3 ms·

The search and replace they want researchers to do: gender -> personality transgender -> trans-identifying pregnant person -> pregnant woman pregnant people

by jl6 2y ago

The search and replace they want researchers to do: gender -> personality transgender -> trans-identifying pregnant person -> pregnant woman pregnant people -> pregnant women LGBT -> LGB (or LGB and T separately) transsexual -> ??? presumably trans-identifying non-binary -> ??? presumably something to do with personality assigned male/female at birth -> male/female biologically male/female -> male/female

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Chance-Device 2y ago
[flagged]
gardenhedge 2y ago
That seems less extreme than this thread makes it out to be
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  Because as far as I can tell, he's pulled it straight out of his ass.
blueflow 2y ago
You know what? These changes make good sense in my head. And I'm still a bit afraid to admit it.
- derbOac 2y ago
  So... 1. If true, yes maybe not as bad as it seems at first, but... 2. Some of those terms are not equivalent at all, like the first. The last two are very different, and don't necessarily have anything to do with trans anything in the way this administration is concerned about. 3. This could have all been approached differently and more efficiently.
  - blueflow 2y ago
    On 2: For you. Not for me. I'm not gender-coded, i don't have the masculinity/femininity thing in my head. Gender is personality for me, comparable to favorite color or music preference. Its like an fictional boundary in the space of what a human can do. A boundary that is not fictional is whether i can bear offspring or not. I can't. And this is, in my eyes, one of the few remaining places where the "male"/"female" label is useful. Because aside from bearing offspring (and breastfeeding and urinating in certain positions), anyone can do anything. On 3: Yes, it could. But i see the fault in the societal climate that made people like me suppress saying what they think.
    - derbOac 2y ago
      Personality is much broader than gender IMHO, the latter is one small part of the former. Gender as a term is unique in meaning in that way.
    - rexpop 2y ago
      > the "male"/"female" label is useful Unfortunately, these are overloaded terms, and we need to dereference them. Otherwise we end up with weird expectations that contradict your egalitarianism. See: "Feminine Mystique," "Second Sex", and "Revolution at Point Zero". Re: "sex", even this is not easy. Genetics aren't a binary, they are a complex multidimensional field. Sure, there are attractors in this field, but more than two.
      - blueflow 2y ago
        > Otherwise we end up with weird expectations These are the problem, not the labels. People having preconceptions on how a man/woman should behave and be like. If you free yourself from these preconceptions, you don't need the mental gymnastics around "but biological sex is non-binary" anymore because regardless of your physical condition, you don't owe anyone conformity to their preconceptions.
        rexpop 2y ago
- Viliam1234 2y ago
  Some of them do, some of them don't. WTF is "trans-identifying"? They are not literally identifying as "trans". They are identifying as men/women (although the opposite of their biology), not as "trans". "Trans" is a description for people who identify as other than their biological sex; it is not an identity, per se. You can doubt whether a trans woman is "really" a woman. But you cannot doubt that a trans woman is "really" trans. Trying to be the opposite of your biological sex is what "trans" literally means. It makes as much sense as replacing "tall people" with "tall-identifying people".
  - blueflow 2y ago
    They do. "I thought you knew I'm trans". > Trying to be the opposite of your biological sex is what "trans" They are not trying to be of another biological sex. "opposite" is a rather bad term here. They are living out their idea of what a person from the other sex would do. "their idea" emphasized. > It makes as much sense as replacing "tall people" with "tall-identifying people". "tall" is an measurable thing. Distance is a metric unit, even.
  - imperfect_blue 2y ago
    > But you cannot doubt that a trans woman is "really" trans. Trying to be the opposite of your biological sex is what "trans" literally means. Breaking it down, trans has two parts to it. The smaller part is simply describing those who are going through transition. There's no identity requirement here, though most people would consider themselves trans if they're going through transition. But on the other hand, you can also be trans if you...simply identify as such, even if you make no effort to socially or medically transition, with or without a formal diagnosis. The flip side is, you also can suffer from dysphoria and wish you were born as the opposite sex and still be cisgender, as long as you don't actively want to identify as transgender for whatever reason. So I'd say a large part of it is identity based. If (say in a survey) we let people classify themselves into short/medium/tall and it was self-reported like gender was, we'd probably use "survey respondents who identify as being tall" or "tall-identifying people" too.
apical_dendrite 2y ago
What is your source for this? As far as I can tell there is absolutely no guidance whatsoever on what is and is not acceptable language now. The executive orders use terms like "gender ideology" but make no effort to define those terms. So everything that could even remotely be construed as being "gender ideology" is being removed.

by jl6 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Chance-Device 2y ago

[flagged]

gardenhedge 2y ago

That seems less extreme than this thread makes it out to be

apical_dendrite 2y ago
Because as far as I can tell, he's pulled it straight out of his ass.

blueflow 2y ago

You know what? These changes make good sense in my head. And I'm still a bit afraid to admit it.

derbOac 2y ago
So... 1. If true, yes maybe not as bad as it seems at first, but... 2. Some of those terms are not equivalent at all, like the first. The last two are very different, and don't necessarily have anything to do with trans anything in the way this administration is concerned about. 3. This could have all been approached differently and more efficiently.
- blueflow 2y ago
  On 2: For you. Not for me. I'm not gender-coded, i don't have the masculinity/femininity thing in my head. Gender is personality for me, comparable to favorite color or music preference. Its like an fictional boundary in the space of what a human can do. A boundary that is not fictional is whether i can bear offspring or not. I can't. And this is, in my eyes, one of the few remaining places where the "male"/"female" label is useful. Because aside from bearing offspring (and breastfeeding and urinating in certain positions), anyone can do anything. On 3: Yes, it could. But i see the fault in the societal climate that made people like me suppress saying what they think.
  - derbOac 2y ago
    Personality is much broader than gender IMHO, the latter is one small part of the former. Gender as a term is unique in meaning in that way.
  - rexpop 2y ago
    > the "male"/"female" label is useful Unfortunately, these are overloaded terms, and we need to dereference them. Otherwise we end up with weird expectations that contradict your egalitarianism. See: "Feminine Mystique," "Second Sex", and "Revolution at Point Zero". Re: "sex", even this is not easy. Genetics aren't a binary, they are a complex multidimensional field. Sure, there are attractors in this field, but more than two.
    - blueflow 2y ago
      > Otherwise we end up with weird expectations These are the problem, not the labels. People having preconceptions on how a man/woman should behave and be like. If you free yourself from these preconceptions, you don't need the mental gymnastics around "but biological sex is non-binary" anymore because regardless of your physical condition, you don't owe anyone conformity to their preconceptions.
      - rexpop 2y ago
Viliam1234 2y ago
Some of them do, some of them don't. WTF is "trans-identifying"? They are not literally identifying as "trans". They are identifying as men/women (although the opposite of their biology), not as "trans". "Trans" is a description for people who identify as other than their biological sex; it is not an identity, per se. You can doubt whether a trans woman is "really" a woman. But you cannot doubt that a trans woman is "really" trans. Trying to be the opposite of your biological sex is what "trans" literally means. It makes as much sense as replacing "tall people" with "tall-identifying people".
- blueflow 2y ago
  They do. "I thought you knew I'm trans". > Trying to be the opposite of your biological sex is what "trans" They are not trying to be of another biological sex. "opposite" is a rather bad term here. They are living out their idea of what a person from the other sex would do. "their idea" emphasized. > It makes as much sense as replacing "tall people" with "tall-identifying people". "tall" is an measurable thing. Distance is a metric unit, even.
- imperfect_blue 2y ago
  > But you cannot doubt that a trans woman is "really" trans. Trying to be the opposite of your biological sex is what "trans" literally means. Breaking it down, trans has two parts to it. The smaller part is simply describing those who are going through transition. There's no identity requirement here, though most people would consider themselves trans if they're going through transition. But on the other hand, you can also be trans if you...simply identify as such, even if you make no effort to socially or medically transition, with or without a formal diagnosis. The flip side is, you also can suffer from dysphoria and wish you were born as the opposite sex and still be cisgender, as long as you don't actively want to identify as transgender for whatever reason. So I'd say a large part of it is identity based. If (say in a survey) we let people classify themselves into short/medium/tall and it was self-reported like gender was, we'd probably use "survey respondents who identify as being tall" or "tall-identifying people" too.

apical_dendrite 2y ago

What is your source for this? As far as I can tell there is absolutely no guidance whatsoever on what is and is not acceptable language now. The executive orders use terms like "gender ideology" but make no effort to define those terms. So everything that could even remotely be construed as being "gender ideology" is being removed.