Difference in Gender and Sex

[TexasTiger 12,865]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

You are a liar.

This is how you discuss. Your rules. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Who’d ever think I’d find myself siding with both Tex and Titan in the same thread. lol 

[TexasTiger 12,865]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

This is not a political issue.

Since @icanthearyou (and he has no intention of listening, by the way) made an obviously false statement, I will address that despite his unwillingness/inability to engage in rational discourse on this topic.

There a numerous political issues that center on the definition of sex v. Gender. Claiming it’s not a political issue is just another effort to shut down discussion while dismissing those with opposing views as bigoted— which make’s  Sullivan’s piece particularly on point.

One huge political question in this country is whether Title IX (“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”) applies to sex (as it states) or “gender.”

The current predominant “progressive” view is that it applies to gender, not sex, and the cisgendered women complaining need to shut up, get over it and stop being bigoted folks who encourage prejudice by aligning with the right.

Sullivan points out that gays and lesbians have been swept under this large umbrella that has become increasingly vague+ to the point issues of particular interest to gays and/or lesbians are increasingly subsumed under an ever changing definition of LGBTQIA+ or the broad category of “queer” which many, particularly older gays & lesbians experienced as a slur they have no interest in identifying with. In fact, I’ve heard many say they’re offended to be viewed as “queer” or anything else odd or out of the ordinary merely because they are same-sex attracted. But this is the language trend of the day, and if they push back, they are often seen by younger opposite-sex attracted people who’ve identified into that broadened and currently hip category that they are dated at best and likely bigoted.

For a woman, lesbian or not, seeing opportunities for sports participation & recognition diminish in favor of someone “identifying” into their protected class is concerning. But since lesbians are now almost universally lumped into the category of LGBTQIA+ are they supposed to experience this loss of opportunity as somehow empowering? 

Another huge political issue is whether prisoners are place based on sex or gender. And if it’s gender, how is that decided? California has a law stating it’s gender, not sex, but that each case is reviewed. If the review is logical and reasonable, that may generally work, but the fact that there’s legislation clearly illustrates it’s a,,,political issue. But the application of this law has demonstrably made biological women prisoners less safe and they are suing:

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article256071452.html

In the UK this has become a huge political issue which brought down the head of Scotland. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/nicola-sturgeon-resignation-scotland-transgender-bill/673067/

Scotland tried to enact a gender self-ID law, eliminating almost all requirements for a legal change of gender, but the UK rejected it:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna66044

After making her position a political and legal one, Sturgeon pulled an ICHY and claimed it was the UK using trans people as a political weapon even though the Scottish effort was inconsistent with an already pretty progressive equality act. 

These are a few examples, but of course it’s a political issue. 

[TexasTiger 12,865]

ICHY gives the big thumbs down to facts & reality. He prefers mantras.

[DKW 86 7,423]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

I read the entire piece, as well as researching the author.

I thought it all sounded highly reactionary.  

IE: It conflicts with the narrative I was told to believe.

[DKW 86 7,423]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Since @icanthearyou (and he has no intention of listening, by the way) made an obviously false statement, I will address that despite his unwillingness/inability to engage in rational discourse on this topic.

There a numerous political issues that center on the definition of sex v. Gender. Claiming it’s not a political issue is just another effort to shut down discussion while dismissing those with opposing views as bigoted— which make’s  Sullivan’s piece particularly on point.

One huge political question in this country is whether Title IX (“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”) applies to sex (as it states) or “gender.”

The current predominant “progressive” view is that it applies to gender, not sex, and the cisgendered women complaining need to shut up, get over it and stop being bigoted folks who encourage prejudice by aligning with the right.

Sullivan points out that gays and lesbians have been swept under this large umbrella that has become increasingly vague+ to the point issues of particular interest to gays and/or lesbians are increasingly subsumed under an ever changing definition of LGBTQIA+ or the broad category of “queer” which many, particularly older gays & lesbians experienced as a slur they have no interest in identifying with. In fact, I’ve heard many say they’re offended to be viewed as “queer” or anything else odd or out of the ordinary merely because they are same-sex attracted. But this is the language trend of the day, and if they push back, they are often seen by younger opposite-sex attracted people who’ve identified into that broadened and currently hip category that they are dated at best and likely bigoted.

For a woman, lesbian or not, seeing opportunities for sports participation & recognition diminish in favor of someone “identifying” into their protected class is concerning. But since lesbians are now almost universally lumped into the category of LGBTQIA+ are they supposed to experience this loss of opportunity as somehow empowering? 

Another huge political issue is whether prisoners are place based on sex or gender. And if it’s gender, how is that decided? California has a law stating it’s gender, not sex, but that each case is reviewed. If the review is logical and reasonable, that may generally work, but the fact that there’s legislation clearly illustrates it’s a,,,political issue. But the application of this law has demonstrably made biological women prisoners less safe and they are suing:

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article256071452.html

In the UK this has become a huge political issue which brought down the head of Scotland. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/nicola-sturgeon-resignation-scotland-transgender-bill/673067/

Scotland tried to enact a gender self-ID law, eliminating almost all requirements for a legal change of gender, but the UK rejected it:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna66044

After making her position a political and legal one, Sturgeon pulled an ICHY and claimed it was the UK using trans people as a political weapon even though the Scottish effort was inconsistent with an already pretty progressive equality act. 

These are a few examples, but of course it’s a political issue. 

<Applause>

[AURex 1,998]

This thread continues to be heterosexual men mansplaining and hating on people whose gender identity and life needs conflict with their conservative personal conception of what is "acceptable" and their drive to dictate how others should live.

One of the reasons I found myself drifting away, as a Libertarian, from Conservatives was that I realized that conservatism = coerced conformity. White Nationalism? okay. Control over women's work and life and bodies? okay. Control over education, religious freedom, political expression? okay

Conservatives blabber a lot about freedom, but in reality, they are absolutely opposed to individual freedom -- the rights of individuals to live their own lives as they prefer.

As a libertarian, there is no shared ground with these neo-Nazi conservatives who want to control the lives of everyone in society.

Have I offended you yet? I've tried! 👿

 

[TexasTiger 12,865]

19 minutes ago, AURex said:

This thread continues to be heterosexual men mansplaining and hating on people whose gender identity and life needs conflict with their conservative personal conception of what is "acceptable" and their drive to dictate how others should live.

One of the reasons I found myself drifting away, as a Libertarian, from Conservatives was that I realized that conservatism = coerced conformity. White Nationalism? okay. Control over women's work and life and bodies? okay. Control over education, religious freedom, political expression? okay

Conservatives blabber a lot about freedom, but in reality, they are absolutely opposed to individual freedom -- the rights of individuals to live their own lives as they prefer.

As a libertarian, there is no shared ground with these neo-Nazi conservatives who want to control the lives of everyone in society.

Have I offended you yet? I've tried! 👿

 

That rant is too damned unhinged and unrelated to anything I’ve ever said, this thread or elsewhere, to offend me, but I am deeply concerned about your mental & emotional state. I’m accustomed to a lack of critical thinking, but this post is well beyond that. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, AURex said:

This thread continues to be heterosexual men mansplaining and hating on people whose gender identity and life needs conflict with their conservative personal conception of what is "acceptable" and their drive to dictate how others should live.

One of the reasons I found myself drifting away, as a Libertarian, from Conservatives was that I realized that conservatism = coerced conformity. White Nationalism? okay. Control over women's work and life and bodies? okay. Control over education, religious freedom, political expression? okay

Conservatives blabber a lot about freedom, but in reality, they are absolutely opposed to individual freedom -- the rights of individuals to live their own lives as they prefer.

As a libertarian, there is no shared ground with these neo-Nazi conservatives who want to control the lives of everyone in society.

Have I offended you yet? I've tried! 👿

 

Merely repeating the same thing again doesn't make it true this time.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

9 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Please stop politicizing a non-conforming human existence. The hate and prejudice being created/furthered is unnecessary. This is not a political issue.

What a load of disingenuous horse***t.  This isn't a reply.  It's self-righteous rhetorical handwaving to avoid having to discuss a matter in any depth whatsoever, or to wrestle anything more complex than a bumper sticker slogan.

[DKW 86 7,423]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

What a load of disingenuous horse***t.  This isn't a reply.  It's self-righteous rhetorical handwaving to avoid having to discuss a matter in any depth whatsoever, or to wrestle anything more complex than a bumper sticker slogan.

Pretty much...

[icanthearyou 4,462]

9 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

What a load of disingenuous horse***t.  This isn't a reply.  It's self-righteous rhetorical handwaving to avoid having to discuss a matter in any depth whatsoever, or to wrestle anything more complex than a bumper sticker slogan.

Respectfully disagree. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Respectfully disagree. 

More dodging.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

More dodging.

No, you understand my feelings.  We simply disagree.  I don't believe there can be any constructive debate at the moment.  I apologize if you find that offensive.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

20 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No, you understand my feelings.  We simply disagree.  I don't believe there can be any constructive debate at the moment.  I apologize if you find that offensive.

No, you're crawfishing on what you actually said.  You accused others of politicizing the issue and said nothing about it is political, which is either a stunning display of ignorance or shameless gaslighting.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

No, you're crawfishing on what you actually said.  You accused others of politicizing the issue and said nothing about it is political, which is either a stunning display of ignorance or shameless gaslighting.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

10 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I am too.  You have the capacity to engage issues with depth and honesty when you want to...which makes your evasion on this one disappointing and frustrating.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

No, you understand my feelings.  We simply disagree.  I don't believe there can be any constructive debate at the moment.  I apologize if you find that offensive.

There can be no constructive debate by those intent on avoiding it, or worse, impeding it.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I am too.  You have the capacity to engage issues with depth and honesty when you want to...which makes your evasion on this one disappointing and frustrating.

And, I will, in my own time.  At the moment, I feel this is an argument guided by politics, religion, emotion, prejudice more than facts, understanding, caring.

But this is not a political issue.  This is a social issue for which some seek a legislative edict, some simply enjoying the political value of creating an extreme position.  It's an easy means by which to coalesce/manipulate support.

Reminds me of being at UT in the eighties.  The school paper printed the fact that there were 34 transsexual students on campus.  Some student groups went nuts.  Some demanded that the names of the students be made public.   Why would this be an issue?  Particularly when, the day before, no one knew, no one cared, no one suspected.  It was not a rational response.

This debate is not rational.  I think some of the posts in this thread prove that.  "Facts" are being created where data doesn't exist.  Celebrity opinion is being paraded like academic/professional opinion.   I think your demand for engagement is evidence.

I do not see an issue here.   I see an issue being manufactured.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

50 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

And, I will, in my own time.  At the moment, I feel this is an argument guided by politics, religion, emotion, prejudice more than facts, understanding, caring.

But this is not a political issue.  This is a social issue for which some seek a legislative edict, some simply enjoying the political value of creating an extreme position.  It's an easy means by which to coalesce/manipulate support.

Reminds me of being at UT in the eighties.  The school paper printed the fact that there were 34 transsexual students on campus.  Some student groups went nuts.  Some demanded that the names of the students be made public.   Why would this be an issue?  Particularly when, the day before, no one knew, no one cared, no one suspected.  It was not a rational response.

This debate is not rational.  I think some of the posts in this thread prove that.  "Facts" are being created where data doesn't exist.  Celebrity opinion is being paraded like academic/professional opinion.   I think your demand for engagement is evidence.

I do not see an issue here.   I see an issue being manufactured.

I felt similarly when NC’s bathroom bill was an issue a few years back. For me, I saw this issue as if I were back in 80’s where whatever transsexual students there were on campus, they were merely trying to live their lives in peace, largely away from the spotlight. My view was let them use whatever bathroom they feel most comfortable in. There was minimal support for trans persons then. No political movement. I don’t recall trans persons or folks who might be bothered by trans persons making this a political issue. I did recall Dr. Renee Richards suing to play as a woman professionally. My thought at the time was anyone willing to go through the full surgical transition was clearly committed to that decision and I didn’t have to understand why they did it to accept that was their choice to make. It did appear she had a distinct physical advantage that allowed her to have far greater success than she had had as a man, but the issue seemed to be an exceedingly rare one, and I didn’t adequately consider the perspective of the biological women who lost opportunities because she competed.
 

About 25 years ago I had my first friend transition (trans man). I didn’t have to fully understand it to appreciate their struggle and fully supported him. He seems happy with his decision and I’m happy for him. I know a few more people, although not as well, since then.

My understanding of the state of this issue was largely limited to these experiences as this issue came more to the forefront. I began to look more deeply into it when I started seeing frequent accusations of “transphobia” being made against people. The reactions and comments were so strong, often sprinkled with claims of “genocide” that I was compelled to better understand what was going on. Had JK Rowling truly called for the elimination of trans persons? Had she truly said such hateful, vile things she was being accused of?  Did she say anything that could remotely justify the extreme reaction?

I was never a fan of hers, but had understood her to be pretty progressive. The more I looked into this issue, I began to understand it had very much become a political issue around the globe and in the UK, in particular, a powerful political movement demanding a number of things that had little to do with the acceptance of letting people live their lives as they wish. I also came to see the perspective of women who were once comfortable with fully transitioned transsexual women, but saw fully intact trans women in women’s shelters and locker rooms as an intrusion on their rights and safety. Any time there are two groups claiming their rights are in conflict the issue is, by definition, a political one.

I’ve also concluded some claims of transphobia are warranted and others are just attempts to shut down discussion. As with any accusation, it’s critical to know the difference.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 3/26/2023 at 8:34 PM, DKW 86 said:

IE: It conflicts with the narrative I was told to believe.

BS.    I don't believe a "narrative" regarding this issue.

If you think differently, please describe my "narrative".  (A good sentence should suffice.)

That piece was clearly and obviously reactionary.  He's a homosexual
man that resents being lumped in with transexuals.  He has a point, but his emotional vehemence makes it reactionary. You can't see it because you are invested in your narrative.

You can't because you are simply imagining stuff.  What a "little man" you are.

Edited March 31, 2023 by homersapien

[PUB78 1,358]

On 3/26/2023 at 4:55 PM, TexasTiger said:

Since @icanthearyou (and he has no intention of listening, by the way) made an obviously false statement, I will address that despite his unwillingness/inability to engage in rational discourse on this topic.

There a numerous political issues that center on the definition of sex v. Gender. Claiming it’s not a political issue is just another effort to shut down discussion while dismissing those with opposing views as bigoted— which make’s  Sullivan’s piece particularly on point.

One huge political question in this country is whether Title IX (“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”) applies to sex (as it states) or “gender.”

The current predominant “progressive” view is that it applies to gender, not sex, and the cisgendered women complaining need to shut up, get over it and stop being bigoted folks who encourage prejudice by aligning with the right.

Sullivan points out that gays and lesbians have been swept under this large umbrella that has become increasingly vague+ to the point issues of particular interest to gays and/or lesbians are increasingly subsumed under an ever changing definition of LGBTQIA+ or the broad category of “queer” which many, particularly older gays & lesbians experienced as a slur they have no interest in identifying with. In fact, I’ve heard many say they’re offended to be viewed as “queer” or anything else odd or out of the ordinary merely because they are same-sex attracted. But this is the language trend of the day, and if they push back, they are often seen by younger opposite-sex attracted people who’ve identified into that broadened and currently hip category that they are dated at best and likely bigoted.

For a woman, lesbian or not, seeing opportunities for sports participation & recognition diminish in favor of someone “identifying” into their protected class is concerning. But since lesbians are now almost universally lumped into the category of LGBTQIA+ are they supposed to experience this loss of opportunity as somehow empowering? 

Another huge political issue is whether prisoners are place based on sex or gender. And if it’s gender, how is that decided? California has a law stating it’s gender, not sex, but that each case is reviewed. If the review is logical and reasonable, that may generally work, but the fact that there’s legislation clearly illustrates it’s a,,,political issue. But the application of this law has demonstrably made biological women prisoners less safe and they are suing:

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article256071452.html

In the UK this has become a huge political issue which brought down the head of Scotland. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/nicola-sturgeon-resignation-scotland-transgender-bill/673067/

Scotland tried to enact a gender self-ID law, eliminating almost all requirements for a legal change of gender, but the UK rejected it:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna66044

After making her position a political and legal one, Sturgeon pulled an ICHY and claimed it was the UK using trans people as a political weapon even though the Scottish effort was inconsistent with an already pretty progressive equality act. 

These are a few examples, but of course it’s a political issue. 

Here is more food for thought.

https://wng.org/opinions/the-pursuit-of-unhappiness-1679964578?mkt_tok=NzEwLVFSUi0yMDkAAAGKyMnhDd_I9d5X_U8ktz0u_3CmqrCyxTXvyU05ukEk9VGgcAGMgLDSu6uGoWT1LIMe_AdpXtcnI79jD807rsazUdHzDW2mxKFJP890JgArGsQJ

[homersapien 11,373]

I can understand the concern with subjecting "young" (TBD) children to any medical procedure than might prove to be irreversible, but Florida's new law would eliminate medicaid coverage for ANY "gender affirming care", including "social transition" (which would involve therapy and/or counseling).

Florida rule would eliminate Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care – The Hill

This is just wrong.  It basically is a government mandate that rules your dysphoric child's condition doesn't exist.

I don't understand how self-described "conservatives" can condone government stepping in and preventing such care to someone else's child whose parents are merely seeking help.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 3/28/2023 at 4:16 PM, PUB78 said:

Here is more food for thought.

https://wng.org/opinions/the-pursuit-of-unhappiness-1679964578?mkt_tok=NzEwLVFSUi0yMDkAAAGKyMnhDd_I9d5X_U8ktz0u_3CmqrCyxTXvyU05ukEk9VGgcAGMgLDSu6uGoWT1LIMe_AdpXtcnI79jD807rsazUdHzDW2mxKFJP890JgArGsQJ

These sound like the same evangelical fundamentalists that promote "conversion therapy" for homosexuals.  

Nonsense food for thought for the willfully ignorant.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

What do folks who believe in self ID think legal documents should indicate when a person chooses neither male or female?

https://apple.news/AsFCWCGtyRuiDp5IACBNqXw