LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[Salandriagado]

Transgender women are women. Transgender men are men. The reason for this classification is the use of gender identity, which is a measurable aspect of human neurology which is based in how a person's brain subconsciously recognizes itself. Thus it is the more accurate in day-to-day interaction and identification. In addition to this, we have gender identity because, simply put, no other category which we have defined within that binary is expansive enough to represent the vast diversity of human beings, in terms of sex characteristics.

In terms of bathroom usage, there is no logical reason for it not to be based off of gender identity. It is simply a non-issue, and hasn't been tied to any direct effect on...well anything, other than the mental health of transgender people, especially youth, and had remained such a non-issue up until an artificial problem was created by those opposed to it. In addition, the knowledge of gender identity is very well-founded and established, so there's no reason to not include it in basic education.

Regardless, transgender identities, regardless of the personal opinions of some, are recognized as valid by the medical and psychological community. The same with homosexuality or other sexual or gender orientations. Thankfully, the medical and psychological professionals, and their associations, look at the facts, and do not let themselves be dictated to by fiction, and recognize them as valid and naturally occurring parts of human diversity.

So let's say this:

If we use the word woman and man as purely identifications that are self-given, then yes, you are correct. But, my trusty Oxford dictionary says otherwise. The first deffiniton of man is
"man |man|
noun (pl. men |men| )
1 an adult human male."

My first deffiniton of woman is:
"woman |ˈwo͝omən|
noun (pl. women |ˈwimin| )
an adult human female."

So, according to English, you are wrong in that. If you identify as a male and are not, you are not a male. Simple. I suppose the question becomes, what does that mean? I'd say it means that gender identification doesn't matter much, but I do see it as possible that people who feel more like a woman or a man could try to incorporate the good things of the other gender into their behaviors and actions, however, to say that one can choose to be a man or woman is simply false given the dictionary's definition. I go by dictionaries because they are the standard by which we measure our language.

"Male" and "female" are also descriptions of gender, not sex.


Also, dictionaries (in English, at least) are descriptive, not prescriptive.

[Neutraligon]

So Arkansas supreme court says that LG couples cannot have both names on the birth certificate automatically.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ge%2Fstory

Glad to know that some states still recognize fact over fiction.

Except that if a person becomes pregnant and then marries a man who is not the father, the non-father gets put on the certificate.

[Noraika]

Oxford also mentions gender identity, and discusses how those relate to gender, male, female, etc, in there definitions.

Overall, when you put it all together there is no conflict between gender distinction and identity, and common usages, because gender identity goes and leads into BEING that gender, and thus it is not inaccurate to use the PROPER gender (their preferred one) in regards to a person, because as is the case with their gender identity, they ARE that gender by the most important and relevant classifications.

Irregardless of their usage, and irregardless of LITERALLY ARGUING SEMANTICS it is inaccurate to state that these definitions are relevant to the conversation on the LEGITIMACY of the gender identity and or gender identification. It is irrelevant to point.

The point is that, within the groups of people who prefer to use facts, and within the groups of people who are most credible to discuss the topic, and within the medical and psychological associations of professionals in their field, gender identity, including non-binary and transgender identity, is something that is well-documented, and recognized as legitimate based of scientific and evidence-based assessment. In addition, it is firmly recommended that said identities be recognized by such organizations.

These things are like sexual orientation, and recognized firmly as a part of the natural diversity of human beings. The importance is that the words are used in the context of people who know what their talking about, and in terms of facts.

Finally, as before, use of facilities by gender identity is something that has not historically been an issue, despite it being the case for quite some time. The basis for usage of facilities should be based off gender identity. It's the logical and fact-based method, which causes no harm or ill effects. Its a neutral policy that only offers benefits to the quality of life of transgender people.

[Italios]

Unfortunately, definitions from non-specialised dictionaries tend to be broad and often use two or word more interchangeably if that is also the current fashion. In casual conversation, people use "male" and "man" interchangeably because the conversation doesn't require a distinction. People often disagree on the definition of words used in controversial topics - for example, what "racism" really means. So all in all, taking the definition of man and woman out of Webster's dictionary and using that as the sole basis to your beliefs on gender issues doesn't make a lot of sense.

I guess we disagree on who should be running our language. I and most people would say that what a language is is based on what is said and spoken by the majority of people, not what a few academics want. Woman is the standard word that 90% of people use, womyn is not a word that people use much. I don't know why somebody can decide which we use due to a degree. They conform to our language. English is not like French where an academy exists to decide what is correct, ours is an organic language. Pushing gender and sex as distinctions is completely artificial. I mean if I'm in a conversation and we are talking, and they say "I'm a man" I will say "yes you are" if they actually are male because that's what English dictates. But hey, I guess the minority of English Speakers should always control the majority. (Though Shakespeare's english should not be the standard despite its' what many English teachers would love, because "language evolves organically")

Nope. There's a difference between what's "normal" and generally accepted and what's actually correct. Take grammar - there are written rules, but you are correct in the sense that they have evolved in their own way and therefore it's okay to break them in casual conversation. If someone calls you and asks "Is this Jumalariik?" you'd probably reply "yes, this is him" when in fact it is grammatically correct to say "this is he." However, if you replied to correct way most people would probably say, "What?" because nowadays the breaking of that specific rule is normal.

So that's why in casual conversation, we are generally okay with mixing gender and sex because most people's gender matches up with their biological sex - hence, we tend to use them interchangeably. However, scientists and social scientists make distinctions between the two and for academic uses would state those differences. For the sake of respect, it's considered nice to address people as they wish when talking to their face - for some, this includes preferred pronouns - for others, not so much. Believe it or not, general courtesy is NOT a concept controlled by the minority. Seriously, you probably do it yourself on a regular basis, but somehow gender is different.

Besides the nit-picky linguistic bits, as I said, scientists have solid evidence for the distinction between the two that is pretty hard to ignore.

[Jumalariik]

I live in the liberal part of the northeast and nobody uses English that way.

Weird, so do I, and I know of people up here who use it that way, and my family down south in Maryland and Tennessee use it this way, and my family out west uses it this way... as well as their friends and neighbors.

Huh. It's almost like you might not know enough people to be a judge of something.

Could be you. I mean the dictionary and the majority of people.............

I guess false gender theory notions are farther spread than one could hope.

[Noraika]

Could be you. I mean the dictionary and the majority of people.............

I guess false gender theory notions are farther spread than one could hope.

If, by 'false gender theory', you mean the fact-based, evidence-based, scientifically observed aspect of gender identity, and how the scientific, medical, and psychiatric associations, of professionals in their field, all based their findings on facts, and therefore know gender identity, and the various ways it can emerge, to be an innate natural part of human diversity...

...then things could be better, but there definitely are strides in the right direction. Gender Dysphoric children are getting trans-affirming treatment earlier, and education allows both non-transgender people to understand the reality of transgender identity, and assist in helping transgender children understand themselves, as well as normalize a normal aspect of human beings.

We're able to obtain more research than before, which just solidifies the facts, and helps to legitimize and normalize transgender identity. That's good, and a sign of the nation on the right path.

[Nature-Spirits]

Transgender women are women. Transgender men are men. The reason for this classification is the use of gender identity, which is a measurable aspect of human neurology which is based in how a person's brain subconsciously recognizes itself. Thus it is the more accurate in day-to-day interaction and identification. In addition to this, we have gender identity because, simply put, no other category which we have defined within that binary is expansive enough to represent the vast diversity of human beings, in terms of sex characteristics.

In terms of bathroom usage, there is no logical reason for it not to be based off of gender identity. It is simply a non-issue, and hasn't been tied to any direct effect on...well anything, other than the mental health of transgender people, especially youth, and had remained such a non-issue up until an artificial problem was created by those opposed to it. In addition, the knowledge of gender identity is very well-founded and established, so there's no reason to not include it in basic education.

Regardless, transgender identities, regardless of the personal opinions of some, are recognized as valid by the medical and psychological community. The same with homosexuality or other sexual or gender orientations. Thankfully, the medical and psychological professionals, and their associations, look at the facts, and do not let themselves be dictated to by fiction, and recognize them as valid and naturally occurring parts of human diversity.

So let's say this:

If we use the word woman and man as purely identifications that are self-given, then yes, you are correct. 1. But, my trusty Oxford dictionary says otherwise. The first deffiniton of man is
"man |man|
noun (pl. men |men| )
1 an adult human male."

My first deffiniton of woman is:
"woman |ˈwo͝omən|
noun (pl. women |ˈwimin| )
an adult human female."

So, according to English, you are wrong in that. 2. If you identify as a male and are not, you are not a male. Simple. I suppose the question becomes, what does that mean? I'd say it means that gender identification doesn't matter much, but I do see it as possible that people who feel more like a woman or a man could try to incorporate the good things of the other gender into their behaviors and actions, however, to say that one can choose to be a man or woman is simply false given the dictionary's definition. 3. I go by dictionaries because they are the standard by which we measure our language.

Okay. There's a lot that's wrong with this post. Let me parse it and go through it bit by bit.

1. Dictionaries have never been used as a benchmark in sociology or anthropology. They are a useful tool that, linguistically speaking, serves to describe -- not prescribe -- language use in a concise fashion. They are far from comprehensive, and to treat them as such is intellectually dishonest, and would never fly in academia.

2. If you identify as a male, you are a male. This is an objective fact that is agreed on by neurologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Gender identity is a measurable sex characteristic located in the brain. Therefore, the premise "if you identify as a male and are not" is invalid.

3. Dictionaries are not "the standard by which we measure our language" -- only a linguistic prescriptivist would advance that position, and prescriptivism has been viewed unfavourably by academia for years. Rather, dictionaries are a record of our language that seek to accurately portray it; unfortunately, they rapidly fall behind due to constant shifts in language use.

Dictionary definitions are merely a sign of the times. Take this one from Doctor Johnson's original English dictionary:
"Oats: A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland appears to support the people."

Yes. It is merely a sign of what words actually mean at a certain time. Currently, the word "woman" or "man" refer to female and male respectively in general standard English usage. It's ok to speak non-standard English, this is a common thing around the world, however, do not claim that it's what the words mean when it's not. As of right now, a bunch of professors and youth use woman and man differently than everybody else, but until I see evidence that the liberal meaning is standard I feel no obligation to use it.

It's far from a "liberal meaning". Sociological views of womanhood and manhood have been developing in Western academia for decades, and the definitions developed through these theories are in widespread use.

Unfortunately, definitions from non-specialised dictionaries tend to be broad and often use two or word more interchangeably if that is also the current fashion. In casual conversation, people use "male" and "man" interchangeably because the conversation doesn't require a distinction. People often disagree on the definition of words used in controversial topics - for example, what "racism" really means. So all in all, taking the definition of man and woman out of Webster's dictionary and using that as the sole basis to your beliefs on gender issues doesn't make a lot of sense.

I guess we disagree on who should be running our language. 1. I and most people would say that what a language is is based on what is said and spoken by the majority of people, not what a few academics want. Woman is the standard word that 90% of people use, womyn is not a word that people use much. I don't know why somebody can decide which we use due to a degree. They conform to our language. 2. English is not like French where an academy exists to decide what is correct, ours is an organic language. 3. Pushing gender and sex as distinctions is completely artificial. 4. I mean if I'm in a conversation and we are talking, and they say "I'm a man" I will say "yes you are" if they actually are male because that's what English dictates. 5. But hey, I guess the minority of English Speakers should always control the majority. (Though Shakespeare's english should not be the standard despite its' what many English teachers would love, because "language evolves organically")

You know, I really do love when people try to talk about linguistics as though they know what they're talking about, even though it's painfully clear to anyone with a working knowledge of the subject that they have, in fact, no idea what they're talking about.

And by "love" I mean "hate".

Anyway, on to the finer points of your post:

1. So, surprisingly enough, most linguists (who are, interestingly, academics) would tend to agree that language is based on consensus rather than by small groups of people. So your characterisation of academics is inaccurate at best, but that's not the point. Your endorsement of linguistic descriptivism is also, interestingly, at odds with your prior advancement that dictionaries are the cornerstone of language, which is a decidedly prescriptivist view. Anyway, that's also not the point.

2. Actually, all languages are organic. The Académie française is, many linguists would agree, an outdated and prescriptivist institution that does very little good overall.

3. Actually, the distinction between gender and sex is a sociological reality that is discussed throughout the humanities. Conceptions of gender and gender roles (two different, if similar and related, things) differ across cultures, and thus we cannot say with any intellectual honesty that gender is based entirely on genitals (and certainly not on chromosomes, which do not always align with genitals in the expected sense, and which are never examined upon birth to determine a child's sex). It's also notable that many cultures have a "third" (and sometimes "fourth" or "fifth") gender role that is occupied by people who would, in Western society, be considered transgender or gender-nonconforming.

4. Hmm, I see you're flip-flopping back to a linguistically prescriptivist point of view. English dictates nothing to its speakers; rather, English-speakers dictate to the English language. This is true of any language. The meanings of words are defined by usage, not the other way around.

5. So, what I'm getting here is that you see yourself as representing the majority of anglophones. Interesting, but whatever. In any case, I probably don't have to reiterate my arguments, but I will point out that your entire post is basically a strawman.

I will concede that there are some social liberals -- especially, from what I've observed, teenagers on Tumblr whose worldviews are still developing and who are most likely unfamiliar with the humanities -- who do advocate for very strict meanings of certain words, which specifically conform to their worldview. (One such example I've run across is an insistence that the neologism "princex", designed as a gender-neutral variant of prince(ss), can only be used by people of colour -- a truly bizarre position, in my opinion.) However, to characterise these people as representing the majority of social liberals and academics is intellectually dishonest and a blatant strawman.

I must say that example wasn't a really good one, but you understand my point. Calling me a Christian when I don't even practice anymore and all I really did to have the title was be baptized, is just as bad as calling a transgender person by their biological sex rather than their gender identity because they aren't the definition of their gender identity.

EDIT: Well, actually, the latter (calling a transgender person the wrong thing) is worse.

Could you name an instance where something does not fit its standard definition where the standard definition is actually wrong?

Social definitions are rarely wrong, but they can be inaccurate. Dictionary definitions, meanwhile, do frequently become defunct, and it is, once again, intellectually dishonest and linguistically prescriptivist to insist upon a definition you read in a dictionary. To continue using the example of the definition of "Christian": It really doesn't matter very much what any given Church thinks the definition of "Christian" means, since in common parlance, a Christian is someone who practises any variation of the Christian faith and believes in God and Jesus Christ as divine beings. In common parlance, whether a given person was baptised or not is irrelevant. Churches are free to use their own definitions within the context of their practice, but those definitions are meaningless outside of that context.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

Just for confirmation, is a transwoman attracted to other women a lesbian? I ask because homosexuality refers to same-sex activity, so a pre-op transwoman would not fall under the definition of a lesbian. I've always identified as a lesbian, so it'd feel weird were I not one.

[Noraika]

Just for confirmation, is a transwoman attracted to other women a lesbian? I ask because homosexuality refers to same-sex activity, so a pre-op transwoman would not fall under the definition of a lesbian. I've always identified as a lesbian, so it'd feel weird were I not one.

Yes! Regardless of operation or transition status, a person who has a female gender identity who likes other girls is a lesbian. Also a girl who is likes another person with a female gender identity, regardless of transition status, is in a homosexual relationship. The gender between the two is, in this case, the same, so it is considered to be a gay relationship. It is literally, a girl attracted to other girls.

The same is true with transmen. In addition, with gender fluid people, it will fluctuate with the gender identity of the person.

[Noraika]

Just for confirmation, is a transwoman attracted to other women a lesbian? I ask because homosexuality refers to same-sex activity, so a pre-op transwoman would not fall under the definition of a lesbian. I've always identified as a lesbian, so it'd feel weird were I not one.

To put it one other way, transgender women are women, so if you take off the 'transgender' adjective you have your answer. Is a girl who likes a girl gay? Is a boy who likes a boy gay? I think then the answer is extremely evident.

[Jumalariik]

Could be you. I mean the dictionary and the majority of people.............

I guess false gender theory notions are farther spread than one could hope.

If, by 'false gender theory', you mean the fact-based, evidence-based, scientifically observed aspect of gender identity, and how the scientific, medical, and psychiatric associations, of professionals in their field, all based their findings on facts, and therefore know gender identity, and the various ways it can emerge, to be an innate natural part of human diversity...

...then things could be better, but there definitely are strides in the right direction. Gender Dysphoric children are getting trans-affirming treatment earlier, and education allows both non-transgender people to understand the reality of transgender identity, and assist in helping transgender children understand themselves, as well as normalize a normal aspect of human beings.

We're able to obtain more research than before, which just solidifies the facts, and helps to legitimize and normalize transgender identity. That's good, and a sign of the nation on the right path.

Gender Dysmorphic children should be given counseling but NO they should not be given "trans-affirming treatment." A six year old should not be deciding these things for themselves. Transgender identity is quite the opposite of being fact-based. It is based on a gnostic distinction between mind and body, but any idea that it's based off of pure biology is ridiculous.

If you feel that you are a woman and you are male, and gender is indeed purely socially constructed, then you don't need a sex change, you just need to act like a woman. I would imagine at least following gender logic. If sex does not determine your characteristics, you don't need to change your body, because it's all in your head. If on the other hand, we can agree that body and soul are one entity, then we know that there is no truth to gender theory.
I guess though science is being subverted by sociologists.


Please explain to me this logic:

Gender is a purely constructed concept.
Sex is physically constructed.
Somebody who is with male genitalia can be a woman.
There is a reason to change their sex.

I mean aside from the fact that somebody who gets a sex change is not actually changing the reality of their sex but simply changing the form, why would they need it? Why would you need hormones if you are already a woman? I don't know this logic, and I know it might seem disingenuous, but I really do want to understand the logic.

1. Dictionaries have never been used as a benchmark in sociology or anthropology. They are a useful tool that, linguistically speaking, serves to describe -- not prescribe -- language use in a concise fashion. They are far from comprehensive, and to treat them as such is intellectually dishonest, and would never fly in academia.

2. If you identify as a male, you are a male. This is an objective fact that is agreed on by neurologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Gender identity is a measurable sex characteristic located in the brain. Therefore, the premise "if you identify as a male and are not" is invalid.

3. Dictionaries are not "the standard by which we measure our language" -- only a linguistic prescriptivist would advance that position, and prescriptivism has been viewed unfavourably by academia for years. Rather, dictionaries are a record of our language that seek to accurately portray it; unfortunately, they rapidly fall behind due to constant shifts in language use.

So, we can agree on this:
What sociologists/psychologists/anthropologists think of words in language is different from the standard English spoken by non-academics.

So, we can easily and happily agree that our use of language can differ, meaning that both of us are right.

I can say using the standard meaning of words that most people use, "If you are born male, you are a man, and nothing of that can be changed."

You can say using academic use English and be equally correct: 'If you are born a male and you identify as a woman, you are woman."

They are both true.

1. So, surprisingly enough, most linguists (who are, interestingly, academics) would tend to agree that language is based on consensus rather than by small groups of people. So your characterisation of academics is inaccurate at best, but that's not the point. Your endorsement of linguistic descriptivism is also, interestingly, at odds with your prior advancement that dictionaries are the cornerstone of language, which is a decidedly prescriptivist view. Anyway, that's also not the point.

2. Actually, all languages are organic. The Académie française is, many linguists would agree, an outdated and prescriptivist institution that does very little good overall.

3. Actually, the distinction between gender and sex is a sociological reality that is discussed throughout the humanities. Conceptions of gender and gender roles (two different, if similar and related, things) differ across cultures, and thus we cannot say with any intellectual honesty that gender is based entirely on genitals (and certainly not on chromosomes, which do not always align with genitals in the expected sense, and which are never examined upon birth to determine a child's sex). It's also notable that many cultures have a "third" (and sometimes "fourth" or "fifth") gender role that is occupied by people who would, in Western society, be considered transgender or gender-nonconforming.

4. Hmm, I see you're flip-flopping back to a linguistically prescriptivist point of view. English dictates nothing to its speakers; rather, English-speakers dictate to the English language. This is true of any language. The meanings of words are defined by usage, not the other way around.

5. So, what I'm getting here is that you see yourself as representing the majority of anglophones. Interesting, but whatever. In any case, I probably don't have to reiterate my arguments, but I will point out that your entire post is basically a strawman.

I will concede that there are some social liberals -- especially, from what I've observed, teenagers on Tumblr whose worldviews are still developing and who are most likely unfamiliar with the humanities -- who do advocate for very strict meanings of certain words, which specifically conform to their worldview. (One such example I've run across is an insistence that the neologism "princex", designed as a gender-neutral variant of prince(ss), can only be used by people of colour -- a truly bizarre position, in my opinion.) However, to characterise these people as representing the majority of social liberals and academics is intellectually dishonest and a blatant strawman.

I am not an academic, so please forgive me for not knowing the finer points of linguistics, but I do think that from pure logic what I am saying is not false.

[Jumalariik]

I guess we disagree on who should be running our language. I and most people would say that what a language is is based on what is said and spoken by the majority of people, not what a few academics want. Woman is the standard word that 90% of people use, womyn is not a word that people use much. I don't know why somebody can decide which we use due to a degree. They conform to our language. English is not like French where an academy exists to decide what is correct, ours is an organic language. Pushing gender and sex as distinctions is completely artificial. I mean if I'm in a conversation and we are talking, and they say "I'm a man" I will say "yes you are" if they actually are male because that's what English dictates. But hey, I guess the minority of English Speakers should always control the majority. (Though Shakespeare's english should not be the standard despite its' what many English teachers would love, because "language evolves organically")

Nope. There's a difference between what's "normal" and generally accepted and what's actually correct. Take grammar - there are written rules, but you are correct in the sense that they have evolved in their own way and therefore it's okay to break them in casual conversation. If someone calls you and asks "Is this Jumalariik?" you'd probably reply "yes, this is him" when in fact it is grammatically correct to say "this is he." However, if you replied to correct way most people would probably say, "What?" because nowadays the breaking of that specific rule is normal.

So that's why in casual conversation, we are generally okay with mixing gender and sex because most people's gender matches up with their biological sex - hence, we tend to use them interchangeably. However, scientists and social scientists make distinctions between the two and for academic uses would state those differences. For the sake of respect, it's considered nice to address people as they wish when talking to their face - for some, this includes preferred pronouns - for others, not so much. Believe it or not, general courtesy is NOT a concept controlled by the minority. Seriously, you probably do it yourself on a regular basis, but somehow gender is different.

Besides the nit-picky linguistic bits, as I said, scientists have solid evidence for the distinction between the two that is pretty hard to ignore.

1. Again, according to my dictionary, the word man means a grown male, so the correct English usage that my dictionary gives me differs from your view. Academics within their fields use their jargon, and why must we say that is not what gender identity theorists argue?
2. I have never misgendered somebody, simply out of decency.
3. Just because there is a distinction does not mean that the two should not be held as united. I can concede that there are physical and social aspects to being male v female, and so the idea that we can talk about man and male as different does make sense. It does not however logically follow that you can be both a male and a woman. We may thus say that if a trans person is born male and identifies as a woman, they are still male and there is no changing that.

[Jumalariik]

Just for confirmation, is a transwoman attracted to other women a lesbian? I ask because homosexuality refers to same-sex activity, so a pre-op transwoman would not fall under the definition of a lesbian. I've always identified as a lesbian, so it'd feel weird were I not one.

Yes! Regardless of operation or transition status, a person who has a female gender identity who likes other girls is a lesbian. Also a girl who is likes another person with a female gender identity, regardless of transition status, is in a homosexual relationship. The gender between the two is, in this case, the same, so it is considered to be a gay relationship. It is literally, a girl attracted to other girls.

The same is true with transmen. In addition, with gender fluid people, it will fluctuate with the gender identity of the person.

The idea of gender fluidity proves that gender theory should be called gender theology. The idea of saying that you can be gender fluid without any proof and being counter to basic logic. (transgender people are around .3% of the country, and we may imagine that a small amount of them are gender fluid, so it's a tiny amount) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/healt ... .html?_r=0
Why should I think that you can change your gender frequently yet I should hold the idea of Marian apparitions to be ridiculous? There is more evidence for the Apparitions.

[Philjia]

Yes! Regardless of operation or transition status, a person who has a female gender identity who likes other girls is a lesbian. Also a girl who is likes another person with a female gender identity, regardless of transition status, is in a homosexual relationship. The gender between the two is, in this case, the same, so it is considered to be a gay relationship. It is literally, a girl attracted to other girls.

The same is true with transmen. In addition, with gender fluid people, it will fluctuate with the gender identity of the person.

The idea of gender fluidity proves that gender theory should be called gender theology. The idea of saying that you can be gender fluid without any proof and being counter to basic logic. (transgender people are around .3% of the country, and we may imagine that a small amount of them are gender fluid, so it's a tiny amount) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/healt ... .html?_r=0
Why should I think that you can change your gender frequently yet I should hold the idea of Marian apparitions to be ridiculous? There is more evidence for the Apparitions.

One is an internal, mental, phenomena, so if one believes it, it could be said to be true. The other is claimed to be an external phenomena, and while one may have seen the Virgin Mary (Hallucinations are pretty common), the Virgin Mary may not have actually appeared.

[Vassenor]

So your logic is that genderfluidity isn't real because you don't understand it?

[Jumalariik]

The idea of gender fluidity proves that gender theory should be called gender theology. The idea of saying that you can be gender fluid without any proof and being counter to basic logic. (transgender people are around .3% of the country, and we may imagine that a small amount of them are gender fluid, so it's a tiny amount) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/healt ... .html?_r=0
Why should I think that you can change your gender frequently yet I should hold the idea of Marian apparitions to be ridiculous? There is more evidence for the Apparitions.

Apparitions have been seen and documented, gender fluidity is just assuming something that somebody feels is true.


One is an internal, mental, phenomena, so if one believes it, it could be said to be true. The other is claimed to be an external phenomena, and while one may have seen the Virgin Mary (Hallucinations are pretty common), the Virgin Mary may not have actually appeared.

So your logic is that genderfluidity isn't real because you don't understand it?

No, my logic is that nobody has offered any proof that you can have a fluid gender.

[Philjia]

Apparitions have been seen and documented, gender fluidity is just assuming something that somebody feels is true.


One is an internal, mental, phenomena, so if one believes it, it could be said to be true. The other is claimed to be an external phenomena, and while one may have seen the Virgin Mary (Hallucinations are pretty common), the Virgin Mary may not have actually appeared.

So your logic is that genderfluidity isn't real because you don't understand it?

No, my logic is that nobody has offered any proof that you can have a fluid gender.

Can you disprove it?

[Jumalariik]

No, my logic is that nobody has offered any proof that you can have a fluid gender.

Can you disprove it?

I don't need to disprove something if there is no proof of it. The burden of proof, no, even giving a reason that it could be true is on you.

Can you disprove the Apostle's Creed? If not, by this logic, why are you not joining RCIA?

[Noraika]

--snip--

Your ignorance about the scientific reality recognized that is Gender Dysphoria, as well as Gender Identity, how genedr is different than sex, and how treatment is conducted in that respect, is rather amusing. Welcome to scientific, fact-based reality, in which the following are considered by those who know what they're talking about as separate: Physical Sex, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression. Physical sex is not limited to male or female, so there is a 'constructed binary that ignores the reality of intersex people'; Gender identity exists beyond male or female, and has as far as we're aware historically been non-binary, and there are gender identities which are beyond male and female which are equally innate and unchangeable. Finally, Gender expression is how we communicate gender, often through roles or clothes or mannerisms such as pronouns. Gender expression is ENTIRELY constructed by society, and that's why gender roles are often referred to as constructions. These things can be inter-related, but they are not scientifically-speaking the same thing.

Secondly, trans-affirmative treatment would not occur as early as six. The hormones that cause a person to develop would not need to be blocked until 12, if development were to be held off, and puberty blockers require the child to already have obtained a certain level of tanner stage development. The child would be on blockers at least for 2 years before hormone therapy could be available to them, after which they'd develop like any other person of their gender identity, and be physically all but the same as any other male, female, or androgynous person. Finally, after the child reaches 18 they can consent to surgical treatments, which are the only permenant treatments related to transitioning.

All of this would only occur under the watchful eye of a qualified mental health professional. In fact, its a requirement right now for most any transgender treatment for them to have been to counseling and be properly diagnosed. What's more, is that transitioning is not a quick thing, or a permenant thing. By the time someone does anything permenant they've had ample time to consider it, and consent to it as something they desire.

We can observe that gender identity is typically in place by the time a child is a toddler, although many times this doesn't become apparent to the child until later. Transitioning is something which a child is capable of knowing they want done and doing, with a qualified mental health profession.

Now if you mean what sensationalists talk about, and a child decides they wish to present themselves, and refer to themselves, as their gender identity at school, or in public, without transitioning, since they'd be too young, there's no harm in doing that. In fact, its probably the healthiest thing for them

[Noraika]

Can you disprove it?

I don't need to disprove something if there is no proof of it. The burden of proof, no, even giving a reason that it could be true is on you.

Can you disprove the Apostle's Creed? If not, by this logic, why are you not joining RCIA?

Well to be fair, you are the one going against the scientific, medical, and psychological associations and professionals by saying this, so your claim is the one that is not only against the current understanding of gender, but also against wide swaths of medical research. The scientific method, which is what governs these topics, would require you to prove your position, for it to be taken seriously.

[Jumalariik]

--snip--

Your ignorance about the scientific reality recognized that is Gender Dysphoria, as well as Gender Identity, how genedr is different than sex, and how treatment is conducted in that respect, is rather amusing. Welcome to scientific, fact-based reality, in which the following are considered by those who know what they're talking about as separate: Physical Sex, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression. Physical sex is not limited to male or female, so there is a 'constructed binary that ignores the reality of intersex people'; Gender identity exists beyond male or female, and has as far as we're aware historically been non-binary, and there are gender identities which are beyond male and female which are equally innate and unchangeable. Finally, Gender expression is how we communicate gender, often through roles or clothes or mannerisms such as pronouns. Gender expression is ENTIRELY constructed by society, and that's why gender roles are often referred to as constructions. These things can be inter-related, but they are not scientifically-speaking the same thing.

Secondly, trans-affirmative treatment would not occur as early as six. The hormones that cause a person to develop would not need to be blocked until 12, if development were to be held off, and puberty blockers require the child to already have obtained a certain level of tanner stage development. The child would be on blockers at least for 2 years before hormone therapy could be available to them, after which they'd develop like any other person of their gender identity, and be physically all but the same as any other male, female, or androgynous person. Finally, after the child reaches 18 they can consent to surgical treatments, which are the only permenant treatments related to transitioning.

All of this would only occur under the watchful eye of a qualified mental health professional. In fact, its a requirement right now for most any transgender treatment for them to have been to counseling and be properly diagnosed. What's more, is that transitioning is not a quick thing, or a permenant thing. By the time someone does anything permenant they've had ample time to consider it, and consent to it as something they desire.

We can observe that gender identity is typically in place by the time a child is a toddler, although many times this doesn't become apparent to the child until later. Transitioning is something which a child is capable of knowing they want done and doing, with a qualified mental health profession.

Now if you mean what sensationalists talk about, and a child decides they wish to present themselves, and refer to themselves, as their gender identity at school, or in public, without transitioning, since they'd be too young, there's no harm in doing that. In fact, its probably the healthiest thing for them

Sources plox?

[Lost heros]

Your ignorance about the scientific reality recognized that is Gender Dysphoria, as well as Gender Identity, how genedr is different than sex, and how treatment is conducted in that respect, is rather amusing. Welcome to scientific, fact-based reality, in which the following are considered by those who know what they're talking about as separate: Physical Sex, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression. Physical sex is not limited to male or female, so there is a 'constructed binary that ignores the reality of intersex people'; Gender identity exists beyond male or female, and has as far as we're aware historically been non-binary, and there are gender identities which are beyond male and female which are equally innate and unchangeable. Finally, Gender expression is how we communicate gender, often through roles or clothes or mannerisms such as pronouns. Gender expression is ENTIRELY constructed by society, and that's why gender roles are often referred to as constructions. These things can be inter-related, but they are not scientifically-speaking the same thing.

Secondly, trans-affirmative treatment would not occur as early as six. The hormones that cause a person to develop would not need to be blocked until 12, if development were to be held off, and puberty blockers require the child to already have obtained a certain level of tanner stage development. The child would be on blockers at least for 2 years before hormone therapy could be available to them, after which they'd develop like any other person of their gender identity, and be physically all but the same as any other male, female, or androgynous person. Finally, after the child reaches 18 they can consent to surgical treatments, which are the only permenant treatments related to transitioning.

All of this would only occur under the watchful eye of a qualified mental health professional. In fact, its a requirement right now for most any transgender treatment for them to have been to counseling and be properly diagnosed. What's more, is that transitioning is not a quick thing, or a permenant thing. By the time someone does anything permenant they've had ample time to consider it, and consent to it as something they desire.

We can observe that gender identity is typically in place by the time a child is a toddler, although many times this doesn't become apparent to the child until later. Transitioning is something which a child is capable of knowing they want done and doing, with a qualified mental health profession.

Now if you mean what sensationalists talk about, and a child decides they wish to present themselves, and refer to themselves, as their gender identity at school, or in public, without transitioning, since they'd be too young, there's no harm in doing that. In fact, its probably the healthiest thing for them

Sources plox?

Since you're not really being specific about which part you would like sourced, here's an FAQ from the APA about gender dysphoria as well as gender identity.
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

[Jumalariik]

Sources plox?

Since you're not really being specific about which part you would like sourced, here's an FAQ from the APA about gender dysphoria as well as gender identity.
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

Thanks, I wool look at it after I take my test at school. :/

[Lost heros]

Since you're not really being specific about which part you would like sourced, here's an FAQ from the APA about gender dysphoria as well as gender identity.
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

Thanks, I wool look at it after I take my test at school. :/

If you want a source on a specific claim I can find a shorter read. But nearly everything that Noraika talks about is in there, even if it does mention certain things rather briefly.

[Jumalariik]

Thanks, I wool look at it after I take my test at school. :/

If you want a source on a specific claim I can find a shorter read. But nearly everything that Noraika talks about is in there, even if it does mention certain things rather briefly.

Particularly these:

evidence that gender fluidity could exist

how you could be both be a tranwoman and also be female or vise versa