Law of noncontradiction and is a woman a woman?

[skippy64]

That is technically compatible with the claim that trans men are men, and trans women are women. If gender is binary, that would only rule out the existence of the non-binary and the gender-fluid. It would also suggest that God knows what gender each intersex individual is.

So does this book of yours give you any way of determining what the gender of a person is? If so, how would you apply it to that woman I mentioned back in Case 1?

If someone was given a binary-choice test the only possible answers would be true/false or yes/no—never anything in between.

Or if someone argues that trans-women are women, that is just shorthand for a woman is a woman regardless of the process they took to get there. But does that mean they're now saying that trans people don’t have their own gender? Do trans people exist on a binary spectrum? Trans-gender expresses the very idea that it did take a process to become a person of the opposite sex. So if the gender binary itself exists on a spectrum, you no longer have two choices—you have four. Why not call it a tetra-nary? Leave binary out of it. Gender is binary. What that means is it removes the need for a spectrum of any kind.

What do we make of Bruce Jenner saying that he has a ’soul of a female?’ The soul and body are so intertwined that they can’t be separated or it would mean the termination of the body. If I say my body really belongs in a different soul than my own, then I’m in trouble—it means the body I’m in shouldn’t be alive! But no worries, it just means that I’m mistaken because it would be an impossibility.
(Case 1: intersex)
But now does a dysfunction have to mean a ‘painful function’ in context? It’s a malfunction. If I were born with a third arm it wouldn’t be normal. I’d be better off having it removed.

Words of Jesus:
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female" (Matt 19:4)

"And blessed is the one who is not offended by me." (Luke 7:23)

 

[Wyote]

This was pretty great

 

[aeon]

This was pretty great

I think it is absolutely fucking fantastic.

Magnifique!
Ian

 

[skippy64]

Now after hearing Lily Alexanre in that video, there was one thing that stuck out to me. She (or is he a trans-woman?) really painted the colonizers in a negative light. The way I see it is the puritans wanted to practice the Christian faith as protestants without being persecuted. They were mostly respectful of the native Americans, but there were possibly some bad apples in the bunch. Though, the same could be said of the native Americans. In addition, it’s likely that the Europeans brought over diseases that the indigenous were susceptible to and not immune.

Now, my take on when is someone officially an adult: I don’t think it’s as young as 14 just because a teen can get pregnant. The age more likely begins at 18-21.

What defines a human: sentient, intelligent and moral-decision-capable (conscience). This sets us apart from the animal kingdom. However, if you hold to darwinian evolution you’d have to conclude that we are part of the animal kingdom. But if we are made in the image of God, then we have an intuitive sense of right and wrong.

 

[skippy64]

Okay so I got something wrong here: I believe it is the case that the body and soul cannot be separated before your time. However, I’ve never really been good with illustrations. My illustration was, if my body belonged to a different soul, then it would be impossible. But now, belonging doesn’t mean separation I don’t think. All I mean though is that claiming to have a male body with a female soul really begs the question—if your soul belongs to a female body, what’s it doing in a male body?

Now here’s a quote I took from genderspectrum.org:

“Most societies view sex as a binary concept, with two rigidly fixed options: male or female, based on a person’s reproductive anatomy and functions. But a binary view of sex fails to capture its complexity.”

But I do think it’s that simple.

 

[Wyote]

Another good one

 

[John K]

Another good one

This is very well put - a very cool and rational overview of the objective situation.

One thing that intrigues me about this topic is that although the issue is symmetric, the public debate isn’t. There isn’t as much fuss about what a man is, unless I’m missing something. That suggests to me that the heart of the controversy may be about a conflict between women and transgender folks, as groups, over the implications of their respective social emancipation.

 

[Wyote]

There isn’t as much fuss about what a man is, unless I’m missing something. That suggests to me that the heart of the controversy may be about a conflict between women and transgender folks, as groups, over the implications of their respective social emancipation

Interesting point. I just assumed it was implied that men were under the same scrutiny, just that women ended up as the chosen narrative. I think you're onto something though.

 

[aeon]

This is very well put - a very cool and rational overview of the objective situation.

One thing that intrigues me about this topic is that although the issue is symmetric, the public debate isn’t. There isn’t as much fuss about what a man is, unless I’m missing something. That suggests to me that the heart of the controversy may be about a conflict between women and transgender folks, as groups, over the implications of their respective social emancipation.

That’s because if you “mess with” the definition of what a woman is, you “mess with” the established power dynamic in society, which is to say, that women are less, women are owned, women are responsible, women submit, women stay silent.

Patriarchy has no interest in disturbing a misogynistic standard which it benefits from.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

That’s because if you “mess with” the definition of what a woman is, you “mess with” the established power dynamic in society, which is to say, that women are less, women are owned, women are responsible, women submit, women stay silent.

Patriarchy has no interest in disturbing a misogynistic standard which it benefits from.

Cheers,
Ian

Are trans people inadvertently trying to fight for the patriarchy

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

Another good one

As far as I can tell, this only reinforces the validity of the question. If sex and gender are to some degree inextricable from each other, which is demonstrably true, there are also implications as to why gender roles have developed and it is not at all clear to me how they became obsolete, which he just casually asserts. I don't see how increasing the capacity for self-actualization necessitates the erosion of boundaries in the two categories. Gender is complicated, but that should make you less likely to understand what it means to be a man or a woman, and as a consequence, less able to determine whether your sex and gender are in harmony. The insistence on using the gender spectrum as a justification for transitioning only gives more credence to the idea of gender roles by an inverse relation: the assumption that masculinity belongs to men and femininity belongs to women, therefore you were born in a wrong body if you express more gender traits from the opposite side than what your biology would suggest. That only produces more stress and anxiety.

So I think the demand for definition of a gender is apt, because the alternative is having more arbitrary confusion in an increasingly globalist society where cultural identity and language are becoming more and more washed out between individuals, despite the ironic contrast of focusing more on identity. Why? Because when you know nothing about your destiny or who you are, the last thing you need is to have more options thrown at you without any semblance of initiation that would delineate the implications of belonging to that group, and provide you with some sense of meaning and a path to walk. If you find out later that it isn't for you, then fine; that's why equality of opportunity is a decent idea.

 

[Wyote]

I don't see how increasing the capacity for self-actualization necessitates the erosion of boundaries in the two categories.

That's a fair point, though I didn't draw it as a strong assertion from this video

The insistence on using the gender spectrum as a justification for transitioning only gives more credence to the idea of gender roles by an inverse relation: the assumption that masculinity belongs to men and femininity belongs to women, therefore you were born in a wrong body if you express more gender traits from the opposite side than what your biology would suggest.

I don't know that he was really asserting the second part of this, but I see your point about using a gender spectrum as justification

I feel like it's a clear and practical learning video for the vast majority of people and where they are at within the greater conversation which is why I thought it useful.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

That's a fair point, though I didn't draw it as a strong assertion from this video

I don't know that he was really asserting the second part of this, but I see your point about using a gender spectrum as justification

I feel like it's a clear and practical learning video for the vast majority of people and where they are at within the greater conversation which is why I thought it useful.

He didn't directly assert it, that was meant more as a defense of the conservative point of view which he immediately dismissed as "angry dudes" and "those bigots on the right". I don't know what's happening in the mainstream narrative, but from my limited exposure to those dudes, the core of it seems a lot more nuanced than anger or bigotry. For someone trying to play mediator, he sure is patronizing.

 

[Wyote]

For someone trying to play mediator, he sure is patronizing.

a man after my own heart, perhaps.
Considering all of the extreme vitriol that's out there, I feel like this dude is pretty light hearted, tame and fair overall.

 

[John K]

That’s because if you “mess with” the definition of what a woman is, you “mess with” the established power dynamic in society, which is to say, that women are less, women are owned, women are responsible, women submit, women stay silent.

Patriarchy has no interest in disturbing a misogynistic standard which it benefits from.

Cheers,
Ian

It seems to me that men care a lot less about sharing their gender with trans folks than seems to be the case for women - at least in terms of the vehemence of the public debate. I was speculating that this is because women fear that the hard won social territory they’ve won over the last century will be eroded in a significant way by trans ‘invasion’ of this territory. This isn’t the same issue for men and gives a possible explanation for the emotional heat of the unsymmetrical debate.

Just reflecting a bit further on the overall topic - it seems to me that this issue is as much a social problem as a personal one. If you identify as a particular gender but many people around you don’t accept that then you are in trouble. I’m talking pragmatically here rather than from an ethical viewpoint. People don’t usually think very much about deciding on someone’s gender - it’s pretty instinctive. It there is a mismatch then you are going to have social problems. It doesn’t matter how much legislation there is about this - people will still react instinctively to what they feel is your right gender and a lot of it is subliminal.

It takes great courage to go against this sort of social gender assignment, because it feels like a sort of derailing to the folks around them. These guys are pioneers and maybe in a generation or two we’ll move to a society with a more fluid attitude to gender as a result.

 

[just me]

!

You guys figure it out,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I AM WHAT I AM.

The same yesterday and today as over 60 years ago. I have no questions(for myself).

I personally see humanity as confused, misguided, and misled. But, that is how I see politics and a lot of other things.

I expanded my mind when young, yet came back right where I was. Have tried to help people with serious problems, and some just cannot change. Then, there are those who don't want to change.

If a person has a serious physical difference, I never walked away. We respected each other as human beings that were different. However, it never made me question things, and never made me wish to experiment or change. I accepted myself as I was and am: even with my shortcomings. Never killed a guy because he was different. I prayed for them. I'm praying for whatever evil is bothering Putin to be cast away.

Most are being what and who they desire to be. Some are born with a confused body and/or mind.

Guess some places in the world are more prone to this kind of behavior that others. I'll be a Dundee.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

unless I’m missing something

I believe you're missing something.

I was speculating that this is because women fear that the hard won social territory they’ve won over the last century will be eroded in a significant way by trans ‘invasion’ of this territory.

Totally true though not for all women. Like I've heard some online friends gripe about it, but there's more to it than that as well.

Another good one

This was interesting! though I felt he made some assumptions and like Sidis said, he could've been a little less smug. In some ways this video feels like it would be of little help to those who haven't already heard it, because of how he comes across.

 

[Wyote]

In some ways this video feels like it would be of little help to those who haven't already heard it, because of how he comes across.

That's a valid point. My earlier video goes more in depth. It was meant for people already engaged in the narrative and tending toward behaving idiotically, that's how I interpreted it.
Which accounts for his smugness a bit imo. I interpret it as mostly humorous.

 

[John K]

I believe you're missing something.

Could well be, but all the media and Internet vibes that I’m seeing are focused on trans v cis females at the moment. It’s an issue for male gender as well of course but seems to be much less intensely debated. It seems to be the opposite of what happened a few decades ago about homosexuality when it was gay men who were mainly in the firing line.

Do say more.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

Could well be, but all the media and Internet vibes that I’m seeing are focused on trans v cis females at the moment. It’s an issue for male gender as well of course but seems to be much less intensely debated. It seems to be the opposite of what happened a few decades ago about homosexuality when it was gay men who were mainly in the firing line.

Do say more.

Some of this is regional. In the UK, there's a slant like you describe. It doesn't feel as pronounced in the US and I see more cis males making a fuss about it here than in the UK.
Depending on how you receive information also depends on if it'll be region-specific or adjusted for your browsing habits; I don't recall your browser preferences.

I rarely see transmen rock the boat. It does happen but most I've met seem to be very relaxed and would rather keep their head down about it. This seems to be true in groups with high transgender counts too; they typically don't shape the group dynamic or at least that's been my observation.

I feel the 'quietness' about them is its own sort of social punishment. So in a way yes, you're right there isn't much fuss about what a man is. But I believe that isn't because they're more accepted but the opposite: that they are further marginalized insomuch as to get no representation, no voice, and no visibility.
Which makes sense (through a sexist lense) if they're perceived as 'not real men'.
Some years back I looked up to see what support groups existed for transmen & transwomen, and it seemed at the time to be considerably less for the former. I suspect this is a manifestation of that same issue.

It's also not just about 'invasion of social territory'. Like there is that for some; wyote's video touched on it with athletes. It's also that some feel unsettled about it. Often, those who do have had terrible experiences with men and transfer that over. Which I sort of understand? it's complicated because people let emotion make judgement calls and there's a lot of grief on both sides.
It doesn't help if we meet bad apples, and every group has them. I've met some who've made me uncomfortable and I know I'm not alone. However, it isn't the majority and almost all are from my time in sex work & adjacent spheres. Our venue & approach to others makes a huge difference about what subgroups we're exposed to.

My experience isn't comprehensive. I've seen from a few angles not everybody has privy to and missed it from many others.