Michigan court concludes trans women aren’t women

[lifelessheap]

Corporations are also legal fictions, ie., not based on something that is real, yet the world conforms to this delusion quite willingly.

Yeah, that is really stupid. If you want a comparison why not just say GOOGLE now identifies as an oil company?

 

[helltoupee]

Yeah, that is really stupid. If you want a comparison why not just say GOOGLE now identifies as an oil company?

The point is that we are immersed in a world of social constructs not based in physical reality.

Insisting that trans is not a legitimate issue because of your demands that we only speak in terms of biological truths is absurdly hypocritical.

 

[kazam]

Only 2 genders

 

[Pessimystic]

About fucking time some common sense kicked in.

 

[Pessimystic]

Doesn't the "B" in LGBT kinda suggest that there are only two genders?
Anybody is welcome to identify as whatever they want, it's a free country, just don't expect the rest of us to participate in this madness.

 

[drstrangelov]

That doesn’t make any sense. All three you listed have the same XX chromosomes, no?

Do transwomen have XX or XY? What is the purpose of science and biology if societal influence can override it because a tiny minority fights for reclassification using marketing tactics?

For the record, I don’t care if people want to be other genders but a square cannot claim to be a circle. Why can’t trans just be a third category, why demand that they fit in within another mold entirely?

How do you feel about that white woman who believes she is black? Do you consider her black?

You didn't mention chromosomes in the initial post, did you? Don't change the subject. I don't wholly disagree, I just don't think it's a viable solution to introduce new bathroom construction requirements in most places.

 

[lifelessheap]

The point is that we are immersed in a world of social constructs not based in physical reality.

Insisting that trans is not a legitimate issue because of your demands that we only speak in terms of biological truths is absurdly hypocritical.

My demands?! Ironic.

 

[Deleted member 391673]

You didn't mention chromosomes in the initial post, did you? Don't change the subject. I don't wholly disagree, I just don't think it's a viable solution to introduce new bathroom construction requirements in most places.

You didn’t answer any of my questions. No need to deflect.

My initial post was a simple statement stating that a transwoman is not a woman in the biological sense so the chromosome thing was implied because that’s how gender/sex is determined - through biology and science. Not through feelings.

Why is it that people with anorexia and bulimia are considered to have body dysmorphic disorder which is considered a mental illness but wanting to alter gender by slicing and peeling apart ones dick or sculpting a vagina into a penis not considered a BDD mental illness?

You can maybe say the anorexic or bulemic does harm to the body but BDD can affect others who exercise too much but might otherwise be healthy. Plus, hormone therapy and changing sex organs is doing irreversible bodily harm but why do they get a pass?

Perhaps if the trans community asked rather than insisted and demanded they would garner more sympathy? The burden of proof should be on them to convince society why they belong in the bathroom of their choosing rather than demand that right while invalidating biology and science. Instead, their strategy is hostility against the heteronormative majority and a narrative that paints those who don’t get their condition as ignorant monsters.

ps. I'm not trying to be combative but simply trying to have a conversation. I am open to changing my mind on things.

 

[drstrangelov]

You didn’t answer any of my questions. No need to deflect.

My initial post was a simple statement stating that a transwoman is not a woman in the biological sense so the chromosome thing was implied because that’s how gender/sex is determined - through biology and science. Not through feelings.

Why is it that people with anorexia and bulimia are considered to have body dysmorphic disorder which is considered a mental illness but wanting to alter gender by slicing and peeling apart ones dick or sculpting a vagina into a penis not considered a BDD mental illness?

You can maybe say the anorexic or bulemic does harm to the body but BDD can affect others who exercise too much but might otherwise be healthy. Plus, hormone therapy and changing sex organs is doing irreversible bodily harm but why do they get a pass?

Perhaps if the trans community asked rather than insisted and demanded they would garner more sympathy? The burden of proof should be on them to convince society why they belong in the bathroom of their choosing rather than demand that right while invalidating biology and science. Instead, their strategy is hostility against the heteronormative majority and a narrative that paints those who don’t get their condition as ignorant monsters.

ps. I'm not trying to be combative but simply trying to have a conversation. I am open to changing my mind on things.

The initial post where you engaged me was about semantics, there are no biological women, there are biological females.

 

[drstrangelov]

no they don't. This is simply a recent social trend weirdo leftist take with assigning babies who are clearly male female gender. The difference between a baby boy and a baby girl isn't what their parents choose to call them or dress them up as.



The same way that people who identify as cats are here and the same way how some adults identify as children.

That's not true at all, children have been given genders for millennia, and as adults they've rejects these genders for just as long. As stated before, you indemnify gender in babies by clothing choices their parents made. It has nothing to do with sex, you just get offended when you see a baby and your identification of its gender doesn't match its sex, because you're stumped by counterintuitive ideas.

 

[Deleted member 391673]

The initial post where you engaged me was about semantics, there are no biological women, there are biological females.

a semantics conversation is essential as it leads to a common understanding.
also. pretty funny that your reply is a lazy response which is also about semantics while ignoring everything else.
good luck to you.

 

[IamStryker]

I don't see how you think the issues are related. Kinda like when you guys brought up BLM not protesting white killings and we said the exact same shit. I'm not gonna play this obfuscation bullshit with you goons.

A little off topic but my question is why BLM doesn't seem to care about blacks killing blacks. Black lives only matter in very specific situations that involve white people? I get what the are trying to advocate, even though I think it's very misguided, but their name kind of gives the impression that they should care about any black person dying. Not just these specific cases involving white cops.

 

[IamStryker]

That's not true at all, children have been given genders for millennia, and as adults they've rejects these genders for just as long. As stated before, you indemnify gender in babies by clothing choices their parents made. It has nothing to do with sex, you just get offended when you see a baby and your identification of its gender doesn't match its sex, because you're stumped by counterintuitive ideas.

Their DNA gives them their sex/gender. Not the parents.

Good grief. The fact this is somehow a debate makes me sad for the world.

 

[IamStryker]

The point is that we are immersed in a world of social constructs not based in physical reality.

Insisting that trans is not a legitimate issue because of your demands that we only speak in terms of biological truths is absurdly hypocritical.

What specific issue are you referring to? Everyone thinks trans people should have rights. A line does need to be drawn somewhere though because there are glaring issues with the idea of just stating that you are now another gender and switching bathrooms.

 

[drstrangelov]

Their DNA gives them their sex/gender. Not the parents.

Good grief. The fact this is somehow a debate makes me sad for the world.

No, their DNA gives them sex, gender is just an outfit you put on a baby. Babies are great for illustration, since their genders are defined by pink or blue onesies. If you put a blue onesie on a female baby, the whole world will accept that it's a boy, no questions asked.

 

[IamStryker]

No, their DNA gives them sex, gender is just an outfit you put on a baby. Babies are great for illustration, since their genders are defined by pink or blue onesies. If you put a blue onesie on a female baby, the whole world will accept that it's a boy, no questions asked.

People would probably make the assumption it's a boy but so what? The word gender annoys me to no end. The way it evolved to it's current meaning which only confuses the world. It should really just be an interchangeable word for sex. Why should there be a word for how people feel on the inside? If a girl wants to act masculine then go ahead. No one really cares. Same if a guy wants to be more feminine. This shouldn't bleed into official documents though. Drivers license and all other important forms should be marked as your actual biological sex. Not what you feel like in your head.

Outfits parents put on their kid just reflects the actual biological sex of the child. Colors aren't that big of a deal. Girls just tend to like pink more than boys but people don't care that much about it.

 

[drstrangelov]

People would probably make the assumption it's a boy but so what? The word gender annoys me to no end. The way it evolved to it's current meaning which only confuses the world. It should really just be an interchangeable word for sex. Why should there be a word for how people feel on the inside? If a girl wants to act masculine then go ahead. No one really cares. Same if a guy wants to be more feminine. This shouldn't bleed into official documents though. Drivers license and all other important forms should be marked as your actual biological sex. Not what you feel like in your head.

Outfits parents put on their kid just reflects the actual biological sex of the child. Colors aren't that big of a deal. Girls just tend to like pink more than boys but people don't care that much about it.

Why would you need the word at all if it was completely interchangeable with sex? It's always been about behavior and expectations for people, it's only become a challenge for people here to see that when transgender people stopped accepting complete alienation.

I don't disagree that using sex to differentiate in some cases is the best available option. I'm not sure a driver's license needs a gender or sex designation on it, but if it's for identification purposes, sex is only really relevant if they're identifying a body. Gender is a better descriptor for use in ensuring the person holding the id is who he or she says.

Baby outfit aren't cut or sized differently based upon gender. They're just color coded. An outfit is used to indicate gender, in babies and adults, but there's nothing about the clothes that tells us anything about biology.

 

[IamStryker]

Why would you need the word at all if it was completely interchangeable with sex? It's always been about behavior and expectations for people, it's only become a challenge for people here to see that when transgender people stopped accepting complete alienation.

I definitely don't need the word. Let's get rid of it and only use the word sex from now on. When I was a child the word certainly didn't have anything to do with "behavior and expectations for people" so I don't know where you are getting that.

I don't disagree that using sex to differentiate in some cases is the best available option. I'm not sure a driver's license needs a gender or sex designation on it, but if it's for identification purposes, sex is only really relevant if they're identifying a body. Gender is a better descriptor for use in ensuring the person holding the id is who he or she says.

I believe a drivers license is used a lot of times in medical situations because your biological sex is important when it comes to making a diagnosis. I don't really see how gender is going to help in identification. I would think the picture on the driver's license would do the job there.

Baby outfit aren't cut or sized differently based upon gender.

A baby doesn't identify one way or another. All that matters is their biological sex so I don't want to use the word gender here at all.

They're just color coded. An outfit is used to indicate gender, in babies and adults, but there's nothing about the clothes that tells us anything about biology.

For children outfits are picked that will reflect the child's biological sex (for the most part, a lot of times they are just interchangeable). Girls like to put pink bows in their hair so parents do it for the babies. The parent isn't choosing a gender here. The parent is using modern day feminine fashion trends for their female children.

For adults I believe women's jeans are made to fit women are they not?

 

[drstrangelov]

I definitely don't need the word. Let's get rid of it and only use the word sex from now on. When I was a child the word certainly didn't have anything to do with "behavior and expectations for people" so I don't know where you are getting that.



I believe a drivers license is used a lot of times in medical situations because your biological sex is important when it comes to making a diagnosis. I don't really see how gender is going to help in identification. I would think the picture on the driver's license would do the job there.



A baby doesn't identify one way or another. All that matters is their biological sex so I don't want to use the word gender here at all.



For children outfits are picked that will reflect the child's biological sex (for the most part, a lot of times they are just interchangeable). Girls like to put pink bows in their hair so parents do it for the babies. The parent isn't choosing a gender here. The parent is using modern day feminine fashion trends for their female children.

For adults I believe women's jeans are made to fit women are they not?

When you were a child gender meant the same thing, you just accepted it as behavioral guidance. Acting like a man, acting like a girl, these were all things you heard, and they had very real behavioral, not biological, connotations. It only became difficult once you had males and females who no longer considered the gender assignments to hold the same positive/negative values that were implied previously. There's no less use for the term now, it just requires less black and white understanding to make sense of it, and that trips people up.

I think the baby example backfired on you and others here in a big way, since it's the obvious case of a parent picking and assigning gender signifiers with no input from the kid. Even the pink bows your discussing, that's learned behavior. Most people are happy with the outcome, so it's a perfectly great thing to teach kids, but if it makes them unhappy, why push it?

Once you start looking at adults, biology does begin to fight back, since it was and is absolutely intertwined with most trappings of gender. But, for females, we've always asked them to disguise their biology in the name of appearance, removing hair, adding paint, binding parts of the body to give a more desirable shape. If a male does that, it's no more natural than if a female does it. It owes nothing to biology, it's just social expectations driving this.

 

[IamStryker]

When you were a child gender meant the same thing, you just accepted it as behavioral guidance. Acting like a man, acting like a girl, these were all things you heard, and they had very real behavioral, not biological, connotations.

Roles females and males play in society. Men are different than women. We are simply wired differently. Yes men are influenced to act like men and women are influenced to act like women. Is there a problem here?

It only became difficult once you had males and females who no longer considered the gender assignments to hold the same positive/negative values that were implied previously. There's no less use for the term now, it just requires less black and white understanding to make sense of it, and that trips people up.

Girls that acted like guys were called tomboys. I don't see any need for gender pronouns or whatnot. No one cares if women want to act masculine and do guy things. The word gender wasn't needed back then and I don't believe it's needed now.

I think the baby example backfired on you and others here in a big way, since it's the obvious case of a parent picking and assigning gender signifiers with no input from the kid. Even the pink bows your discussing, that's learned behavior. Most people are happy with the outcome, so it's a perfectly great thing to teach kids, but if it makes them unhappy, why push it?

I'm not making the argument to push anything if a kid doesn't like something. I'm basically saying there is nothing wrong with parents treating their children based on their biological sex using societal norms for that sex. People generally WANT to fit in with a group. Boys want to fit in with the other boys. No one actually wants to be an outcast. All people are influenced by learned behavior. What's the problem and why do we need the word gender?

Once you start looking at adults, biology does begin to fight back, since it was and is absolutely intertwined with most trappings of gender. But, for females, we've always asked them to disguise their biology in the name of appearance, removing hair, adding paint, binding parts of the body to give a more desirable shape. If a male does that, it's no more natural than if a female does it. It owes nothing to biology, it's just social expectations driving this.

Everyone grooms themselves to look better. Make up disguises your biology? Is that what you were saying there because I don't get it. Women try to enhance their femininity to look more desirable.

Yes there are societal expectations. What is the problem and why do we need the word gender?