I've been reading a bunch of long form articles on pronoun use, and I can't help but feel like It's one big episode of punk'd. It's intellectually bankrupt. How in the hell did trans ideology manage to gain the status of the cultural norm? It's so incredibly silly.

When someone calls themselves non-binary, they aren't telling you what they are - they ae telling you what they aren't. And anytime they work to develop a positive account, they fail. They either identify as plural (which they aren't, regardless of our use of plural pronouns to indicate gender ambiguity) or they make up some word that is fictional in multiple senses. It is not merely made up, it doesn't actually identify any natural kind.

All they are really doing is rejecting the man/woman dichotomy, but they are replacing it with nothing. It's a void.

And don't bother asking the purveyors of trans ideology what determines gender. They don't even attempt an answer. "Okay, say chromosomes don't determine a person's gender…what does?" They never approach anything like a positive answer.

This is because, truly, they are gender anti-realists. They don't believe in the existence of gender. But they can't say this, because if there is no gender, then there are no women, and it's false to say, for example, that women have been historically oppressed. That is, of course, absurd. So they have to play games. They lack all intellectual honesty.

So they say things like, "gender is a social construct." But they can't possibly mean that, either. If a person's gender were determined by one's culture, then it's not something they discover within, it's something that is made true by one's culture. If gender were a social construct, then a person's gender would be whatever their society said it was. And they of course can't possibly mean that.

So maybe they resort to the brain, as if there are men brains and women brains, and a person's gender is determined by their brain structure. But they can't mean that, either. First, because it's false. Second, because it reinforces gender stereotypes they are motivated to deny. "Oh, I'm no good at STEM; I have a female brain."

It's all so absurd. It's philosophically bankrupt, and the academy is at fault for letting this stupidity spread like a virus.

Rant over.

fat girlfriend said:

---

I've been reading a bunch of long form articles on pronoun use, and I can't help but feel like It's one big episode of punk'd. It's intellectually bankrupt. How in the hell did trans ideology manage to gain the status of the cultural norm? It's so incredibly silly.

When someone calls themselves non-binary, they aren't telling you what they are - they ae telling you what they aren't. And anytime they work to develop a positive account, they fail. They either identify as plural (which they aren't, regardless of our use of plural pronouns to indicate gender ambiguity) or they make up some word that is fictional in multiple senses. It is not merely made up, it doesn't actually identify any natural kind.

All they are really doing is rejecting the man/woman dichotomy, but they are replacing it with nothing. It's a void.

And don't bother asking the purveyors of trans ideology what determines gender. They don't even attempt an answer. "Okay, say chromosomes don't determine a person's gender…what does?" They never approach anything like a positive answer.

This is because, truly, they are gender anti-realists. They don't believe in the existence of gender. But they can't say this, because if there is no gender, then there are no women, and it's false to say, for example, that women have been historically oppressed. That is, of course, absurd. So they have to play games. They lack all intellectual honesty.

So they say things like, "gender is a social construct." But they can't possibly mean that, either. If a person's gender were determined by one's culture, then it's not something they discover within, it's something that is made true by one's culture. If gender were a social construct, then a person's gender would be whatever their society said it was. And they of course can't possibly mean that.

So maybe they resort to the brain, as if there are men brains and women brains, and a person's gender is determined by their brain structure. But they can't mean that, either. First, because it's false. Second, because it reinforces gender stereotypes they are motivated to deny. "Oh, I'm no good at STEM; I have a female brain."

It's all so absurd. It's philosophically bankrupt, and the academy is at fault for letting this stupidity spread like a virus.

Rant over.

---

My kiddo is friends with a kiddo who is trans and their parents have educated me alot. I didn't realize that their community starts out by saying assigned male/female at birth recognizing biology and chromosomes. Had no idea..

You're confusing sex and gender. And "social construct" refers to how something is expressed in a society, not necessarily the assignment of a role. You can't deny the social construction of gender. What clothes are seen as "masculine," or what jobs are considered "feminine" or neutral vary widely across time and place.

Sapper Redux said:

---

You're confusing sex and gender. And "social construct" refers to how something is expressed in a society, not necessarily the assignment of a role. You can't deny the social construction of gender. What clothes are seen as "masculine," or what jobs are considered "feminine" or neutral vary widely across time and place.

---

I am in no way confusing sex and gender.

If gender simply IS a social construct, determined by what society constructed, then a persons gender by definition would be determined by that construct. But trans ideology explicitly denies this. "Just because society says a man likes sports, and I don't like sports, that doesn't determine my gender! I know what gender I am. I discovered it for myself."

So, no, despite what people say, trans ideology actually denies that gender IS determined by a socially constructed norm.

No. Social construct says what society determines as norms and how language is constructed around sex. It doesn't say people can't contest that construction nor that the construct is static.

There is no doubt there is a large social aspect to gender. But trans folks don't simply feel uneasy about wearing the wrong clothes , at least not all of them. Expressing yourself by adopting certain gender associated appearances with the opposite sex breaks socially applied behavioral norms. But changing your physical structure and hormones attempts to mimic not social just social norms but sex.

From what I can see to be trans for many people is to say you were born the wrong sex not just the wrong gender.

I don't think there is any reason to be an ******* or in any way unkind. But I don't see the trans community as truly adopting the position that they are simply adopting a different gender than that normally associated with their sex.

Sapper Redux said:

---

No. Social construct says what society determines as norms and how language is constructed around sex. It doesn't say people can't contest that construction nor that the construct is static.

---

If a person's gender can be other than what a social construction says it is, then it is simply false to say that gender is determined by a social construction.

If gender is DETERMINED by a social construction, then a person's gender simply IS what that social construction determines it to be. Period. This follows from the language itself. It's a tautology.

fat girlfriend said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

No. Social construct says what society determines as norms and how language is constructed around sex. It doesn't say people can't contest that construction nor that the construct is static.

---

If a person's gender can be other than what a social construction says it is, then it is simply false to say that gender is determined by a social construction.

If gender is DETERMINED by a social construction, then a person's gender simply IS what that social construction determines it to be. Period. This follows from the language itself. It's a tautology.

---

You're grossly oversimplifying this. For example, agricultural work in Alquonquin societies was gendered as female. Men hunted and fought wars. Agricultural work in England was gendered as male. Thus, farmers in New England were seen as somewhat feminized by the native societies. Does this mean Englishmen were gendered as women according to the Narragansett? No. It means within the totality of a gender construct, Englishmen were seen as weaker or less masculine but still male.

A social construct does not assign roles, it establishes expectations and defines assumptions. Breaking those expectations and violating those assumptions carries a social cost that can range from minuscule to deadly.

Aggrad08 said:

---

There is no doubt there is a large social aspect to gender. But trans folks don't simply feel uneasy about wearing the wrong clothes , at least not all of them. Expressing yourself by adopting certain gender associated appearances with the opposite sex breaks socially applied behavioral norms. But changing your physical structure and hormones attempts to mimic not social just social norms but sex.

From what I can see to be trans for many people is to say you were born the wrong sex not just the wrong gender.

I don't think there is any reason to be an ******* or in any way unkind. But I don't see the trans community as truly adopting the position that they are simply adopting a different gender than that normally associated with their sex.

---

People get caught up around the word "gender" in the trans case. For some trans people it is enough to affiliate with the social expectations of the other sex. This is specifically and only trans-gender. For others, it's much more of a physiological issue that requires a shift in how they relate to their body as well as how they relate to society.

What I have often found that got my head around the issue is to break it up into 3 categories:

1) Biological Sex

2) Gender Identity

3) Gender Expression

So, for example, a biological female, with a female gender identity, would have a "gender expression" that is more male. (AKA: a Tomboy)

Another example is a biological male, with a non-binary gender identity, which could fluctuate or or mix gender expressions. (A beard, with dress and heels) or (Boots, jeans, a tasteful blouse, and sun hat)

I also find that thinking in the "classical" and "western" gender expectations allows me to better manage these things in my noggin.

I can also sympathize with those who get frustrated at the somewhat fluid nature of both gender identity and expression. A person struggling with their gender identity may go back and forth so they often will say "non-binary" They/Them as a way to not have to say He/Him in July but She/Her in August because of a relationship, an epiphany, or maturity.

Sapper Redux said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

No. Social construct says what society determines as norms and how language is constructed around sex. It doesn't say people can't contest that construction nor that the construct is static.

---

If a person's gender can be other than what a social construction says it is, then it is simply false to say that gender is determined by a social construction.

If gender is DETERMINED by a social construction, then a person's gender simply IS what that social construction determines it to be. Period. This follows from the language itself. It's a tautology.

---

You're grossly oversimplifying this. For example, agricultural work in Alquonquin societies was gendered as female. Men hunted and fought wars. Agricultural work in England was gendered as male. Thus, farmers in New England were seen as somewhat feminized by the native societies. Does this mean Englishmen were gendered as women according to the Narragansett? No. It means within the totality of a gender construct, Englishmen were seen as weaker or less masculine but still male.

A social construct does not assign roles, it establishes expectations and defines assumptions. Breaking those expectations and violating those assumptions carries a social cost that can range from minuscule to deadly.

---

I totally agree that a social construct establishes expectations and defines assumptions. That is obvious. What is false is this: "gender IS a social construct." It is true that gender ROLES and EXPECTATIONS are heavily influenced by cultural norms. It is false that a person's gender is merely a social construct. Not only is that false, but trans ideology clearly cannot countenance it. On that, I agree with trans ideology, even if they often claim that gender is a social construct, I know that they don't mean it.

What I find so frustrating is that they are gender anti-realists who lack either the clear thinking to see as much, or the courage to admit as much.

Ordhound04 said:

---

What I have often found that got my head around the issue is to break it up into 3 categories:

1) Biological Sex

2) Gender Identity

3) Gender Expression

So, for example, a biological female, with a female gender identity, would have a "gender expression" that is more male. (AKA: a Tomboy)

Another example is a biological male, with a non-binary gender identity, which could fluctuate or or mix gender expressions. (A beard, with dress and heels) or (Boots, jeans, a tasteful blouse, and sun hat)

I also find that thinking in the "classical" and "western" gender expectations allows me to better manage these things in my noggin.

I can also sympathize with those who get frustrated at the somewhat fluid nature of both gender identity and expression. A person struggling with their gender identity may go back and forth so they often will say "non-binary" They/Them as a way to not have to say He/Him in July but She/Her in August because of a relationship, an epiphany, or maturity.

---

I understand all that, and I utterly reject that gender identity is fluid. If a person's gender can be dynamic, then that which determines a person's gender must also be dynamic. But there is no plausible proposal for what dynamic reality might be the causal determination of a person's gender.

I think that is where social construction, gender roles, and expressions have some interplay. For example, you may have a biological male who, in the context of a socially constructed gender role/expression environment, may "feel" they identify as a "female" because they might be what we would call "effeminate" or because they like to wear dresses, heels, and have long hair.

So, given time, experience, and maturity he may go from She-They-Him, but still retain that more western "classically feminine" expression in clothes, mannerisms, etc. But that is a process, think about our own journeys of self-discovery and identity. (Not related to gender) It's not a process that is done overnight.

Gender is fundamentally social and constructed. You seem to be conflating it with sex. There is no universal understanding of what constitutes masculine or feminine or other across time and societies. The best you would be able to do are EXTREMELY broad notions with a huge range of exclusions and gaps.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Gender is fundamentally social and constructed. You seem to be conflating it with sex. There is no universal understanding of what constitutes masculine or feminine or other across time and societies. The best you would be able to do are EXTREMELY broad notions with a huge range of exclusions and gaps.

---

Just repeating yourself does nothing to resolve the obvious problems with what you are saying. Gender is NOT FUNDAMENTALLY social and constructed. If it were FUNDAMENTALLY constructed then it would be determined by social construction, and that is both false and clearly contradicts trans ideology.

Ordhound04 said:

---

I think that is where social construction, gender roles, and expressions have some interplay. For example, you may have a biological male who, in the context of a socially constructed gender role/expression environment, may "feel" they identify as a "female" because they might be what we would call "effeminate" or because they like to wear dresses, heels, and have long hair.

So, given time, experience, and maturity he may go from She-They-Him, but still retain that more western "classically feminine" expression in clothes, mannerisms, etc. But that is a process, think about our own journeys of self-discovery and identity. (Not related to gender) It's not a process that is done overnight.

---

I understand all that, too. I really do. There are many men (and women) who, in terms of the gender ROLES and EXPECTATIONS of their society, don't fit the norm. But it is not intellectually defensible to say that such a person is really a woman trapped in a man's body, or whatever. I have no ill feelings to such a person, at all. I love a few such people very much, in fact. What we should say is that he is a man who likes things identified as more feminine by our society.

In several eastern cultures, trans people are considered third gender. They aren't men, they aren't women, and they aren't identifying as part of the binary - they're their own thing, but that thing is defined (the Hijra gender) and not nebulous "nonbinary." Hell, India and Pakistan have both increased civil rights protections for third gender people and allow identification as third gender on government official documents.

It's Luciferian nonsense. Period.

Boys in dresses. Traditional American Family Values


No seriously
Small boys not wearing dress is fairly recent.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/

Wasn't uncommon in first nations groups either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit#:~:text=Two%2Dspirit%20(also%20two%20spirit,social%20role%20in%20their%20cultures.

Neither of those things in any way rebut a single thing I said.

You are trying to define a group that is made up of many subgroups that must only share one thing in common; what they aren't.

It is like trying to prescribe some kind of common belief across all atheists, when the only believe they must share is that they don't believe in a god.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

You are trying to define a group that is made up of many subgroups that must only share one thing in common; what they aren't.

---

Okay. Take one of the subgroups. Tell me 1) what their gender is and 2) what features of reality cause them to have the gender they have.

Ok. A transgender female (not to be confused with a transsexual female).

while their biological sex is male, their gender is female.
Due to the fact that they exhibit and/or follow female gender behavior/expressions as defined by their contemporary society and relevant peers.

I add the qualifications of "contemporary society and relevant peers" because female characteristics and expressions are fluid. Wearing a skirt will generally be thought of as feminine dress but in the right peer group, it can be seen as incredibly masculine.

Quote:

---

Due to the fact that they exhibit and/or follow female gender behavior/expressions as defined by their contemporary society and relevant peers.

---

You say here that what determines a person's gender is whether they exhibit male or female behavior/expressions as defined by their relevant society and relevant peers.

That seems like a totally unworkable suggestion for what determines gender, for two reasons:

1) it entails (at least on one plausible reading of "relevant society") that a person's gender is partly a function of the culture present at one's geographical location. A person might be a man in Paris, France but a woman in Paris, Texas.

2) Even more problematically, the other part of the function that determines a person's gender has to do with whether they exhibit one kind of behavior or another. So, literally, according to what you have said, any person who merely adopts the behaviors of the other gender literally becomes that gender. But that's absurd.

Moreover, it's not generally in keeping with trans ideology. In trans ideology, one's gender is a fact internal to oneself that they discover or "just know," maybe even from childhood.

Sex and Gender are absolutely and inextricably linked, if not the same thing.

The Gender Ideology crowd reflects the newest place where sexism exists.

"I like 'boy' things so I must not be a girl; but I also like some 'girl' things so I must be non-binary."

I do not buy the new pop-culture idea that sex and gender are completely separate and subjective.

There are two sexes. There are two genders. Just because you have xx chromosomes but like to wear flannel and hate your boobs doesn't mean that you are not a woman and female. You may just be a masculine or androgynous woman. You are still a woman.

One can be a masculine female. One can be a feminine male. One can be an androgynous male or female. One cannot be a male woman or a female man.

ETA: Your sex/gender is not "assigned" at birth. It is determined/identified at birth; for many even well before birth.

The emperor has no clothes, sex and gender are the same and they are binary.

You're better off staying that gender is just a synonym for sex and being done with it rather than trying to differentiate.

That way, those who want to go down the sex/gender are different rabbit hole can ignore your post entirely.

diehard03 said:

---

You're better off staying that gender is just a synonym for sex and being done with it rather than trying to differentiate.

That way, those who want to go down the sex/gender are different rabbit hole can ignore your post entirely.

---

I don't think one's sex and one's gender are identical. I do think that biological factors (like chromosomes or genitalia) is the feature of reality that determines one gender. When one's sex is arbitrary or underdetermined, then one's gender is, too. So, in rare cases, it very well might make sense to "transition." After all, hermaphroditism and chemical hermaphroditism are real things.

If someone disagrees that one's sex is what determines one's gender, I'm not mad. But before they go running around and and totally severing biological realities from psychological realities, I'd appreciate at least some indication of what they think DOES determines one's gender.

As I have said over and over again, trans ideology merely ignores that issue. They have no response. It's intellectually bankrupt. They don't ever try to explain what determines a person's gender. They go all spiritual on us; it's something people discover for themselves, within themselves. It's downright gnostic.

Sounds like a distinction without a difference. Your middle paragraph assumes that nothing else defines gender except sex (because you're asking for what else can determine it outside of sex), and I don't see how you're using gender that's different than how you use sex.

diehard03 said:

---

Sounds like a distinction without a difference. Your middle paragraph assumes that nothing else defines gender except sex (because you're asking for what else can determine it outside of sex), and I don't see how you're using gender that's different than how you use sex.

---

Not at all. If A causes B, and B causes C, that does not entail that B is identical to C.

And I'm STILL waiting on a plausible alternative explanation for what determines gender.

Quote:

---

Not at all. If A causes B, and B causes C, that does not entail that B is identical to C.

And I'm STILL waiting on a plausible alternative explanation for what determines gender.

---

Then you tell me what the difference in in your frame of reference. It's clear that I don't see the distinction you're making between the 2. Dad doesn't see one.

Additionally, they've given you plausible alternatives. I'm on your side of the debate, but I don't think you've really rebutted their statements all that effectively.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Not at all. If A causes B, and B causes C, that does not entail that B is identical to C.

And I'm STILL waiting on a plausible alternative explanation for what determines gender.

---

Additionally, they've given you plausible alternatives.

---

What plausible alternative for the feature of reality that determines one's gender have they given?

They are the same thing unless you have a mental illness or feel like indulging delusion. It is easier to just ignore one another since there is no foundation from which to discuss. Unfortunately this particular illness has a detrimental impact to the structure of society. But it isn't the first and won't be the last.

Quote:

---

What plausible alternative for the feature of reality that determines one's gender have they given?

---

Self-identification. I have no strong opinions on this subject, but the answer is clearly self-identification.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

What plausible alternative for the feature of reality that determines one's gender have they given?

---

Self-identification. I have no strong opinions on this subject, but the answer is clearly self-identification.

---

You really think it's plausible that how one identifies oneself is how one's gender is determined? Is it plausible that a person who identifies himself at 2:00 as a man and identifies herself at 2:05 as a female and identified themselves at 2:10 as neither male nor female is ACTUALLY a man at 2:00 and a woman at 2:05 and neither at 2:10?

That's absurd. That's not a plausible theory at all.