TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Rusozak]

For one, gender dysphoria is a real well-documented condition that may be genetic in nature: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 013.750222
If, however, you reject that well-established fact, here's another one: how about people who fall outside of XX and XY sex chromosomal makeups? There is a vast variety of chromosomal disorders that cause androgynous features, like XXY. Are those people just "declaring" that they aren't XY?

My argument isn't that gender dysphoria isn't real, my argument is that it doesn't effect or change a person's gender, just their perception of it. Those who fall outside of these genders are defected, whether you like the term or not. The natural chromosomes are XX and XY, anything else is a defect. An defects in sex don't create new genders.

You're talking about sex. Sex =/= gender. It's a common misconception. Gender is a social construct.

[Atheris]

Raise your hand if you've never felt personally invalidated as an LGB person by the existence of people who identify as neither men nor women.

Does biromantic count?

[Liriena]

Raise your hand if you've never felt personally invalidated as an LGB person by the existence of people who identify as neither men nor women.

Does biromantic count?

Always.

[Atheris]

Does biromantic count?

Always.

[Crockerland]

That's not all it takes at all, no one exists outside those parameters, they may think they do, but they don't. I can declare myself the modern reincarnation of a dinosaur, it doesn't change the fact I'm a human. I could even get surgery to make myself look like a dinosaur- but I'm still human.

For one, gender dysphoria is a real well-documented condition that may be genetic in nature: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 013.750222
If, however, you reject that well-established fact, here's another one: how about people who fall outside of XX and XY sex chromosomal makeups? There is a vast variety of chromosomal disorders that cause androgynous features, like XXY. Are those people just "declaring" that they aren't XY?

XXY Syndrome (aka Klinefelter Syndrome) exclusively afflicts men (And perhaps MtF XXY transwomen if any exist). It has nothing to do with nonbinary identities.

Any legitimate medical website will tell you XXY occurs in males.


https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/klinefelter-syndrome

Klinefelter syndrome is a chromosomal condition in boys and men that can affect physical and intellectual development. Most commonly, affected individuals are taller than average are unable to father biological children (infertile); however the signs and symptoms of Klinefelter syndrome vary among boys and men with this condition. In some cases, the features of the condition are so mild that the condition is not diagnosed until puberty or adulthood, and researchers believe that up to 75 percent of affected men and boys are never diagnosed

https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/klinefelter-syndrome.html

Klinefelter syndrome is a fairly common genetic condition found in males only.

Many boys with Klinefelter syndrome — also known as XXY syndrome — have no signs or symptoms, and some don't even know they have it until later in life.

The XXY condition that causes Klinefelter syndrome can't be changed, but medical treatment and working with therapists can help a boy's development and help lessen the condition's effects. Even without treatment, most boys with Klinefelter syndrome grow up to live productive, healthy lives.

https://genetic.org/variations/about-47xxy/

47,XXY is the most common of the X and Y variations, occurring in approximately 1 out of every 600 male births.

One of the challenges of 47,XXY is that it is not characterized by any prominent physical features. This is thought to be one of the reasons that an estimated 60 to 75% of individuals with 47,XXY will remain undiagnosed throughout their lifetimes. Some people with 47,XXY may have subtle physical differences may including slightly taller stature, a curved little finger, small testes in adults, difficulty straightening out the elbows (“radio-ulner synostenosis”), flat feet, and a small depression in the chest.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/klinefelter-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20353949

Klinefelter syndrome is a genetic condition that results when a boy is born with an extra copy of the X chromosome. Klinefelter syndrome is a genetic condition affecting males, and it often isn't diagnosed until adulthood.

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/klinefelter-syndrome/

Klinefelter Syndrome (47, XXY) is a chromosomal variation in males in which one extra X chromosome is present, resulting in a XXY sex chromosome karyotype. The extra X chromosome can affect physical, developmental, behavioral, and cognitive functioning.

Men who have Klinefelter Syndrome do not exist outside the gender binary.

[Paleoconservative Citizens]

My argument isn't that gender dysphoria isn't real, my argument is that it doesn't effect or change a person's gender, just their perception of it. Those who fall outside of these genders are defected, whether you like the term or not. The natural chromosomes are XX and XY, anything else is a defect. An defects in sex don't create new genders.

You're talking about sex. Sex =/= gender. It's a common misconception. Gender is a social construct.

You do you my guy, but that argument just doesn't hold water.

[Alcala-Cordel]

You may think there are only two genders, but there aren't

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

Proven by who?

[Crockerland]

I think it's good for gay people to rebel against being told our identities, which are non-political biological realities innate to our existence, are the same as identities like "demigirl" or "bigender."

Except no nonbinary person who identifies as bigender is going to think that they're the same as you, a gay man, because sexual orientation and gender identity are different things and anybody who is even remotely LGBT knows that.

Also, being gay is not a "non-political biological reality innate to your existence". "Gay" as a term is historical, political, social and cultural in nature. Being homosexual might be a reality primarily based on biology. "Gay" being widely accepted as a positive synonym for homosexual, to the point that homosexual people will think of themselves as gay, is a historical phenomenon with a lot of political history behind it, which kind of speaks to the problem with you and Purgatio's biological essentialism: with one hand you want to use biological essentialism as a cudgel against non-binary people, while with the other you try to use categories which weren't created and fostered by biological essentialists to define yourselves and those you want to include in your group.

You are now arguing semantics.

Whether you use "gay" or "homosexual" or "sapphic" or or "lesbian" isn't what's relevant. The underlying concept of being physically attracted to other people based on their sex (a sexual orientation), in this case being attracted to people of the same gender, is a biological reality. The word we use to express that specific orientation in modern American English is "gay."

Wanting to identify as "gender fluid" is not.

[Atheris]

You're talking about sex. Sex =/= gender. It's a common misconception. Gender is a social construct.

You do you my guy, but that argument just doesn't hold water.

...The actual definition of gender is the societal conceptions about the differences between the male and female sexes. I don't see why you can't tell that.

[Altemoosburg II]

You may think there are only two genders, but there aren't

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

Ok, prove it scientifically that there are more than two genders, I bet you cant. There are only TWO, you cant say you are a stop sign and have a scientist prove that that's what you are.

[Liriena]

Except no nonbinary person who identifies as bigender is going to think that they're the same as you, a gay man, because sexual orientation and gender identity are different things and anybody who is even remotely LGBT knows that.

Also, being gay is not a "non-political biological reality innate to your existence". "Gay" as a term is historical, political, social and cultural in nature. Being homosexual might be a reality primarily based on biology. "Gay" being widely accepted as a positive synonym for homosexual, to the point that homosexual people will think of themselves as gay, is a historical phenomenon with a lot of political history behind it, which kind of speaks to the problem with you and Purgatio's biological essentialism: with one hand you want to use biological essentialism as a cudgel against non-binary people, while with the other you try to use categories which weren't created and fostered by biological essentialists to define yourselves and those you want to include in your group.

You are now arguing semantics.

Never bring a biological essentialist knife into a social sciences gunfight. We will out-pedant you.

Whether you use "gay" or "homosexual" or "sapphic" or or "lesbian" isn't what's relevant. The underlying concept of being physically attracted to other people based on their sex (a sexual orientation), in this case being attracted to people of the same gender, is a biological reality. The word we use to express that specific orientation in modern American English is "gay."

How do you know it's a "biological reality"? And what would be the problem if it wasn't?

Wanting to identify as "gender fluid" is not.

Maybe. So? What's wrong with one's identity not being a "biological reality"?

[Purgatio]

Trying to argue in favour of our rights on biologically essentialist terms was good optics at the time, but it wasn't good science. Academics have been arguing against biological essentialism on gender and sexuality for decades, since long before Lady Gaga put out "Born this way".

The fact of the matter is that the "born this way" axiom might one day be proven correct, either totally or partially, but as it stands its actual scientific backing is meagre at best. And we have decades of work on the social, psychological and cultural aspects of gender and sexuality.

Very few things about modern human life are principally biological, and that counts for our gender and sexuality as well.

Correct. It was a compelling talking point in a society where the "common sense", the cultural hegemony, still placed a lot of value in biological essentialism. But that didn't make it actually, scientifically correct.

I'm bisexual. Have I always been bisexual, since birth? I have no fucking idea. I don't even remember most of my childhood. I was not even fully aware that I was attraced to people of the same gender as me until I was halfway through high school. I don't know if I was born this way, but it's definitely a comforting thought to think that I was, because it helps emotionally cement the idea that this is an essential part of me, that could never be taken away from me. But the fact of the matter is, you and I don't really know if it is a biological essence that determined our sexual orientations. That doesn't mean that, if later on we found out that it was our social conditions and psychological growth that ultimately decided who we were attracted to, that our identity as gay or bi would be invalidated. Because psychology, even if not rooted in biology, isn't invalid.

You know what other stuff is at least in part socially, psychologically and culturall constructed? Our names. Our passions. Our personalities. My name wasn't coded into my genes. My character traits weren't given to me in the womb. My love for reading and writing weren't there at the moment of my conception. They were all given to me and nurtured throughout my life. That doesn't mean that they are invalid, or that anyone else could unilaterally take them from me. And the same goes for my bisexuality. Whether I was born bi or not, I could not even begin to imagine myself being straight. I can't fathom a life where I'm not bi. I couldn't separate that part of me from the rest of my identity. Even if I wasn't born with it, it's a part of me now and probably will always be a part of me.

Well first of all, apologies for calling you a gay man, I assumed you were gay because your sig says 'be gay do crimes', but now as you've stated you're bisexual, I would just like to correct that part of my previous post.

To begin with, I'm not sure how far I want to go down the road of litigating the science about sexual orientation and biology, because I'm a bit worried of it looking like a threadjack (I already got a warning for threadjacking about a week ago and not eager for a second so soon). So to make this as quick as possible and as relevant to this topic as possible, let me just say that it is my understanding that there actually is a broad scientific consensus that sexual orientation is the product of some congenital cause present from the moment of a person's birth, unchangeable and immutable and inalterable in light of social and environmental factors later on, and that the only debate left is between the different studies on the 'best' explanation of such congenital causes of one's sexuality. There are 'twin studies' between fraternal and identical twins suggesting a genetic explanation, a few allele differences between gay and straight men in the UK BioBank and 23AndMe study, there are epigenetic studies showing X-chromosomal 'skewing' is significantly more likely to be present in women who give birth to gay sons than women who do not, there are birth order studies showing younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual than older siblings owing to certain exposure to antibodies arising from a maternal immunisation response after each successive pregnancy and birth, there are hormonal studies showing similar pheromone responses between straight women and gay men, and there are neurological studies focussing on hypothalamus differences between gay men and straight men. Again, my understanding is its long been settled and accepted that gay men are born gay, and lesbian women are born lesbian, and the remaining debate in the literature is why, or the accurate source of said congenitality of orientation. Is it genetic? Or epigenetic? Or hormonal? Or neurological? That's the debate. I've yet to see compelling evidence of homosexuality arising, however, from either differences in social upbringing or environmental factors arising post-birth.

I also don't think biological essentialism is nothing more than a cultural obsession not rooted in some underlying logic. Your biology is immutable and therefore a part of who you are, literally inseparable from your selfhood or personhood. Your liking for certain works of literature or your hobbies are liable to change, they are at least in theory capable of being isolated behaviours later in life and thus, again in theory, capable of being logically isolated from your person. In other words, it is possible for a person to, say, deny their love for reading Pride and Prejudice or The Great Gatsby without denying their very person or self. Its much harder for a person to try and suppress or erase their ethnicity, gender, or race, without denying the very essence of their person or self, precisely because those things are innate, permanent and enduring. Football and lawyering are things you do. Race, ethnicity, and gender, are who and what you are. And because sexual orientation is permanent and enduring and immutable, my sexuality as a gay man, your sexuality as a bisexual man, those are also essential aspects of our self and personhood. You could not erase or suppress those sexualities without erasing or eradicaing a core part of who we are as people. Biological essentialism allows us to draw this distinction.

Cool argument. Quick question, tho: how does a trans person, once diagnosed as gender dysphoric, begin their transition?

Hell, how are they even diagnosed? Do doctors take a look at their brains? Do they do some sort of test to determine whether their brain is distinctively male or female?

Well, just like any mental or psychological disorder on the DSM-V, they are diagnosable through symptoms, and whether a person's symptoms match up with a pre-existing and recognised psychological disorder. A psychologist does not have to literally scan a trans person's brain to identify that they are dysphoric, he or she just needs to be able to recognise the symptoms of gender dysphoria, and, for the purposes of research and knowledge of trans people, we as NSGers debating the subject need to be able to recognise the origins of the discovery of gender dysphoria and its causes, which are neurological as evidenced by cross-sex brain anatomy studies, showing that based on statistical averages in the brains of cis men and women (things like white to grey matter ratios, size or structure of the hippocampus etc.), trans men have brain structures that better resemble that of the average cis man, not the average cis woman, and same for trans women.

Once a trans person is diagnosed as dysphoric, they transition, again, by assimilating into the presentation, appearance, and life of the gender persona and role they identify as, not the one they were assigned at birth based on biological sex. This whole 'transition' process only works because, again, the gender binary is real, rooted in human biology, and therefore there is this valid and legitimate pre-existing gender persona that a binary trans person can look to when attempting to 'transition'. Hence, hormones or HRT are used specifically so a biological male, for example, can acquire some of the common psychological attributes and characteristics of most women out there, through the injection of estrogen, therefore becoming more likely to 'pass' as, or present as, a woman in her everyday lived experience. Transitioning is about becoming recognisable, in an everyday and practical sense, as distinct members of the 'correct' category on the gender binary, in a society where it is natural and normal for people to identify as men and women, and to identify others as men and women, precisely because of the biological causes of both binary gender identity and sexual orientations which necessitate a gender binary.

Questioning biological essentialism is not the same as wholesale denying biology as a factor in human life. It's only questioning the historically questionable practice of giving biology all of the credit for who we are. It's not a zero-sum game, you are still strawmanning and, what's worse, your obsessively transmedicalist wording has the unfortunate side-effect of almost pathologizing trans people for being trans.

Also, not all trans people are gender dysphoric.

Without gender dysphoria, a trans person has no reason to 'transition'. I think its terrible to suggest a person can be trans without dysphoria, because it reinforces the transphobic narrative that a trans man or trans woman has no legitimate desire to inhabit a different gender beyond mere novelty or curiousity, or that a trans man or trans woman has somehow confused masculinity and femininity with manhood and womanhood. Gender dysphoria answers and swats away those concerns, but if dysphoria is not a necessary reason for a person to 'transition', then 'transitioning' looks more and more like a fad or trend rather than a legitimate response to a psychological condition.

Its not really pathologising to recognise gender dysphoria as a psychological condition that is treatable through 'transition', because it doesn't suggest there is anything inherently wrong with being dysphoric. You can't help it, again its entirely a product of birth. Only a terrible person would look down on someone because of a congenital attribute they cannot control, and hence its not stigmatising to portray dysphoric binary trans people as such.

[Mirjt]

Please recognize the difference between the:

allo-asexual spectrum,
the hetero-homosexual/andro-gynesexual spectrum,
the allo-aromantic spectrum,
the hetero-homoromantic/andro-gyneromantic spectrum,
gender,
and biological sex.

There seems to be some confusion between these concepts (though they are interconnected).

[Altemoosburg II]

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

Ok, prove it scientifically that there are more than two genders, I bet you cant. There are only TWO, you cant say you are a stop sign and have a scientist prove that that's what you are.

And now I accidentally quoted the wrong person oof

[Purgatio]

The existence of women doesn't invalidate my identity as a gay man, which is rooted in the fact that, biologically, I find one gender (women) sexually unattractive, and another gender (men) sexually attractive. The existence of women, cis or trans, validates my orientation because they are one of two genders, and my body has a very different physical and sexual response depending on whether I'm perceiving a man or woman. Both men and women, therefore, validate the legitimacy of my orientation as a gay man. Whereas, bigender people identify as BOTH men AND women, at literally the exact same time. This is a direct attack on my orientation, if I'm attracted to bigender people, I can't really be gay can I, since they are supposedly a woman,

No, you can still be gay. I have a good friend who IDs as nonbinary. Their boyfriend still IDs as straight, and they are both comfortable with that.

but if I'm not attracted to bigender as a whole, well I also can't really be gay, since I'm not attracted to a group of people who identify as male, the gender I'm attracted to.

You're not attracted to every male-presenting person you see, right?

Its a Catch-22 in which the legitimacy of my orientation becomes an impossible conclusion. Or rather, its only impossible if I accept the claim a person can be bigender at all, both a man and a woman simultaneously. I don't, and hence my orientation as a gay man remains valid.

Not really. I ID as a lesbian. I would be totally fine dating a femme NB person. It's not that big of a deal. And no one is going to force you at gunpoint to date an NB person if you don't want to.

Well first of all, words still mean things, a heterosexual is attracted exclusively to the opposite gender of them, man to woman, or woman to man, and hence is used as an antonym for homosexual. If a person is non-binary, and a man or woman is attracted to them, that man or woman is definitionally not straight, because they would have to be exclusively attracted to the opposite sex to be heterosexual. Unless, of course, we accept in the case of your friend's boyfriend that the non-binary friend at issue has the presentation or appearance of a typical woman, and hence their boyfriend is capable of being both a heterosexual male and being attracted to your friend. But of course, if I dare suggest that, I'll get accused of being NB-phobic and invalidating their gender identity, when all I'm doing is recognising the realities of what sexual orientations mean.

No, I'm not attracting to every male-presenting person, but I am attracted to at least some of them, and if I were attracted to none of them it would be difficult for me to claim to be a gay male. The problem, again, is the bigender identity involves identifying as both man and woman, simultaneously. In other words, every bigender person walking around out there is, supposedly, both a woman and a man at the exact same time and moment. Its one thing to not be attracted to any bigender people. But if I accept the validity of their gender identity, and I'm not attracted to their gender as a whole (distinct from not being attracted to an individual person), I can't be gay (since they are men and I'm attracted to men), unless I reject the suggestion that they are men, and in so doing, disagree with their gender identity.

My point is I HAVE to disagree with their gender identity to logically and plausible remain a gay, homosexual man. If I accept that bigender people are women (as well as men too), my being attracted to even one of them invalidates my homosexuality since I can't be attracted to any woman or I'm not gay. If I accept that bigender people are men (as well as women), I have to be attracted to their gender of bigenderism (though not to every single individual bigender person, just like how I'm attracted to the male gender as a whole, not each individual man) because its supposedly a male identity too (as well as female, which doesn't make sense), and thus as a homosexual men attracted to men, I, logically, have to be attracted to the bigender 'gender' unless I reject the claim that they are men. In a sense, I'm forced to disagree with their gender identity almost in self-defence, or in necessary defence of my very real and tangible sexual orientation which is rooted in my biology and my body and who I am as a person.

[Kowani]

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

Ok, prove it scientifically that there are more than two genders, I bet you cant. There are only TWO, you cant say you are a stop sign and have a scientist prove that that's what you are.

…This is just an updated version of the attack helicopter meme, and it’s not any better now.

[Crockerland]

You are now arguing semantics.

Never bring a biological essentialist knife into a social sciences gunfight. We will out-pedant you.

Whether you use "gay" or "homosexual" or "sapphic" or or "lesbian" isn't what's relevant. The underlying concept of being physically attracted to other people based on their sex (a sexual orientation), in this case being attracted to people of the same gender, is a biological reality. The word we use to express that specific orientation in modern American English is "gay."

How do you know it's a "biological reality"? And what would be the problem if it wasn't?

Wanting to identify as "gender fluid" is not.

Maybe. So? What's wrong with one's identity not being a "biological reality"?

There are plenty of labels that people pick for themselves which are not biological realities. If you say you're a Liberal, for example, there's not really any biological reality to that, but that doesn't inherently mean being a Liberal is an invalid identity. There's not an inherent problem with an identity that is not a biological reality just in a vacuum, the problem comes when you start telling people that them just being alive is the same thing as an ideological or social choice you are making.

If for example I say "You should not be able to discriminate against black people, white people, asian people, mestizo people, or Liberal people, or any other race of people," that's when the problem arises.

[Kuraschia]

Whoah! How the hell did so many people start posting on this? There were like 30 posts just a minute ago!? I mean it's quite a simple topic really. Are there more than two genders or not, and explain. I have no idea why this has become so popular. Maybe because it's pride month and conservatives need something to complain about.

[Purgatio]

Whoah! How the hell did so many people start posting on this? There were like 30 posts just a minute ago!? I mean it's quite a simple topic really. Are there more than two genders or not, and explain. I have no idea why this has become so popular. Maybe because it's pride month and conservatives need something to complain about.

Right because everyone on this forum who disagrees with the idea that there are more than two genders is clearly socially-conservative. All of us.

[Paleoconservative Citizens]

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

Ok, prove it scientifically that there are more than two genders, I bet you cant. There are only TWO, you cant say you are a stop sign and have a scientist prove that that's what you are.

There is only a male and female emoji, therefore, two genders
(this is obviously a joke, but I do know there are two genders, and that you quoted the wrong guy)

[Crockerland]

Whoah! How the hell did so many people start posting on this? There were like 30 posts just a minute ago!? I mean it's quite a simple topic really. Are there more than two genders or not, and explain. I have no idea why this has become so popular. Maybe because it's pride month and conservatives need something to complain about.

Right because everyone on this forum who disagrees with the idea that there are more than two genders is clearly socially-conservative. All of us.

Fucking conservatives and their...
*squinting at notes*
centuries of established science!

[Neutraligon]

Merged two topics.

[Paleoconservative Citizens]

Whoah! How the hell did so many people start posting on this? There were like 30 posts just a minute ago!? I mean it's quite a simple topic really. Are there more than two genders or not, and explain. I have no idea why this has become so popular. Maybe because it's pride month and conservatives need something to complain about.

Pride month or not, I still am against it. Though I'm far more sympathetic with homosexuals.

Whoah! How the hell did so many people start posting on this? There were like 30 posts just a minute ago!? I mean it's quite a simple topic really. Are there more than two genders or not, and explain. I have no idea why this has become so popular. Maybe because it's pride month and conservatives need something to complain about.

Right because everyone on this forum who disagrees with the idea that there are more than two genders is clearly socially-conservative. All of us.

I know some Left-Wingers who are against abortion, but it doesn't make them conservative. So the assumption that someone against the notion there are more than two genders is conservative is a fallacy.

[Purgatio]

Right because everyone on this forum who disagrees with the idea that there are more than two genders is clearly socially-conservative. All of us.

Fucking conservatives and their...
*squinting at notes*
centuries of established science!

Sexual dimorphism, the biological immutability of sexualities that necessitate a gender binary (heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality), cross-sex brain anatomy, difference levels of different hormones in men and women giving rise to different characteristics and physiology recognisable at a glance.

Yeah, forget all that noise. Smash the binary. There are 76 genders. Manhood and womanhood are social constructs.

[Paleoconservative Citizens]

Fucking conservatives and their...
*squinting at notes*
centuries of established science!

Sexual dimorphism, the biological immutability of sexualities that necessitate a gender binary (heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality), cross-sex brain anatomy, difference levels of different hormones in men and women giving rise to different characteristics and physiology recognisable at a glance.

Yeah, forget all that noise. Smash the binary. There are 76 genders. Manhood and womanhood are social constructs.

I don't understand the notion that there are 76 genders... how can there be such diversity? How can someone be so unique in their gender that there are 76? If there were to be more than two genders, I'd assume at maximum 6, Male, Female, Transmale, Transfemale, Nonbinary and perhaps another. I don't see how you can get more specific than that