they don't, their kid will kill themselves?
A lot of this seems to be Munchausen by proxy, and it's always a celebrity or liberal white woman, who has 3 kids and all are queer/trans. Then you have legit creeps like Jeffrey Marsh, who target kids and tell them to leave their parents if they don't affirm their gender.
I stand by my statement. Nothing that you've posted supports the idea that we should be targeting children with this nonsense, or forcing women to put up with men in their private spaces. As several of your links suggested, this is a disease of the mind where they have an irrational fixation on their gender.
Do you think children should be given hormones and hormone blockers?
Do think the state should be able to take someone's child who doesn't want to "affirm" their gender and doesn't believe the lie that if they don't, their kid will kill themselves?
A lot of this seems to be Munchausen by proxy, and it's always a celebrity or liberal white woman, who has 3 kids and all are queer/trans. Then you have legit creeps like Jeffrey Marsh, who target kids and tell them to leave their parents if they don't affirm their gender.
So you are going to blatantly disregard everything that was said and linked to, and suddenly shift the argument to "children targeting" and hormone treatment? That was not what was in question, and you are now being a coward and hypocrite by refusing to even acknowledge what you were told.
We were talking about the gender/sex conceptual distinction. And you are so pathetically desperate when someone gives you an answer you are not prepared to confront that you change the topic. And you start bluffing by mentioning scattered cases and weird generalizations that have nothing to do with anything I said.
Be a dumb blind bigot if you like but at least have the intellectual modesty to accept you are simply going by conviction as opposed to any kind of rigor.
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
phile? You think this is honest good faith dialogue?
