3 ms·

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
        > free yourself from these preconceptions I have, but patriarchal societies have a tendency to accommodate--even encourage--violence against those who don't exhibit "conformity to their preconceptions". It is those categories subject to violence from which we exclude ourselves when we abandon gender labels. We are not "men" and "women" just as we are not "n***," or "k*." It has absolutely nothing to do with biological fact, which we fully support. True, we "don't owe anyone conformity," but this is a practical matter of evading violence, and words are cheaper than bodies*. So we abandon words to preserve our bodies.
        blueflow 2y ago
        I figure that the western world is not patriarchal. What you are describing sounds like something that happens in the middle east.
        rexpop 2y ago
        Bro, I have sat in a room in the wealthiest city in the US and interviewed dozens of men who repeatedly violate their partners—verbally, physically, emotionally, and sexually—and justify it all in terms of what men deserve, and what women deserve. And I see too much of them in every man I've met crossing this country back and forth over the years. Oh sure, it's bad in Dar Al-Islam, but I have standards that aren't met in the States. I'm sure you'd agree if you had the data I've collected. Men violate women in the US.
        2y ago
  - galleywest200 2y ago
    >A boundary that is not fictional is whether i can bear offspring or not. I can't Lots of people who you would consider a woman cannot produce offspring either. In fact, most women cannot after a certain age.
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.

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
      > free yourself from these preconceptions I have, but patriarchal societies have a tendency to accommodate--even encourage--violence against those who don't exhibit "conformity to their preconceptions". It is those categories subject to violence from which we exclude ourselves when we abandon gender labels. We are not "men" and "women" just as we are not "n***," or "k*." It has absolutely nothing to do with biological fact, which we fully support. True, we "don't owe anyone conformity," but this is a practical matter of evading violence, and words are cheaper than bodies*. So we abandon words to preserve our bodies.
      - blueflow 2y ago
        I figure that the western world is not patriarchal. What you are describing sounds like something that happens in the middle east.
        rexpop 2y ago
        Bro, I have sat in a room in the wealthiest city in the US and interviewed dozens of men who repeatedly violate their partners—verbally, physically, emotionally, and sexually—and justify it all in terms of what men deserve, and what women deserve. And I see too much of them in every man I've met crossing this country back and forth over the years. Oh sure, it's bad in Dar Al-Islam, but I have standards that aren't met in the States. I'm sure you'd agree if you had the data I've collected. Men violate women in the US.
        2y ago
- galleywest200 2y ago
  >A boundary that is not fictional is whether i can bear offspring or not. I can't Lots of people who you would consider a woman cannot produce offspring either. In fact, most women cannot after a certain age.

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.