Should transwomen be legally treated as women?[W:165,1392]

zom said:

You seem to have no grasp on what a gender role even is,

The actual fact is that there is no clear, objective evidence as to how gender roles initially started, nor how they were perpetuated for so long. What we do know, however, is that they are not necessary or apt, as you said. The logical conclusion therefore is that gender roles are not based in biology, because they are not necessary and not apt. If they were based in biology, they would be apt. Perhaps they could be ill-perceived to be based in biology, but I don't use falsehoods as arguments, ironically said to the side so against non-existent falsehoods. Anything otherwise would not follow.

Click to expand...

That is some funny and seriously contradicting garbage there... "You don't know what gender is but nobody does so I am right"!! :lol:

I don't really see the need for a legal differentiation of men and women in the first place. Maintaining one strengthens traditional gender roles and complicates the whole transgender issue even further.

dirtpoorchris said:

But I think earning the respect of them will be too daunting. I rather have the government declare me part of Apache Nation. Im an Indian too. Im an honest injun' Indian.

Click to expand...

If you can get a therapist to say that you should be Apache because of whatever evidence and you can live as Apache, and this would help you over your "identity" issues, I personally have no issue with it, considering I personally believe that there shouldn't be any differences between people of different races/nationalities.

However, you shouldn't be "entitled" to anything because of your identity issues. There is no actual mental need (except possibly your own personal greed) for you to get some governmental benefit for believing yourself to be Apache. Plus, while our government might view you as Apache, there is no way to force the Apache government to view you as such, so that means that you are not entitled to anything they give their people. Just as our government might view a Native American as the opposite gender as their birth but that doesn't mean that any NA government must also do so.

zom said:

Generalizations, stereotypes, and factually incorrect beliefs are not gender roles, nor are they close. It is a completely failed analogy. You used the word "perpetuated" though, so it must be the same!

Click to expand...

:shrug: you desperately attempted to leap onto a strawman argument, it was thrown back in your face. Complaining "nuh-UH" now isn't really much of a response.

We were talking about gender roles. You gave a speech and half about a concept you didn't even understand.

Click to expand...

:shrug: this isn't actually all that complicated. People try to make it so (it's good copy, and it makes for endless topics for research papers in our Humanities Glut), but with a very, very few examples of those who are biologically ambiguous, gender is pretty straightforward.

My refutation was that your posts had nothing to do with gender roles, and I cited the most commonly perpetuated, commonly reported aspect of the female gender role.

Click to expand...

Yes, and your response was foolish given that A) no one was talking about submission as a particular gender role any more than they were talking about wearing heels and B) in fact the most common gender role for females is not submission (which is actually a minority position in the US), but rather the birthing and primary care-giving for infants. Men have gender roles, as well, the most basic of which are ultimately (as with women) built off of their biology.

Single Example: The introduction of the plow into farming required additional upper-body strength for farmers, increased agricultural output, and disadvantaged attempts to farm while taking care of small children. The result was that the gender with greater upper body strength which was less necessary to the constant care of infants and small children became expected to spend all day behind the plow in order to increase agricultural output, while the gender that was most necessary to the constant care of infants and small children became expected to remain in the home where they could focus greater attention, time, and resources on raising children; each gender working together to enable successful reproduction through specialization within gender roles on the basis of their respective biological advantages and disadvantages.

You're feigning that my argument doesn't follow because you know it does and completely dismantles what you were saying about gender roles.

Click to expand...

No, I am pointing out that you attempting to shift to a discussion of submission is a strawman argument.

That seems to logically follow. I said something slightly sexist because it's ingrained in my vocabulary, though I'm not excusing it. Congrats on being correct one time.

Click to expand...

:doh

zom said:

You have laid out the most basic of gender roles, namely..... something's effect on gender roles? Logic follow doesn't.... Your example didn't logically follow

Click to expand...

1. Really. You don't see any logical connection between the ability to have children and then provide their food source and the assigned role that you are better suited to actually do so. You really claim not to see a gender role in war.

2. Saying something "doesn't logically follow" isn't actually an effective counter-argument - you have to be able to demonstrate your reasoning, and preferably, back it with data, as I have done for you.

Are you currently in college?

There is no evidence I'm aware of to conclude that any species other than us has a sense of gender. How you came to the conclusion that they not only have gender but are subject to gender roles is beyond me.

Click to expand...

I managed to pass middle school science. But if you need to review, then that's okay A book, if you like.

Actually there is if you read pretty much any study on gender.

Click to expand...

Funny, then, how you haven't actually cited any. Biological Limits of Gender Construction and Gender and Parenthood from a 30 second google search. Feel free to add it to the previously cited study on the sharpening of gender roles based off of biological advantage in agricultural societies.

There is no evidence to support that these aren't largely the result of gender roles and socialization (besides testosterone).

Click to expand...

Really. There is no evidence to support the claim that women's ability to produce milk for the feeding of small infants is a biological, rather than a socialized, development?

:lamo

Even so, I am not saying that there are not different physical and sometimes mental traits between the two conventionally perceived sexes. I don't know what you're trying to argue besides "Call everyone a female who has a vagina because I don't care about people and think solidly rooted definitions can't be inaccurate and change, and that this perception matters more than people.

Click to expand...

Ah. And now we get rather to the heart of it. You want to affirm people, and that is behind your arguments, not the science. As a result, when people point out to you the deep problems in that position, you are reduced to accusing them of opposing your motivations rather than your conclusions.

Recommended Reading

Or, if a book is too long, a review from a source friendly to your worldview.

Or, hey, you're part of the Youtube Generation.

SocialDemocrat said:

I don't really see the need for a legal differentiation of men and women in the first place. Maintaining one strengthens traditional gender roles and complicates the whole transgender issue even further.

Click to expand...

So biological facts and common sense definitions of a man and a woman need to be tossed out to appease the feelings and confusion of an extremely small minority?

That is very illogical as well as impractical.

Bodhisattva said:

So biological facts and common sense definitions of a man and a woman need to be tossed out to appease the feelings and confusion of an extremely small minority?

That is very illogical as well as impractical.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between recognition of sex and recognition of gender; it is definitely not a clear-cut common sense defining line. Not that a reform like this is very high for me at all on a list of priorities in the first place, but I would rather abolish gender roles in a legal sense than incorporate every possible gender identity into one of two boxes.

SocialDemocrat said:

There is a difference between recognition of sex and recognition of gender; it is definitely not a clear-cut common sense defining line. Not that a reform like this is very high for me at all on a list of priorities in the first place, but I would rather abolish gender roles in a legal sense than incorporate every possible gender identity into one of two boxes.

Click to expand...

Fair enough and pretty much my view as well... for the point of this debate though I maintain that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, biologically. Regarding "gender identity" people should be free to identify however they like. I still argue that a man that is obviously a man should not be allowed into female dressing rooms just because they feel that way though...

Bodhisattva said:

Fair enough and pretty much my view as well... for the point of this debate though I maintain that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, biologically. Regarding "gender identity" people should be free to identify however they like. I still argue that a man that is obviously a man should not be allowed into female dressing rooms just because they feel that way though...

Click to expand...

Dressing rooms, bathrooms, etc. aren't really a legal matter as much as the policy of a business though.

SocialDemocrat said:

I don't really see the need for a legal differentiation of men and women in the first place. Maintaining one strengthens traditional gender roles and complicates the whole transgender issue even further.

Click to expand...

SocialDemocrat said:

Dressing rooms, bathrooms, etc. aren't really a legal matter as much as the policy of a business though.

Click to expand...

Huh. So, there are no public facilities, or publicly available facilities in publicly-owed buildings?


:shrug: regardless, it's only a matter of time before dudes with their tallywackers cut off, or false breasts, or wearing a dress, start suing private establishments for not letting them access the women's facilities. It will become legal fairly quickly at that point - and I guarantee that at that point both you and roguenuke who liked this post will be arguing that yes, in fact, it is a legal matter and should not be left up to the individual business policy.

cpwill said:

Huh. So, there are no public facilities, or publicly available facilities in publicly-owed buildings?


:shrug: regardless, it's only a matter of time before dudes with their tallywackers cut off, or false breasts, or wearing a dress, start suing private establishments for not letting them access the women's facilities. It will become legal fairly quickly at that point - and I guarantee that at that point both you and roguenuke who liked this post will be arguing that yes, in fact, it is a legal matter and should not be left up to the individual business policy.

Click to expand...

In America, you call it the land of the free, the land to make choices to the benefit of everyone and personal liberties are seen as being a cornerstone of your society. This also emboides letting trans men and women make their decision to be what gender they want to be. Gender is arguably a social construct. We box ourselvs into a pre defined role on the basis of us either having a penis or a vagina and then subscribe to a pre defined set of attributes. People are uncomfortable with the idea of trans people as it upsets whatever sort of 'norms' that they have. If we take it that a lot of conservatives in America want loose gun control (guns can kill people) vis a vis trans rights then that is a good basis for proving what sort of value system conservative America has....

Sionnach Cliste said:

In America, you call it the land of the free, the land to make choices to the benefit of everyone and personal liberties are seen as being a cornerstone of your society. This also emboides letting trans men and women make their decision to be what gender they want to be. Gender is arguably a social construct. We box ourselvs into a pre defined role on the basis of us either having a penis or a vagina and then subscribe to a pre defined set of attributes. People are uncomfortable with the idea of trans people as it upsets whatever sort of 'norms' that they have. If we take it that a lot of conservatives in America want loose gun control (guns can kill people) vis a vis trans rights then that is a good basis for proving what sort of value system conservative America has....

Click to expand...

Freedom is a two way street. If Johnny wants to insist that he's Sally, then he has every right to.... and a guy running a pizza shop or a gym has every right to insist that he is not.

cpwill said:

Freedom is a two way street. If Johnny wants to insist that he's Sally, then he has every right to.... and a guy running a pizza shop or a gym has every right to insist that he is not.

Click to expand...

Identity is not reliant on another third party. Could I insist you were homosexual? (even though you probably arent?)

Sionnach Cliste said:

Identity is not reliant on another third party. Could I insist you were homosexual? (even though you probably arent?)

Click to expand...

Sure, if you wanted to. And I would be under no obligation to alter my behavior in any way whatsoever to accommodate you, nor you to me.

cpwill said:

Sure, if you wanted to. And I would be under no obligation to alter my behavior in any way whatsoever to accommodate you, nor you to me.

Click to expand...

But if I felt like doing so and went with the ridiculous idea of a conscience clause I could discriminate? So essentially what you are saying is that we can dish out maltretment as we do not have to hold people in parity of esteem? We can see others as inequals?

Sionnach Cliste said:

But if I felt like doing so and went with the ridiculous idea of a conscience clause I could discriminate?

Click to expand...

:shrug: So long as you are not the government, yeah, if you wanted to. That's freedom. Just as I and all my friends and neighbors have the right to discriminate against your business for you doing so by not doing business with you. That's also freedom. It's a two-way street.

So essentially what you are saying is that we can dish out maltretment as we do not have to hold people in parity of esteem? We can see others as inequals?

Click to expand...

Welcome to liberty. It requires that you tolerate the continued existence and freedom of your fellow man, even those with whom you disagree. That can be a bit tiresome, agreeably, but we've found (well, lots of us at least still believe - it's no longer an assumption over here) that it's better than the alternative of ideological tyranny.

Sionnach Cliste said:

In America, you call it the land of the free, the land to make choices to the benefit of everyone and personal liberties are seen as being a cornerstone of your society. This also emboides letting trans men and women make their decision to be what gender they want to be. Gender is arguably a social construct. We box ourselvs into a pre defined role on the basis of us either having a penis or a vagina and then subscribe to a pre defined set of attributes. People are uncomfortable with the idea of trans people as it upsets whatever sort of 'norms' that they have. If we take it that a lot of conservatives in America want loose gun control (guns can kill people) vis a vis trans rights then that is a good basis for proving what sort of value system conservative America has....

Click to expand...

Freedom means that the one who believes they are female/male when they are not cannot force that belief or force others to take actions based on that person's identity. They have the freedom to believe and chose, and others have the freedom to not support or accept that choice or allow that person's views on gender identity impact their own or what they do with those views.

Sionnach Cliste said:

Identity is not reliant on another third party. Could I insist you were homosexual? (even though you probably arent [sic]?)

Click to expand...

It's not even about who claims what about one's own identity, or anyone else's. It's about what is objectively true, as opposed to what someone might claim in opposition to that objective truth.

For example, I am a middle-aged white man.

If I claimed to be a young black woman, if I claimed to “identify” as a young black woman, that would just be nonsense. My age is what it is, by ethnicity is what it is, and my sex is what it is, and I cannot change any of these attributes.

If someone else identifies me as a young black woman, then again, that is just nonsense; equal to the nonsense it would be if I made that claim myself.

cpwill said:

:shrug: So long as you are not the government, yeah, if you wanted to. That's freedom. Just as I and all my friends and neighbors have the right to discriminate against your business for you doing so by not doing business with you. That's also freedom. It's a two-way street.



Welcome to liberty. It requires that you tolerate the continued existence and freedom of your fellow man, even those with whom you disagree. That can be a bit tiresome, agreeably, but we've found (well, lots of us at least still believe - it's no longer an assumption over here) that it's better than the alternative of ideological tyranny.

Click to expand...

That is the beauty of the free world, letting people lead their lives as they see fit and disagreeing with them but it also involves extending the same protection to them

digsbe said:

Freedom means that the one who believes they are female/male when they are not cannot force that belief or force others to take actions based on that person's identity. They have the freedom to believe and chose, and others have the freedom to not support or accept that choice or allow that person's views on gender identity impact their own or what they do with those views.

Click to expand...

How odd it seems that we even have to have this conversation.

Sure, you can construe freedom to mean that someone who is male can claim to be female, or vice versa. It seems that some stretch this point to mean that freedom somehow means that you can be the opposite of your actual sex, if you so identify, but now we're veering off into a wrong-wing Twilight Zone, where such a twisted version of “freedom” is held to trump provable truth—that somehow one can achieve “freedom” from the hard, immutable rules of science and biology. Somewhere not much deeper into this wrong-wing Twilight Zone, will be those who believe that they can step off of a cliff and just hang there in the air, because they demand “freedom” from the law of gravity.

If we will not acknowledge that those who claim “freedom” from obvious science, biology, and physics, are delusionally insane, and in need of psychiatric treatment; then surely we must still acknowledge that sane people are not under any obligation to recognize these delusions as truth, to play along with them, or least of all, to grant legal or social privileges based on them. Women, for example, are not under any obligation to tolerate the intrusion of a man into their restrooms or dressing facilities, jsut because this man “identifies” as female, even if he has had himself surgically-mutilated to conform to this delusion.

digsbe said:

Freedom means that the one who believes they are female/male when they are not cannot force that belief or force others to take actions based on that person's identity. They have the freedom to believe and chose, and others have the freedom to not support or accept that choice or allow that person's views on gender identity impact their own or what they do with those views.

Click to expand...

Identity is not dependent on a third party, identity is inate and relies on the persons own ideaological notion of how they percieve themselves. Take your discussion on how you see people, you could choose to see men as women and deny them a pay claim, which is ludicrous I know but it leaves the person open to discrimination and victimisation. Freedoms in America let you disagree with a particular viewpoint but it does not give license to treat a person as any different. A person of conscience may say their holy book lets them believe that some bloke told them 2000 years ago that being gay was bad, fine we'll accept that belief but it does not mean that you can hold people in less esteem than your peers in society.

digsbe said:

Freedom means that the one who believes they are female/male when they are not cannot force that belief or force others to take actions based on that person's identity. They have the freedom to believe and chose, and others have the freedom to not support or accept that choice or allow that person's views on gender identity impact their own or what they do with those views.

Click to expand...

So a woman identifies as female, men do not have to accept that they are peers and give them less pay?

Sionnach Cliste said:

That is the beauty of the free world, letting people lead their lives as they see fit and disagreeing with them but it also involves extending the same protection to them

Click to expand...

Sure. No one has the right to physically attack you over this. But they have the right to have their own opinions, and act accordingly. If Steve wants to call himself Cathy he's welcome to, but neither Andrew nor Cindy are required to support it.

cpwill said:

Sure. No one has the right to physically attack you over this. But they have the right to have their own opinions, and act accordingly. If Steve wants to call himself Cathy he's welcome to, but neither Andrew nor Cindy are required to support it.

Click to expand...

OK so we have some common ground, does that mean they are entitled to treat him less favourably?