3 ms·

Why? If someone said that about adoptive parents, would you just accept that?

by Latty 4y ago

nicoburns 4y ago
For me the difference is that the parental relationship is a wonderful thing. Whereas gender norms (which as far as I can see is all you are left with once you remove biology from gender) are pretty problematic and harmful in their own right.
- Latty 4y ago
  Gender expression (the norms you talk of) is distinct from both gender identity and biological sex, and identity doesn't prescribe them. The difference is you are saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. If you want to get rid of the words man/woman altogether socially, feel free to advocate for that, but until you succeed, don't dictate to trans people that live in a society with those words that they (and they alone) can't use the ones they identify with.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    > If you want to get rid of the words man/woman altogether socially, feel free to advocate for that I do somewhat think that this might need to be the solution. However, I think this goes both ways. If trans people don't want to me to use the words "man"/"woman" in the ways that I see fit, then they shouldn't use them either. I certainly don't appreciate what now seems to be a connotation of "man" (the identity I use), that I "feel like a man" (I have no such feeling). > The difference is you are saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. I'm not saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. I am saying that it is reasonable to identify someone on the basis of many gendered categories. Three key ones would be: - biological sex (physical characteristics) - gender feeling (an internal feeling of gender) - political gender (how other people gender you) Importantly for me, identifying someone as a gender in one sense (say a man in the biological sense) does not contradict someone else identifying someone as a gender in another sense (say that person identifying themselves as a woman in the feeling sense). They can both be valid simultaneously. We wouldn't say you shouldn't describe someone as black (race) because they're really a man (gender), because gender and race aren't equivalent. To me, it seems like the same applies to the different dimensions of gender. They exist independently of one another, and shouldn't be seen as equivalent. The only problem is that we use same words for both categories. I would add that there are good reasons for people to want to identify others in ways other than that they self-identify. As an example: I am exclusively attracted to biologically female people. If I can't identify people by their biological sex, then I cannot express my sexuality. I therefore think it's reasonable for me to want to talk about the class of biological females. And given that there is no socially accepted term for this other than "women", I think it is reasonable for me to use that term, even if not everyone in that groups identifies as a woman.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Why? If someone said that about adoptive parents, would you just accept that?

by Latty 4y ago

Why? If someone said that about adoptive parents, would you just accept that?

For me the difference is that the parental relationship is a wonderful thing. Whereas gender norms (which as far as I can see is all you are left with once you remove biology from gender) are pretty problematic and harmful in their own right.

Latty 4y ago
Gender expression (the norms you talk of) is distinct from both gender identity and biological sex, and identity doesn't prescribe them. The difference is you are saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. If you want to get rid of the words man/woman altogether socially, feel free to advocate for that, but until you succeed, don't dictate to trans people that live in a society with those words that they (and they alone) can't use the ones they identify with.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > If you want to get rid of the words man/woman altogether socially, feel free to advocate for that I do somewhat think that this might need to be the solution. However, I think this goes both ways. If trans people don't want to me to use the words "man"/"woman" in the ways that I see fit, then they shouldn't use them either. I certainly don't appreciate what now seems to be a connotation of "man" (the identity I use), that I "feel like a man" (I have no such feeling). > The difference is you are saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. I'm not saying identity has to be prescribed by biological sex. I am saying that it is reasonable to identify someone on the basis of many gendered categories. Three key ones would be: - biological sex (physical characteristics) - gender feeling (an internal feeling of gender) - political gender (how other people gender you) Importantly for me, identifying someone as a gender in one sense (say a man in the biological sense) does not contradict someone else identifying someone as a gender in another sense (say that person identifying themselves as a woman in the feeling sense). They can both be valid simultaneously. We wouldn't say you shouldn't describe someone as black (race) because they're really a man (gender), because gender and race aren't equivalent. To me, it seems like the same applies to the different dimensions of gender. They exist independently of one another, and shouldn't be seen as equivalent. The only problem is that we use same words for both categories. I would add that there are good reasons for people to want to identify others in ways other than that they self-identify. As an example: I am exclusively attracted to biologically female people. If I can't identify people by their biological sex, then I cannot express my sexuality. I therefore think it's reasonable for me to want to talk about the class of biological females. And given that there is no socially accepted term for this other than "women", I think it is reasonable for me to use that term, even if not everyone in that groups identifies as a woman.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]