Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gender Roles and Transgenderism

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 12:25:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Full Title: The Incompatibility of Freedom from Gender Roles and Transgenderism

Many of you are probably very aware of the story of Bruce Jenner which has recently been given a substantial amount of media support and fame. For those of you not aware of the story, a very clearly biased version can be read here (https://www.yahoo.com...).

Recently the story of Bruce Jenner has sparked a debate over transgenderism, and that is what I am here to talk about today. What I am going to be arguing here is a generalization of the ideology progressive minded people in the United States hold, and the incompatibility between the progressive view of gender roles and transgenderism.

Stereotypically, conservatives have supported gender roles as a means to a healthy family and a well functioning society. In contrast, progressives have generally sought to free both men and women from any notion that men or women ought to act or think a certain way. The problem progressives will run into is that transgenderism presupposes the existence of gender roles. According to one definition, transgenderism is "Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender roles, but combines or moves between these" or "People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves." The second definition severely implies the existence of gender roles, for the only way to feel that one can feel a false description of one's sex based on the way they think or act is to believe that males or females think and act a certain way.

I think the article Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman is an Insult to Women (http://www.theblaze.com...) puts it well when Matt Walsh states, "how you dress, look, think, and feel have nothing to do with your womanhood. Usually it would be offensive and sexist to accuse a woman of acting like, thinking like, or feeling like a woman . . . A man will never be born with a sloth"s heart or a rhino"s liver or a birch tree"s root system, just as he will never be born with a woman"s brain . . . A woman is a woman not merely because of whatever cosmetic feature a man might vaguely emulate. A woman is a woman because of her biology, which Bruce does not share and never will. A woman is a woman because of her capacity to create life and harbor it in her body until birth, which Bruce cannot do. A woman is a woman because of her soul, her mind, her perspective, her experiences, and her unique way of thinking, of loving, and of being " all things Bruce can only mimic."

The only way Bruce Jenner, being biologically male, could possibly be labeled as a woman is by conceding that woman act and think a certain way. Such a notion is incompatible with progressive lines of thought regarding gender roles. First progressives want to argue that women can think and act as they please and they are not to be defined stereotypically, then Bruce Jenner is called a woman simply because he subjectively thinks he is one (his womanhood has no biological basis) and he has payed for enough surgery to "look" like a woman. This whole notion should be totally offensive to progressives, especially feminists.

Finally, I would like to say that the whole difference society has made between sex and gender is completely arbitrary. Your psychological state regarding your sex has no bearing on your actual sex. It does not matter whether you think you are a woman, if you have the XY chromosome and have distinctly male features then you are a male. To support someone who believes they are a woman when they clearly are not is to support a fantasy that has no bearing on reality. I am aware that there are cases where determining the sex of an individual is difficult, and I will not comment on those circumstances. I am however commenting on circumstances where what the individual's actual sex is is not in question.

Thank you to all who have read this. I would love to hear your feedback. Also, I know this may be a sensitive issue to some, so I ask that users who comment on this topic please refrain from intentionally offensive remarks. Also I did not spell check this, so sorry for any grammatical errors.
Nolite Timere
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 1:29:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My understanding is that "progressives" aren't trying to deny that gender roles exist, but to challenge the emphasis that society places on those roles. My son is a perfect example of this. He's in elementary school, his favorite color is pink, and he is indiscriminate when it comes to playing with toys. He likes construction vehicles and Disney princesses. The "conservative" stance would be to discourage liking pink and playing with princess toys. But we aren't forcing those kinds of gender-specific roles on him. The idea is that externally-imposed roles are a problem, but self-adoption is okay. As the color pink exemplifies, gender-roles change in society all the time. Allowing them to help dictate what individuals feel they can and can't do is silly.

I don't personally know enough about transgender issues to comment on that part of it, other than to say that I don't know if I could care less about what someone wants to do with their own body or how they want to identify themselves. If someone who is biologically male wants to use hormones and surgery to change his appearance and call himself a woman, why is that my business?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 4:33:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think Burzmali sums it up pretty well.

But, to expand, Imposed gender roles are generally considered bad, and I think rightly so. I believe the stereotypical conservative argument you presented for preserving them has shown itself to be as false as trickle-down--plausible if it's the sort of thing you already want to believe, but pretty obviously untrue.

That said, some level of gender identification will always exist. Identifying as a gender does not mean that you have to buy into gender roles, it means you identify as that gender. A trans woman can get a pixie cut and wear pants and not be any less of a woman.

The push to get away from gender roles has not been a push to get away from genders as categories. And while it's true that someone born biologically one way but feeling the other may have issues as a nature of that biological fact, it's not much different than any other biological issue. Studies on trangendered folks tend to show differences in their brains, so the idea that a transgendered person wasn't born with the "brain" of the gender the identify seems likely false (though isn't entirely established one way or the other).

It seems to me that there's no good reason not to recognize transgendered folks as what they identify as and very good reasons to do so.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 4:51:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 12:25:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Full Title: The Incompatibility of Freedom from Gender Roles and Transgenderism

Many of you are probably very aware of the story of Bruce Jenner which has recently been given a substantial amount of media support and fame. For those of you not aware of the story, a very clearly biased version can be read here (https://www.yahoo.com...).

LOL

Recently the story of Bruce Jenner has sparked a debate over transgenderism, and that is what I am here to talk about today. What I am going to be arguing here is a generalization of the ideology progressive minded people in the United States hold, and the incompatibility between the progressive view of gender roles and transgenderism.

...Wut?

Stereotypically, conservatives have supported gender roles as a means to a healthy family and a well functioning society. In contrast, progressives have generally sought to free both men and women from any notion that men or women ought to act or think a certain way. The problem progressives will run into is that transgenderism presupposes the existence of gender roles. According to one definition, transgenderism is "Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender roles, but combines or moves between these" or "People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves." The second definition severely implies the existence of gender roles, for the only way to feel that one can feel a false description of one's sex based on the way they think or act is to believe that males or females think and act a certain way.

..... yeah...so? What's your point? Theres a huge difference between identity and socially imposed gender roles. Progressives do not deny gender role existence LOL, they seek to eliminate them.

I think the article Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman is an Insult to Women (http://www.theblaze.com...) puts it well when Matt Walsh states, "how you dress, look, think, and feel have nothing to do with your womanhood. Usually it would be offensive and sexist to accuse a woman of acting like, thinking like, or feeling like a woman . . . A man will never be born with a sloth"s heart or a rhino"s liver or a birch tree"s root system, just as he will never be born with a woman"s brain . . . A woman is a woman not merely because of whatever cosmetic feature a man might vaguely emulate. A woman is a woman because of her biology, which Bruce does not share and never will. A woman is a woman because of her capacity to create life and harbor it in her body until birth, which Bruce cannot do. A woman is a woman because of her soul, her mind, her perspective, her experiences, and her unique way of thinking, of loving, and of being " all things Bruce can only mimic."

You're confusing sex with gender here. Sex is what you're born with, gender is social. Identity is gender.
This argument is so bad, the basic concepts of what certain things are aren't even here. LOL.

The only way Bruce Jenner, being biologically male, could possibly be labeled as a woman is by conceding that woman act and think a certain way. Such a notion is incompatible with progressive lines of thought regarding gender roles. First progressives want to argue that women can think and act as they please and they are not to be defined stereotypically, then Bruce Jenner is called a woman simply because he subjectively thinks he is one (his womanhood has no biological basis) and he has payed for enough surgery to "look" like a woman. This whole notion should be totally offensive to progressives, especially feminists.

Appeal to hypocrisy and baseless. If he identifies as a woman, that's completely different from "acting like one". LOL

Finally, I would like to say that the whole difference society has made between sex and gender is completely arbitrary. Your psychological state regarding your sex has no bearing on your actual sex. It does not matter whether you think you are a woman, if you have the XY chromosome and have distinctly male features then you are a male. To support someone who believes they are a woman when they clearly are not is to support a fantasy that has no bearing on reality. I am aware that there are cases where determining the sex of an individual is difficult, and I will not comment on those circumstances. I am however commenting on circumstances where what the individual's actual sex is is not in question.

You're confusing gender and sex here again.

Thank you to all who have read this. I would love to hear your feedback. Also, I know this may be a sensitive issue to some, so I ask that users who comment on this topic please refrain from intentionally offensive remarks. Also I did not spell check this, so sorry for any grammatical errors.

My feed back is simply: you're an idiot.

Good day sir.
Thank you for voting!
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:33:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 12:25:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Full Title: The Incompatibility of Freedom from Gender Roles and Transgenderism

Many of you are probably very aware of the story of Bruce Jenner which has recently been given a substantial amount of media support and fame. For those of you not aware of the story, a very clearly biased version can be read here (https://www.yahoo.com...).

Recently the story of Bruce Jenner has sparked a debate over transgenderism, and that is what I am here to talk about today. What I am going to be arguing here is a generalization of the ideology progressive minded people in the United States hold, and the incompatibility between the progressive view of gender roles and transgenderism.

Stereotypically, conservatives have supported gender roles as a means to a healthy family and a well functioning society. In contrast, progressives have generally sought to free both men and women from any notion that men or women ought to act or think a certain way. The problem progressives will run into is that transgenderism presupposes the existence of gender roles. According to one definition, transgenderism is "Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender roles, but combines or moves between these" or "People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves." The second definition severely implies the existence of gender roles, for the only way to feel that one can feel a false description of one's sex based on the way they think or act is to believe that males or females think and act a certain way.

I think the article Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman is an Insult to Women (http://www.theblaze.com...) puts it well when Matt Walsh states, "how you dress, look, think, and feel have nothing to do with your womanhood. Usually it would be offensive and sexist to accuse a woman of acting like, thinking like, or feeling like a woman . . . A man will never be born with a sloth"s heart or a rhino"s liver or a birch tree"s root system, just as he will never be born with a woman"s brain . . . A woman is a woman not merely because of whatever cosmetic feature a man might vaguely emulate. A woman is a woman because of her biology, which Bruce does not share and never will. A woman is a woman because of her capacity to create life and harbor it in her body until birth, which Bruce cannot do. A woman is a woman because of her soul, her mind, her perspective, her experiences, and her unique way of thinking, of loving, and of being " all things Bruce can only mimic."

No. It's not an insult to woman to identify as one. Just because you're different now than you were at the time of birth (male birth & all), that does not mean that Jenner is any less of a woman. The reason that people call Jenner a woman is because they identify as one, not because they look like one.
A woman is a woman because she identifies as one (see: is one), not because she has to harbor children or anything like that.

The only way Bruce Jenner, being biologically male, could possibly be labeled as a woman is by conceding that woman act and think a certain way. Such a notion is incompatible with progressive lines of thought regarding gender roles. First progressives want to argue that women can think and act as they please and they are not to be defined stereotypically, then Bruce Jenner is called a woman simply because he subjectively thinks he is one (his womanhood has no biological basis) and he has payed for enough surgery to "look" like a woman. This whole notion should be totally offensive to progressives, especially feminists.

... orrrr because Jenner can think of themselves as a woman and be one. You say that what Jenner thinks is subjective, well all personal identities are...
A good analogy is an intersexed person, or a person born both female & male at birth. They are objectively both, but usually they don't identify as both, rather one or the other. If that makes sense.

Finally, I would like to say that the whole difference society has made between sex and gender is completely arbitrary. Your psychological state regarding your sex has no bearing on your actual sex. It does not matter whether you think you are a woman, if you have the XY chromosome and have distinctly male features then you are a male. To support someone who believes they are a woman when they clearly are not is to support a fantasy that has no bearing on reality. I am aware that there are cases where determining the sex of an individual is difficult, and I will not comment on those circumstances. I am however commenting on circumstances where what the individual's actual sex is is not in question.

The difference is necessary to accomodate for those that feel as though they are not what they were born (intersexed or transgendered). It's easier to say "what do you feel as?" rather than "do you have a penis or a vagina and were you born with these organs?". It's less intrusive & allows personal identification with one side or the other.

Thank you to all who have read this. I would love to hear your feedback. Also, I know this may be a sensitive issue to some, so I ask that users who comment on this topic please refrain from intentionally offensive remarks. Also I did not spell check this, so sorry for any grammatical errors.

I think that what you are talking about isn't necessary to talk about. If you want to talk about hypocrisy with feminism or gender roles, look up the SJW movement. They identify as an animal. Yes, some people think that they are coyotes or dragons (or George W. Bush). However identifying as male or female is not a big deal. That is a bigger issue than someone thinking they are a woman when they were born as a male (psychological female, physiological male).
Sorry if this is worded weirdly.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:33:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://thedailyshow.cc.com...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:35:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 1:29:51 PM, Burzmali wrote:
My understanding is that "progressives" aren't trying to deny that gender roles exist, but to challenge the emphasis that society places on those roles. My son is a perfect example of this. He's in elementary school, his favorite color is pink, and he is indiscriminate when it comes to playing with toys. He likes construction vehicles and Disney princesses. The "conservative" stance would be to discourage liking pink and playing with princess toys. But we aren't forcing those kinds of gender-specific roles on him. The idea is that externally-imposed roles are a problem, but self-adoption is okay. As the color pink exemplifies, gender-roles change in society all the time. Allowing them to help dictate what individuals feel they can and can't do is silly.

I too don't think that progressives deny the existence of gender roles, rather I think that progressives want to abolish gender roles all together. However, in order to be a transgender gender roles have an implied existence. You cannot support transgenderism and the abolishment of gender stereotypes because transgenderism presupposes gender stereotypes. Why can't Bruce Jenner simply be a male who has had cosmetic surgery and has taken chemicals to mimic effeminate features? Why must he be called a woman when he is not? Also, why should self adoption of gender roles be okay? I would agree that, from a progressive standpoint, it is not as harmful as externally imposed gender roles, but in principles it still stereotypes sexes which could be seen as an "oppression" on the two sexes.

I don't personally know enough about transgender issues to comment on that part of it, other than to say that I don't know if I could care less about what someone wants to do with their own body or how they want to identify themselves. If someone who is biologically male wants to use hormones and surgery to change his appearance and call himself a woman, why is that my business?

If you want to be technical, it isn't an issue of huge importance, rather something to speculate. I am arguing that we should care because it shows an inconsistency in progressive thought and because we ought not truly believe in something that has no bearing on a reality. We should not believe in the existence of unicorns and men should not call themselves women. Why delude ourselves?
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:43:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 4:33:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think Burzmali sums it up pretty well.

But, to expand, Imposed gender roles are generally considered bad, and I think rightly so. I believe the stereotypical conservative argument you presented for preserving them has shown itself to be as false as trickle-down--plausible if it's the sort of thing you already want to believe, but pretty obviously untrue.

That said, some level of gender identification will always exist. Identifying as a gender does not mean that you have to buy into gender roles, it means you identify as that gender. A trans woman can get a pixie cut and wear pants and not be any less of a woman.

As far as I know, there has been a definitive difference between sex and gender. Sex is what someone is biologically. Gender is how someone identifies them self. To identify yourself as a certain sex that you are not is to presuppose that that sex has certain non-biological traits, and that by mimicking those traits you can justly identify yourself as that sex. For example, let's say that I am a male that likes to wear dresses and put on make up. According to current gender roles, this is a behavior that females exhibit that men do not. But wear does it logically follow that I can now justly identify myself as a woman just because I exhibit stereotypical effeminate behaviors? Why aren't simply a male that does not conform to my gender stereotype?

The push to get away from gender roles has not been a push to get away from genders as categories. And while it's true that someone born biologically one way but feeling the other may have issues as a nature of that biological fact, it's not much different than any other biological issue. Studies on trangendered folks tend to show differences in their brains, so the idea that a transgendered person wasn't born with the "brain" of the gender the identify seems likely false (though isn't entirely

Then maybe this comes down to how one defines sex. I would define sex based on chromosomes, and that from these chromosomes certain traits follow such as genitalia and the presence of testosterone or estrogen. I would not define sex by the behavior the person exhibits or how that person thinks.

It seems to me that there's no good reason not to recognize transgendered folks as what they identify as and very good reasons to do so.

Could you please explain how? As far as I see it, one's mental state has no bearing on their sex, and this whole concept of self identification is completely arbitrary.
Nolite Timere
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:51:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:43:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:33:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think Burzmali sums it up pretty well.

But, to expand, Imposed gender roles are generally considered bad, and I think rightly so. I believe the stereotypical conservative argument you presented for preserving them has shown itself to be as false as trickle-down--plausible if it's the sort of thing you already want to believe, but pretty obviously untrue.

That said, some level of gender identification will always exist. Identifying as a gender does not mean that you have to buy into gender roles, it means you identify as that gender. A trans woman can get a pixie cut and wear pants and not be any less of a woman.

As far as I know, there has been a definitive difference between sex and gender. Sex is what someone is biologically. Gender is how someone identifies them self. To identify yourself as a certain sex that you are not is to presuppose that that sex has certain non-biological traits, and that by mimicking those traits you can justly identify yourself as that sex. For example, let's say that I am a male that likes to wear dresses and put on make up. According to current gender roles, this is a behavior that females exhibit that men do not. But wear does it logically follow that I can now justly identify myself as a woman just because I exhibit stereotypical effeminate behaviors? Why aren't simply a male that does not conform to my gender stereotype?

You would be a transvestite. It would not be until you identified as a woman that you'd become transsexual. You would do well to, perhaps, research this a bit more before you come to the conclusions you reach. They're pretty naive. We don't impose "You're transsexual" on people, they identify that way. So, it logically follows not because of the clothes, but because of the identification. There are common signs of the identification that do rather follow, but they aren't the point.

The push to get away from gender roles has not been a push to get away from genders as categories. And while it's true that someone born biologically one way but feeling the other may have issues as a nature of that biological fact, it's not much different than any other biological issue. Studies on trangendered folks tend to show differences in their brains, so the idea that a transgendered person wasn't born with the "brain" of the gender the identify seems likely false (though isn't entirely

Then maybe this comes down to how one defines sex. I would define sex based on chromosomes, and that from these chromosomes certain traits follow such as genitalia and the presence of testosterone or estrogen. I would not define sex by the behavior the person exhibits or how that person thinks.

Sex is biological. Gender is social.

One can physically mimic another sex, but as you note, it's chromosomally defined as a general rule. There's nothing stopping someone from changing their gender identification except people's refusal to recognize it.

It seems to me that there's no good reason not to recognize transgendered folks as what they identify as and very good reasons to do so.

Could you please explain how? As far as I see it, one's mental state has no bearing on their sex, and this whole concept of self identification is completely arbitrary.

Well, do you have a good reason NOT to recognize transgendered folks? I rather doubt it, which leads me to wonder, are you asking what the good reasons to recognize transgendered folks are?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:52:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:33:10 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 6/3/2015 12:25:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Full Title: The Incompatibility of Freedom from Gender Roles and Transgenderism

Many of you are probably very aware of the story of Bruce Jenner which has recently been given a substantial amount of media support and fame. For those of you not aware of the story, a very clearly biased version can be read here (https://www.yahoo.com...).

Recently the story of Bruce Jenner has sparked a debate over transgenderism, and that is what I am here to talk about today. What I am going to be arguing here is a generalization of the ideology progressive minded people in the United States hold, and the incompatibility between the progressive view of gender roles and transgenderism.

Stereotypically, conservatives have supported gender roles as a means to a healthy family and a well functioning society. In contrast, progressives have generally sought to free both men and women from any notion that men or women ought to act or think a certain way. The problem progressives will run into is that transgenderism presupposes the existence of gender roles. According to one definition, transgenderism is "Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender roles, but combines or moves between these" or "People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves." The second definition severely implies the existence of gender roles, for the only way to feel that one can feel a false description of one's sex based on the way they think or act is to believe that males or females think and act a certain way.

I think the article Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman is an Insult to Women (http://www.theblaze.com...) puts it well when Matt Walsh states, "how you dress, look, think, and feel have nothing to do with your womanhood. Usually it would be offensive and sexist to accuse a woman of acting like, thinking like, or feeling like a woman . . . A man will never be born with a sloth"s heart or a rhino"s liver or a birch tree"s root system, just as he will never be born with a woman"s brain . . . A woman is a woman not merely because of whatever cosmetic feature a man might vaguely emulate. A woman is a woman because of her biology, which Bruce does not share and never will. A woman is a woman because of her capacity to create life and harbor it in her body until birth, which Bruce cannot do. A woman is a woman because of her soul, her mind, her perspective, her experiences, and her unique way of thinking, of loving, and of being " all things Bruce can only mimic."

No. It's not an insult to woman to identify as one. Just because you're different now than you were at the time of birth (male birth & all), that does not mean that Jenner is any less of a woman. The reason that people call Jenner a woman is because they identify as one, not because they look like one.
A woman is a woman because she identifies as one (see: is one), not because she has to harbor children or anything like that.

Bruce identifying as a woman makes about as much sense as me identifying myself as a cat. Why? Because I am not a cat and Bruce is not a woman. I don't understand why so much emphasis has been places on how people subjectively think they are as opposed to what people actually are.

The only way Bruce Jenner, being biologically male, could possibly be labeled as a woman is by conceding that woman act and think a certain way. Such a notion is incompatible with progressive lines of thought regarding gender roles. First progressives want to argue that women can think and act as they please and they are not to be defined stereotypically, then Bruce Jenner is called a woman simply because he subjectively thinks he is one (his womanhood has no biological basis) and he has payed for enough surgery to "look" like a woman. This whole notion should be totally offensive to progressives, especially feminists.

You say that what Jenner thinks is subjective, well all personal identities are...

So then concede that Jenner is not actually a woman but only thinks he is?

A good analogy is an intersexed person, or a person born both female & male at birth. They are objectively both, but usually they don't identify as both, rather one or the other. If that makes sense.

I am more sympathetic to such a case, and that is why I didn't comment on such a case in the OP.

Finally, I would like to say that the whole difference society has made between sex and gender is completely arbitrary. Your psychological state regarding your sex has no bearing on your actual sex. It does not matter whether you think you are a woman, if you have the XY chromosome and have distinctly male features then you are a male. To support someone who believes they are a woman when they clearly are not is to support a fantasy that has no bearing on reality. I am aware that there are cases where determining the sex of an individual is difficult, and I will not comment on those circumstances. I am however commenting on circumstances where what the individual's actual sex is is not in question.

The difference is necessary to accomodate for those that feel as though they are not what they were born (intersexed or transgendered). It's easier to say "what do you feel as?" rather than "do you have a penis or a vagina and were you born with these organs?". It's less intrusive & allows personal identification with one side or the other.

But why should be accommodate such people? Why do their feelings matter if they have no bearing on reality? I'm sorry if this comes off as harsh, but I truly wonder this.

Thank you to all who have read this. I would love to hear your feedback. Also, I know this may be a sensitive issue to some, so I ask that users who comment on this topic please refrain from intentionally offensive remarks. Also I did not spell check this, so sorry for any grammatical errors.

I think that what you are talking about isn't necessary to talk about. If you want to talk about hypocrisy with feminism or gender roles, look up the SJW movement. They identify as an animal. Yes, some people think that they are coyotes or dragons (or George W. Bush). However identifying as male or female is not a big deal. That is a bigger issue than someone thinking they are a woman when they were born as a male (psychological female, physiological male).
Sorry if this is worded weirdly.

In principle are they not similar though? Also, I agree that this is not an issue of utmost importance, but it is one I am curious about and I genuinely think we could have a good intellectual conversation over it.
Nolite Timere
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:52:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 12:25:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Full Title: The Incompatibility of Freedom from Gender Roles and Transgenderism

Yes! I've always thought there's a contradiction and that transgenderism directly confronts feminist ideas. But it makes me uneasy to be against transgenderism as well, because I think that people should be free to make their own choices and it's not as if it matters or hurts anyone if people want to identify with this gender or that gender.

Or, to be completely honest, it does bother me in a theoretical sort of way, but I think I have no business being bothered, and that it's just evidence that I'm being too uptight. It's confusing.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:56:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think I'm not understanding it properly because every time I come across someone who was a man but is now a woman, it seems like she's chosen to be "a woman" and I find that slightly offensive. As you say, as if "being a woman" is a thing, that's different from being a man and that you can choose it. It feels restrictive, whereas feminism is all about breaking down those limitations.
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:05:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The current feminist movement doesn't care about equality of the genders, which all of your arguments are based upon.
It's based on superiority of women atm
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:06:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think for me, I just fundamentally don't understand why you would need to be one gender or another gender. It shouldn't matter. Nobody gets to pick their body. I think most people would like to change something physical about themselves, or their identity, or their status or whatever. Some people go crazy with plastic surgery etc., but I think that's the wrong approach and that it's wiser to just find a way to accept who you are. That's not to say that people are obliged to accept who they are, but it's like plastic surgery when people get breast implants. I don't respect it particularly, and it also affects everybody because it shifts what's normal (I mean, if everyone got breast implants then being flat chested would be weird and that's more pressure on women to do it). I would never say this in real life though, because I know it's wrong to think that about transgenderism, but I've always found it contradictory in that way.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:07:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:51:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:43:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:33:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think Burzmali sums it up pretty well.

But, to expand, Imposed gender roles are generally considered bad, and I think rightly so. I believe the stereotypical conservative argument you presented for preserving them has shown itself to be as false as trickle-down--plausible if it's the sort of thing you already want to believe, but pretty obviously untrue.

That said, some level of gender identification will always exist. Identifying as a gender does not mean that you have to buy into gender roles, it means you identify as that gender. A trans woman can get a pixie cut and wear pants and not be any less of a woman.

As far as I know, there has been a definitive difference between sex and gender. Sex is what someone is biologically. Gender is how someone identifies them self. To identify yourself as a certain sex that you are not is to presuppose that that sex has certain non-biological traits, and that by mimicking those traits you can justly identify yourself as that sex. For example, let's say that I am a male that likes to wear dresses and put on make up. According to current gender roles, this is a behavior that females exhibit that men do not. But wear does it logically follow that I can now justly identify myself as a woman just because I exhibit stereotypical effeminate behaviors? Why aren't simply a male that does not conform to my gender stereotype?

You would be a transvestite. It would not be until you identified as a woman that you'd become transsexual. You would do well to, perhaps, research this a bit more before you come to the conclusions you reach. They're pretty naive. We don't impose "You're transsexual" on people, they identify that way. So, it logically follows not because of the clothes, but because of the identification. There are common signs of the identification that do rather follow, but they aren't the point.

But identification is reached because they compare themselves to current gender stereotypes. A quick definition of transvestism from wikipedia states that it "is the practice of dressing and acting in a style or manner traditionally associated with the other sex." This presupposes the existence of gender stereotypes. Also, even biologically normal (not intersex) transsexuals and transvestites are still a certain sex biologically, regardless of how they identify themselves.

The push to get away from gender roles has not been a push to get away from genders as categories. And while it's true that someone born biologically one way but feeling the other may have issues as a nature of that biological fact, it's not much different than any other biological issue. Studies on trangendered folks tend to show differences in their brains, so the idea that a transgendered person wasn't born with the "brain" of the gender the identify seems likely false (though isn't entirely

Then maybe this comes down to how one defines sex. I would define sex based on chromosomes, and that from these chromosomes certain traits follow such as genitalia and the presence of testosterone or estrogen. I would not define sex by the behavior the person exhibits or how that person thinks.

Sex is biological. Gender is social.

So then we agree.

One can physically mimic another sex, but as you note, it's chromosomally defined as a general rule. There's nothing stopping someone from changing their gender identification except people's refusal to recognize it.

And why should they recognize it if it has no bearing on how that person actually is? If progressives wanted to be consistent they would abolish the whole notion of gender and allow people to act how they want.

It seems to me that there's no good reason not to recognize transgendered folks as what they identify as and very good reasons to do so.

Could you please explain how? As far as I see it, one's mental state has no bearing on their sex, and this whole concept of self identification is completely arbitrary.

Well, do you have a good reason NOT to recognize transgendered folks? I rather doubt it, which leads me to wonder, are you asking what the good reasons to recognize transgendered folks are?

I don't personally have a reason. The OP is about the inconsistency between progressives who wanted to abolish gender roles but also support transgenderism. Progressives ought to believe that the whole notion of gender should be abolished and people can act as they please. All that would exist is the person's sex, and that person can act any way they want to without being oppressed by stereotypes.
Nolite Timere
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:08:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:05:25 PM, Lexus wrote:
The current feminist movement doesn't care about equality of the genders, which all of your arguments are based upon.
It's based on superiority of women atm

It doesn't matter if feminism is defined by equality or not. Even if feminism is about the rights and freedoms of women, there's still the contradiction because transgenderism implies that being a woman is something that has particular requirements and characteristics.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:14:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:07:02 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:51:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:43:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:33:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think Burzmali sums it up pretty well.

But, to expand, Imposed gender roles are generally considered bad, and I think rightly so. I believe the stereotypical conservative argument you presented for preserving them has shown itself to be as false as trickle-down--plausible if it's the sort of thing you already want to believe, but pretty obviously untrue.

That said, some level of gender identification will always exist. Identifying as a gender does not mean that you have to buy into gender roles, it means you identify as that gender. A trans woman can get a pixie cut and wear pants and not be any less of a woman.

As far as I know, there has been a definitive difference between sex and gender. Sex is what someone is biologically. Gender is how someone identifies them self. To identify yourself as a certain sex that you are not is to presuppose that that sex has certain non-biological traits, and that by mimicking those traits you can justly identify yourself as that sex. For example, let's say that I am a male that likes to wear dresses and put on make up. According to current gender roles, this is a behavior that females exhibit that men do not. But wear does it logically follow that I can now justly identify myself as a woman just because I exhibit stereotypical effeminate behaviors? Why aren't simply a male that does not conform to my gender stereotype?

You would be a transvestite. It would not be until you identified as a woman that you'd become transsexual. You would do well to, perhaps, research this a bit more before you come to the conclusions you reach. They're pretty naive. We don't impose "You're transsexual" on people, they identify that way. So, it logically follows not because of the clothes, but because of the identification. There are common signs of the identification that do rather follow, but they aren't the point.

But identification is reached because they compare themselves to current gender stereotypes.

I disagree. "Having boobs", for example, is not a stereotype. They're comparing themselves to the core identity of that gender. Of course, I'm not trying to make an overly sweeping generalization, so I don't want to imply none of them do; it's entirely possible that some do. But some do because they genuinely feel their bodies are "wrong".

A quick definition of transvestism from wikipedia states that it "is the practice of dressing and acting in a style or manner traditionally associated with the other sex." This presupposes the existence of gender stereotypes. Also, even biologically normal (not intersex) transsexuals and transvestites are still a certain sex biologically, regardless of how they identify themselves.

Transvestism is separate from transexualism.

The push to get away from gender roles has not been a push to get away from genders as categories. And while it's true that someone born biologically one way but feeling the other may have issues as a nature of that biological fact, it's not much different than any other biological issue. Studies on trangendered folks tend to show differences in their brains, so the idea that a transgendered person wasn't born with the "brain" of the gender the identify seems likely false (though isn't entirely

Then maybe this comes down to how one defines sex. I would define sex based on chromosomes, and that from these chromosomes certain traits follow such as genitalia and the presence of testosterone or estrogen. I would not define sex by the behavior the person exhibits or how that person thinks.

Sex is biological. Gender is social.

So then we agree.

And one can believe that the sex of their body is improperly aligned with the sex of their identity, and do their best to cope with that.

If you woke up tomorrow as a woman, would you be comfortable in that body? Are you sure? Would it be unreasonable for someone to feel differently?

One can physically mimic another sex, but as you note, it's chromosomally defined as a general rule. There's nothing stopping someone from changing their gender identification except people's refusal to recognize it.

And why should they recognize it if it has no bearing on how that person actually is? If progressives wanted to be consistent they would abolish the whole notion of gender and allow people to act how they want.

Ignoring practical reality in that way is a (stereotypically) conservative problem, not a liberal one. Some day maybe all gender positions will be broken down. Until then, they aren't.

It seems to me that there's no good reason not to recognize transgendered folks as what they identify as and very good reasons to do so.

Could you please explain how? As far as I see it, one's mental state has no bearing on their sex, and this whole concept of self identification is completely arbitrary.

Well, do you have a good reason NOT to recognize transgendered folks? I rather doubt it, which leads me to wonder, are you asking what the good reasons to recognize transgendered folks are?

I don't personally have a reason. The OP is about the inconsistency between progressives who wanted to abolish gender roles but also support transgenderism. Progressives ought to believe that the whole notion of gender should be abolished and people can act as they please. All that would exist is the person's sex, and that person can act any way they want to without being oppressed by stereotypes.

I'm sorry, this is just wrong. For example: I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm MORE in favor of abolishing state involvement in marriage altogether, but I recognize that's impractical and that, in the meantime, restricting SSM is utter nonsense. That's not me being "inconsistent" in the least. It's recognizing that even if you don't like the system, you work within the system.

Similarly, I can be wholly in favor of the utter abolishment of all gendering, while recognizing that right now gendering exists.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:19:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:14:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Similarly, I can be wholly in favor of the utter abolishment of all gendering, while recognizing that right now gendering exists.

That's like being wholly against corruption but still bribing officials because of practical necessity.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:23:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:19:27 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:14:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Similarly, I can be wholly in favor of the utter abolishment of all gendering, while recognizing that right now gendering exists.

That's like being wholly against corruption but still bribing officials because of practical necessity.

That's an unfair comparison, and moreover, when I speak of practical necessity, I'm NOT speaking of convenience, I'm speaking of necessity. So yeah, if you're against bribery, but you're going to be put in jail for no crime, and the only way out is bribery? It's not a "contradiction" to do the bribing, it's a recognition the system is messed up.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:32:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:23:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:19:27 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:14:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Similarly, I can be wholly in favor of the utter abolishment of all gendering, while recognizing that right now gendering exists.

That's like being wholly against corruption but still bribing officials because of practical necessity.

That's an unfair comparison, and moreover, when I speak of practical necessity, I'm NOT speaking of convenience, I'm speaking of necessity. So yeah, if you're against bribery, but you're going to be put in jail for no crime, and the only way out is bribery? It's not a "contradiction" to do the bribing, it's a recognition the system is messed up.

Sure, but then it's not quite true to say you're "wholly" against it. You're mostly against it, but not always.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:35:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:23:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:19:27 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:14:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Similarly, I can be wholly in favor of the utter abolishment of all gendering, while recognizing that right now gendering exists.

That's like being wholly against corruption but still bribing officials because of practical necessity.

That's an unfair comparison, and moreover, when I speak of practical necessity, I'm NOT speaking of convenience, I'm speaking of necessity. So yeah, if you're against bribery, but you're going to be put in jail for no crime, and the only way out is bribery? It's not a "contradiction" to do the bribing, it's a recognition the system is messed up.

Sure, but then it's not quite true to say you're "wholly" against it. You're mostly against it, but not always.

Or to put it another way, you're against it when the costs of being against it are low.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:39:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:14:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:07:02 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:51:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:43:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:33:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think Burzmali sums it up pretty well.

But, to expand, Imposed gender roles are generally considered bad, and I think rightly so. I believe the stereotypical conservative argument you presented for preserving them has shown itself to be as false as trickle-down--plausible if it's the sort of thing you already want to believe, but pretty obviously untrue.

That said, some level of gender identification will always exist. Identifying as a gender does not mean that you have to buy into gender roles, it means you identify as that gender. A trans woman can get a pixie cut and wear pants and not be any less of a woman.

As far as I know, there has been a definitive difference between sex and gender. Sex is what someone is biologically. Gender is how someone identifies them self. To identify yourself as a certain sex that you are not is to presuppose that that sex has certain non-biological traits, and that by mimicking those traits you can justly identify yourself as that sex. For example, let's say that I am a male that likes to wear dresses and put on make up. According to current gender roles, this is a behavior that females exhibit that men do not. But wear does it logically follow that I can now justly identify myself as a woman just because I exhibit stereotypical effeminate behaviors? Why aren't simply a male that does not conform to my gender stereotype?

You would be a transvestite. It would not be until you identified as a woman that you'd become transsexual. You would do well to, perhaps, research this a bit more before you come to the conclusions you reach. They're pretty naive. We don't impose "You're transsexual" on people, they identify that way. So, it logically follows not because of the clothes, but because of the identification. There are common signs of the identification that do rather follow, but they aren't the point.

But identification is reached because they compare themselves to current gender stereotypes.

I disagree. "Having boobs", for example, is not a stereotype. They're comparing themselves to the core identity of that gender. Of course, I'm not trying to make an overly sweeping generalization, so I don't want to imply none of them do; it's entirely possible that some do. But some do because they genuinely feel their bodies are "wrong".

I think we both agree that having boobs does not make someone a woman. The fact is, a male can never posses the core traits of a female, because if he did then he would be a female. Males can only mimic traits they associate with females. Therefore it is simply false to call a male who identifies himself as a female, a woman. A more appropriate description is that he is a male who identifies himself as a female, but he is not a female. The problem with Bruce Jenner is that he is claiming he is a woman, but he isn't. He is a man who identifies himself as a woman.

A quick definition of transvestism from wikipedia states that it "is the practice of dressing and acting in a style or manner traditionally associated with the other sex." This presupposes the existence of gender stereotypes. Also, even biologically normal (not intersex) transsexuals and transvestites are still a certain sex biologically, regardless of how they identify themselves.

Transvestism is separate from transexualism.

Ok? The definitions I looked up made them out to be very similar. But feel free to explain the differences.

The push to get away from gender roles has not been a push to get away from genders as categories. And while it's true that someone born biologically one way but feeling the other may have issues as a nature of that biological fact, it's not much different than any other biological issue. Studies on trangendered folks tend to show differences in their brains, so the idea that a transgendered person wasn't born with the "brain" of the gender the identify seems likely false (though isn't entirely

Then maybe this comes down to how one defines sex. I would define sex based on chromosomes, and that from these chromosomes certain traits follow such as genitalia and the presence of testosterone or estrogen. I would not define sex by the behavior the person exhibits or how that person thinks.

Sex is biological. Gender is social.

So then we agree.

And one can believe that the sex of their body is improperly aligned with the sex of their identity, and do their best to cope with that.

If you woke up tomorrow as a woman, would you be comfortable in that body? Are you sure? Would it be unreasonable for someone to feel differently?

No, I probably would not feel comfortable, but that certainly does not make me any less a woman. My problem is that people claim themselves to be a different sex based on their mental state. Just because I may subjectively feel like a male does not mean I am a male.

One can physically mimic another sex, but as you note, it's chromosomally defined as a general rule. There's nothing stopping someone from changing their gender identification except people's refusal to recognize it.

And why should they recognize it if it has no bearing on how that person actually is? If progressives wanted to be consistent they would abolish the whole notion of gender and allow people to act how they want.

Ignoring practical reality in that way is a (stereotypically) conservative problem, not a liberal one. Some day maybe all gender positions will be broken down. Until then, they aren't.

It seems to me that there's no good reason not to recognize transgendered folks as what they identify as and very good reasons to do so.

Could you please explain how? As far as I see it, one's mental state has no bearing on their sex, and this whole concept of self identification is completely arbitrary.

Well, do you have a good reason NOT to recognize transgendered folks? I rather doubt it, which leads me to wonder, are you asking what the good reasons to recognize transgendered folks are?

I don't personally have a reason. The OP is about the inconsistency between progressives who wanted to abolish gender roles but also support transgenderism. Progressives ought to believe that the whole notion of gender should be abolished and people can act as they please. All that would exist is the person's sex, and that person can act any way they want to without being oppressed by stereotypes.

I'm sorry, this is just wrong. For example: I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm MORE in favor of abolishing state involvement in marriage altogether, but I recognize that's impractical and that, in the meantime, restricting SSM is utter nonsense. That's not me being "inconsistent" in the least. It's recognizing that even if you don't like the system, you work within the system.

Those two things don't come into conflict with each other. They are two solutions to the same problem and the solutions do not contradict. In the case of freedom from gender roles and transgenderism however, the solutions do directly contradict.

Transgenderism presupposes that the sexes act and behave a certain way, and that one can identify them self based on how the sexes stereotypically behave. Transgenderism cannot exist if there are no gender roles to begin with, but that is the exact goal those who seek freedom from gender roles are trying to accomplish.
Nolite Timere
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:43:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:35:45 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:23:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:19:27 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:14:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Similarly, I can be wholly in favor of the utter abolishment of all gendering, while recognizing that right now gendering exists.

That's like being wholly against corruption but still bribing officials because of practical necessity.

That's an unfair comparison, and moreover, when I speak of practical necessity, I'm NOT speaking of convenience, I'm speaking of necessity. So yeah, if you're against bribery, but you're going to be put in jail for no crime, and the only way out is bribery? It's not a "contradiction" to do the bribing, it's a recognition the system is messed up.

Sure, but then it's not quite true to say you're "wholly" against it. You're mostly against it, but not always.

Or to put it another way, you're against it when the costs of being against it are low.

No. Because the two are not inconsistent. Because gender roles exist at present--so the person would be seen (for example in a male to female transition) as a man. But I'm advocating that the person should be acknowledged as what they identify as (a woman). There's no net change to the total amount of gendering going on. Which is why, again, your analogy was unfair.

You can 100% be wholly against something, and still participate in it because there's no other option.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:43:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:35:45 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:23:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:19:27 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:14:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Similarly, I can be wholly in favor of the utter abolishment of all gendering, while recognizing that right now gendering exists.

That's like being wholly against corruption but still bribing officials because of practical necessity.

That's an unfair comparison, and moreover, when I speak of practical necessity, I'm NOT speaking of convenience, I'm speaking of necessity. So yeah, if you're against bribery, but you're going to be put in jail for no crime, and the only way out is bribery? It's not a "contradiction" to do the bribing, it's a recognition the system is messed up.

Sure, but then it's not quite true to say you're "wholly" against it. You're mostly against it, but not always.

Or to put it another way, you're against it when the costs of being against it are low.

There's nothing contradictory about recognizing the lesser of two evils.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:46:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:51:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:43:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:33:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think Burzmali sums it up pretty well.

But, to expand, Imposed gender roles are generally considered bad, and I think rightly so. I believe the stereotypical conservative argument you presented for preserving them has shown itself to be as false as trickle-down--plausible if it's the sort of thing you already want to believe, but pretty obviously untrue.

That said, some level of gender identification will always exist. Identifying as a gender does not mean that you have to buy into gender roles, it means you identify as that gender. A trans woman can get a pixie cut and wear pants and not be any less of a woman.

As far as I know, there has been a definitive difference between sex and gender. Sex is what someone is biologically. Gender is how someone identifies them self. To identify yourself as a certain sex that you are not is to presuppose that that sex has certain non-biological traits, and that by mimicking those traits you can justly identify yourself as that sex. For example, let's say that I am a male that likes to wear dresses and put on make up. According to current gender roles, this is a behavior that females exhibit that men do not. But wear does it logically follow that I can now justly identify myself as a woman just because I exhibit stereotypical effeminate behaviors? Why aren't simply a male that does not conform to my gender stereotype?

You would be a transvestite. It would not be until you identified as a woman that you'd become transsexual. You would do well to, perhaps, research this a bit more before you come to the conclusions you reach. They're pretty naive. We don't impose "You're transsexual" on people, they identify that way. So, it logically follows not because of the clothes, but because of the identification. There are common signs of the identification that do rather follow, but they aren't the point.

Technically incorrect according to Liberalism. A person would be transgender if they identified as the opposite sex but are not the opposite sex biologically. Surgery would be required before one could call his/her self transsexual.

The push to get away from gender roles has not been a push to get away from genders as categories. And while it's true that someone born biologically one way but feeling the other may have issues as a nature of that biological fact, it's not much different than any other biological issue. Studies on trangendered folks tend to show differences in their brains, so the idea that a transgendered person wasn't born with the "brain" of the gender the identify seems likely false (though isn't entirely

Then maybe this comes down to how one defines sex. I would define sex based on chromosomes, and that from these chromosomes certain traits follow such as genitalia and the presence of testosterone or estrogen. I would not define sex by the behavior the person exhibits or how that person thinks.

Sex is biological. Gender is social.

One can physically mimic another sex, but as you note, it's chromosomally defined as a general rule. There's nothing stopping someone from changing their gender identification except people's refusal to recognize it.

It seems to me that there's no good reason not to recognize transgendered folks as what they identify as and very good reasons to do so.

Could you please explain how? As far as I see it, one's mental state has no bearing on their sex, and this whole concept of self identification is completely arbitrary.

Well, do you have a good reason NOT to recognize transgendered folks? I rather doubt it, which leads me to wonder, are you asking what the good reasons to recognize transgendered folks are?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:51:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:39:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

I disagree. "Having boobs", for example, is not a stereotype. They're comparing themselves to the core identity of that gender. Of course, I'm not trying to make an overly sweeping generalization, so I don't want to imply none of them do; it's entirely possible that some do. But some do because they genuinely feel their bodies are "wrong".

I think we both agree that having boobs does not make someone a woman. The fact is, a male can never posses the core traits of a female, because if he did then he would be a female. Males can only mimic traits they associate with females. Therefore it is simply false to call a male who identifies himself as a female, a woman. A more appropriate description is that he is a male who identifies himself as a female, but he is not a female. The problem with Bruce Jenner is that he is claiming he is a woman, but he isn't. He is a man who identifies himself as a woman.

What, precisely, is the "core trait" of a female, besides the lack of a Y chromosome?

A quick definition of transvestism from wikipedia states that it "is the practice of dressing and acting in a style or manner traditionally associated with the other sex." This presupposes the existence of gender stereotypes. Also, even biologically normal (not intersex) transsexuals and transvestites are still a certain sex biologically, regardless of how they identify themselves.

Transvestism is separate from transexualism.

Ok? The definitions I looked up made them out to be very similar. But feel free to explain the differences.

A transvestite wears the other gender's clothing (it's in the word construction). Most transvestites, IIRC, are straight cisgendered men. They dont' identify as female, they aren't gay, they're simply processing the current gender societal situation in such a way that they feel more comfortable in women's clothing.

A transsexual or transgender person identifies as another gender. While that may ALSO come with a desire to dress in the other gender's stereotypical clothing, it's not necessary--and I've known transgender women who dressed no different than before their transition. That said, it's pretty common for transgendered folks to feel more comfortable in the "stereotypical" roles, if only because it makes them feel closer to what they feel they really are.

And one can believe that the sex of their body is improperly aligned with the sex of their identity, and do their best to cope with that.

If you woke up tomorrow as a woman, would you be comfortable in that body? Are you sure? Would it be unreasonable for someone to feel differently?

No, I probably would not feel comfortable, but that certainly does not make me any less a woman. My problem is that people claim themselves to be a different sex based on their mental state. Just because I may subjectively feel like a male does not mean I am a male.

So, you'd think that your feelings of maleness had no validity? Also you didn't really answer the other questions...

I'm sorry, this is just wrong. For example: I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm MORE in favor of abolishing state involvement in marriage altogether, but I recognize that's impractical and that, in the meantime, restricting SSM is utter nonsense. That's not me being "inconsistent" in the least. It's recognizing that even if you don't like the system, you work within the system.

Those two things don't come into conflict with each other. They are two solutions to the same problem and the solutions do not contradict. In the case of freedom from gender roles and transgenderism however, the solutions do directly contradict.

Not really. Society as it exists already genders--the person who identifies as a female is otherwise identified as male. The total net gendering doesn't change.

Transgenderism presupposes that the sexes act and behave a certain way, and that one can identify them self based on how the sexes stereotypically behave.

No it doesn't. You may as well argue that all gay men act stereotypially effeminate. It's just not true.

Transgenderism presupposes that the sexes act and behave a certain way, and that one can identify them self based on how the sexes stereotypically behave. Transgenderism cannot exist if there are no gender roles to begin with, but that is the exact goal those who seek freedom from gender roles are trying to accomplish.

No, it doesn't. Transgenderism is generally a body image issue: You look down at your body and you don't see yourself, you see a body alien to you. Coping with that takes many forms.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 7:53:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:46:30 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:51:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:43:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:33:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think Burzmali sums it up pretty well.

But, to expand, Imposed gender roles are generally considered bad, and I think rightly so. I believe the stereotypical conservative argument you presented for preserving them has shown itself to be as false as trickle-down--plausible if it's the sort of thing you already want to believe, but pretty obviously untrue.

That said, some level of gender identification will always exist. Identifying as a gender does not mean that you have to buy into gender roles, it means you identify as that gender. A trans woman can get a pixie cut and wear pants and not be any less of a woman.

As far as I know, there has been a definitive difference between sex and gender. Sex is what someone is biologically. Gender is how someone identifies them self. To identify yourself as a certain sex that you are not is to presuppose that that sex has certain non-biological traits, and that by mimicking those traits you can justly identify yourself as that sex. For example, let's say that I am a male that likes to wear dresses and put on make up. According to current gender roles, this is a behavior that females exhibit that men do not. But wear does it logically follow that I can now justly identify myself as a woman just because I exhibit stereotypical effeminate behaviors? Why aren't simply a male that does not conform to my gender stereotype?

You would be a transvestite. It would not be until you identified as a woman that you'd become transsexual. You would do well to, perhaps, research this a bit more before you come to the conclusions you reach. They're pretty naive. We don't impose "You're transsexual" on people, they identify that way. So, it logically follows not because of the clothes, but because of the identification. There are common signs of the identification that do rather follow, but they aren't the point.

Technically incorrect according to Liberalism. A person would be transgender if they identified as the opposite sex but are not the opposite sex biologically. Surgery would be required before one could call his/her self transsexual.

Eh, those definitions are often contentious, and I was trying to stay away from that. I happen to think personally that that's the best use of them, but I was trying to avoid that particular debate.


The push to get away from gender roles has not been a push to get away from genders as categories. And while it's true that someone born biologically one way but feeling the other may have issues as a nature of that biological fact, it's not much different than any other biological issue. Studies on trangendered folks tend to show differences in their brains, so the idea that a transgendered person wasn't born with the "brain" of the gender the identify seems likely false (though isn't entirely

Then maybe this comes down to how one defines sex. I would define sex based on chromosomes, and that from these chromosomes certain traits follow such as genitalia and the presence of testosterone or estrogen. I would not define sex by the behavior the person exhibits or how that person thinks.

Sex is biological. Gender is social.

One can physically mimic another sex, but as you note, it's chromosomally defined as a general rule. There's nothing stopping someone from changing their gender identification except people's refusal to recognize it.

It seems to me that there's no good reason not to recognize transgendered folks as what they identify as and very good reasons to do so.

Could you please explain how? As far as I see it, one's mental state has no bearing on their sex, and this whole concept of self identification is completely arbitrary.

Well, do you have a good reason NOT to recognize transgendered folks? I rather doubt it, which leads me to wonder, are you asking what the good reasons to recognize transgendered folks are?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 8:18:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 7:43:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:35:45 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:32:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:23:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:19:27 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/3/2015 7:14:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Similarly, I can be wholly in favor of the utter abolishment of all gendering, while recognizing that right now gendering exists.

That's like being wholly against corruption but still bribing officials because of practical necessity.

That's an unfair comparison, and moreover, when I speak of practical necessity, I'm NOT speaking of convenience, I'm speaking of necessity. So yeah, if you're against bribery, but you're going to be put in jail for no crime, and the only way out is bribery? It's not a "contradiction" to do the bribing, it's a recognition the system is messed up.

Sure, but then it's not quite true to say you're "wholly" against it. You're mostly against it, but not always.

Or to put it another way, you're against it when the costs of being against it are low.

No. Because the two are not inconsistent. Because gender roles exist at present--so the person would be seen (for example in a male to female transition) as a man. But I'm advocating that the person should be acknowledged as what they identify as (a woman). There's no net change to the total amount of gendering going on. Which is why, again, your analogy was unfair.

You can 100% be wholly against something, and still participate in it because there's no other option.

There may not be any practical difference, but there's a difference in emphasis. In your bribery example, you could take the position that it should be okay to bribe prison guards, that bribing prison guards is a basic right etc. OR could take the position that it's wrong to bribe prison guards but that people are forced into it by circumstances of a corrupt state and that the state needs to change.

Similarly, with transgenderism, you could take the position that transgenderism is a good thing and that people need to be supported and protected to undergo the process of changing genders. OR you could see it as a consequence of a dysfunctional social situation, and that we need to put pressure on society to change.

Each position detracts from the other, I think. If you support transgenderism it's implying that responding to gender roles in this absolute way is legitimate, which gives legitimacy to those roles. And if you argue that society needs to change so that people aren't forced into transgenderism, it's implying that there's something wrong with transgenderism, which is critical of the individuals.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 9:52:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:35:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/3/2015 1:29:51 PM, Burzmali wrote:
My understanding is that "progressives" aren't trying to deny that gender roles exist, but to challenge the emphasis that society places on those roles. My son is a perfect example of this. He's in elementary school, his favorite color is pink, and he is indiscriminate when it comes to playing with toys. He likes construction vehicles and Disney princesses. The "conservative" stance would be to discourage liking pink and playing with princess toys. But we aren't forcing those kinds of gender-specific roles on him. The idea is that externally-imposed roles are a problem, but self-adoption is okay. As the color pink exemplifies, gender-roles change in society all the time. Allowing them to help dictate what individuals feel they can and can't do is silly.

I too don't think that progressives deny the existence of gender roles, rather I think that progressives want to abolish gender roles all together. However, in order to be a transgender gender roles have an implied existence. You cannot support transgenderism and the abolishment of gender stereotypes because transgenderism presupposes gender stereotypes. Why can't Bruce Jenner simply be a male who has had cosmetic surgery and has taken chemicals to mimic effeminate features? Why must he be called a woman when he is not? Also, why should self adoption of gender roles be okay? I would agree that, from a progressive standpoint, it is not as harmful as externally imposed gender roles, but in principles it still stereotypes sexes which could be seen as an "oppression" on the two sexes.

What evidence do you have that progressives want gender roles to be abolished? What would that even mean? Gender roles are defined by the roles and traits that individuals in a society take/exhibit. You can't abolish that. It's a societal consciousness thing. What progressives want is for those roles to be dictated by individuals, not for individuals to be dictated by the roles.

I don't personally know enough about transgender issues to comment on that part of it, other than to say that I don't know if I could care less about what someone wants to do with their own body or how they want to identify themselves. If someone who is biologically male wants to use hormones and surgery to change his appearance and call himself a woman, why is that my business?

If you want to be technical, it isn't an issue of huge importance, rather something to speculate. I am arguing that we should care because it shows an inconsistency in progressive thought and because we ought not truly believe in something that has no bearing on a reality. We should not believe in the existence of unicorns and men should not call themselves women. Why delude ourselves?

Who's being delusional? As bladerunner points out, there's some evidence that transgendered individuals actually have brain chemistry that matches the gender they identify with. When there is a mind/body inconsistency, what's wrong with rectifying that?