UKC

Something Ive read a bit about and not long ago had a good thread on gender 
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/help_me_understand_-_why_gender...

But listening to BBC R2 now and hearing more of peoples experiences and opinions Im still quite confused by it. Through work and sometimes out socialising ive met several 'men' who are transgender and just my limited view on it is that they all seem insecure or unstable in some way - whether thats a reflection of how others interact with them or as part of their issue I dont know.

One thing that struck me that was said on the radio was (to paraphrase) you dont have to have female genitalia i.e a womb to be a woman. 
Surely the whole purpose of humans having a male/female gender is for reproduction and to propagate our genetics in a diverse way. I realise not every person does want to have children which is clearly a choice rather than a physical limitation. 

Why is it then that some people want to identify as a man or a woman if they will be unable to reproduce?
Your thoughts and musings please good folk.
As an aside - Im staring out at some nice dry rock whilst confined at work, bah!

In reply to The Potato:

A lot of it is Sex vs Gender. Gender being a more social construct, while Sex is more biological. If you disconnect the two then it becomes a lot more straight forward (or was for me anyway). Generally gender is based on sex but not always ala transgenders.

In reply to The Potato:

If you take reproduction out of the equation it might help.

Not all cis people want to reproduce.

In reply to The Potato:

The best way to consider the effects is probably to imagine how you would feel if people used the 'wrong' gender terms about you.

I think that if I were to have a vasectomy (for example and therefor couldn't reproduce), I would get upset if people refered to me as 'she' or 'it'.  Neither would necessarily be an insult, but whether we like it or not, gender (and the terms that go with it) are quite important to how we see ourselves and how we interact with other people.

In reply to MarkJH:

perhaps its time to have an asexual 'gender' then? As with a lot in culture/society its limitation of terminology that causes issues or has negative connotations.
Some languages base nouns on gender such as welsh or french where a chair might be feminine, its quite an odd concept for an english speaker, even then it doesnt make much sense.

Certainly calling some IT is not right, any suggestions for a third 'gender'?

In reply to The Potato:

Many societies have or have had just such a third gender. Transgender people are nothing new, and not rendered that way by insecurity or instability.

I would guess that any such insecurity comes from felling as they do in a society that is not very accepting.

In reply to The Potato:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Alternatives_to_generic_...

In reply to The Potato:

I get 4 dislikes for asking a question? smeg off

In reply to The Potato:

I agree with the sex vs gender, being the appropriate definitions.

There was a program on telly the other night, a kind of big brother but for the LGBT community. I initially thought im not watching this tripe, but then i heard a conversation between two transgender women, one was proud to be a trans woman, as it was difficult to admit and endure the process of change. The second one completely disagreed as she never considered herself male in the first place, so the transgender label was irrelevant. I thought that dialogue was interesting.

I wonder about the biological vs psychological debate, which is it? In evolutionary terms men and women are defined as separate, non interchangeable sexes. Ben Shapiro has some interesting things to say on this issue, he believes that the sex you are born with is your sex and if you think otherwise then the issue isn't biological it is psychological. 

Nothing much to say on the matter apart from 112 separate genders is a bit daft, will it stop at gender or will you be able to pick and choose whatever you want to be, because you identify as that particular thing?

 

 

 

In reply to The Potato:

You're talking about sex there not gender, not that sex is completely binary either.

Millennia of evolution (biological and social) hasn't eliminated all the nonconformity between strictly male/female and straight/gay biology or identity. That suggests to me it's not harmful to us as social animals, indeed that variety could be useful (most likely it's essentially neutral).

No idea but if it makes some sense to them that's pretty much all I need.

jk

In reply to The Potato:

That is an excellent reason to collect gender information when joining a dating site.  Not a particularly good reason to ask for it on a tax form or shopping website or job application.

Maybe the solution to needing 112 gender categories on forms, gendered pronouns and obsessing about how people 'identify' is to not ask about gender unless it is absolutely relevant.    Probably 99% of the time you need to refer to someone with a pronoun whether they are male or female is irrelevant so just say 'they'.   Equally 99% of organisations that collect gender information don't need it to carry out their service.

 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Totally agree, i just fail to understand how there can be 112 variations in gender?

In reply to The Potato:

youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA&

In reply to pasbury:

Not all "straight" people like being called cis, especially when extended to "Cishet".

In reply to The Potato:

Someone was probably reading your post in a lift

In reply to GoneFishing111:

From an answer to this exact question from Quora.com:

"As others have pointed out, it is because defining how many points are on a spectrum is impossible. However, as far as categorization is concerned, there are five generally accepted categories within the gender diverse community:

1. Male - (pretty sure you know this one)
2. Female - (ditto)
3. Nonbinary - neither male nor female, but concrete and definable
4. Genderfluid - a shifting experience of gender that can fluctuate to any point on a give section of the gender spectrum
5. Agender - neither male nor female, absent of gender experience

Keep in mind, this refers to gender, the neuropsychosocial phenomenon, not to sex, which is anatomical and endocrine.

Now, people like to subcategorize because it helps more accurately describe their experience. For example, I know someone who is XY male, whose gender experience is less masculine than male, but still masculine. He generally describes himself as male, but when probed, will describe himself as “demimale”, meaning mostly male in experience, but not entirely, without being genderfluid. Is this a case of “over-specificity”? Perhaps, but his internal experience of his gender is not fully male, and by finding a single word that can succinctly describe that, at least to those who understand specific labels, he can more accurately describe his experience. Again, gender is neuropsychosocial, so there are multiple factors at play.

Now, even as someone who has been a leader in the LGBTQ+ community before, there are some descriptors which seem… extra, to say the least. When specificity is used where a broader term will do, it can seem unnecessary, and for the most part I leave them be and use gender-neutral pronouns for them. Many people with the “hyper-specific” gender labels do not fully intend for them to be taken seriously either, and there is a growing trend of humor within the trans and gender nonconforming (TGNC) community in which obscure and ridiculous genders are alluded to in satire (e.g. “Tag your gender mine is lamp”).

TL;DR:
There are and there aren’t. Gender is a spectrum, so categorizing points within that spectrum can be difficult, but there are much more succinct and broad labels that suffice for most of them."

In reply to The Potato:

There are already several terms that encompass this.  Genderqueer is a catchall and may include any gender identification that is not exclusively masculine or feminine.  From wikipedia:

"Genderqueer people may identify as either having an overlap of, or indefinite lines between, gender identity;[2] having two or more genders (being bigender, trigender, or pangender); having no gender (being agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois); moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity (genderfluid);[3] or being third gender or other-gendered, a category which includes those who do not place a name to their gender.[4]"

As someone else said, there are also a variety of pronouns already in use for people who don't identify as male or female but lie somewhere along this spectrum.

However, the fact remains that some biological males identify as female and would prefer to call themselves female and use female pronouns. The same is true for biological females who identify as male. For a male who identifies as female, being called "he" can be very upsetting (as upsetting as it would be to you to consistently call you "she", assuming you are a cis male).  But using one of the alternative pronouns in the other link can be just as upsetting if you don't identify with that either.  

 

In reply to GoneFishing111:

Why not?  Most of us do this anyway.  We identify ourselves based on our hobbies, sports we participate in or follow, our jobs, the music we listen to, the clothes we wear, any sub-cultures we might identify with etc.  Most of us have multiple identities and many of them don't fit neatly into categories.  Why place any limits at all on how we personally identify ourselves?

In reply to kathrync:

True, not sure why its an issue though?

In reply to GoneFishing111:

It isn't, with most of us; in fact, many people resent being pigeon-holed or labelled by an unauthorised third party.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Pretty much what I was about to say

In reply to kathrync:

I should have written "For a biological male who identifies as female..."  Post is to old to edit now.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Yes, but I wanted to keep my point short. Never heard cishet before, but that is just another 'end of the scale' type definition isn't it? Pretty much nobody actually lives there.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Nobody ever discusses why the social gender constructs exist, which I suspect before mechanisation etc would have been biological. 

In reply to pasbury:

I hadn't heard it till this morning, when someone used it of me and people sharing my place on the gender spectrum. I think lots of us "live there".

Then someone with more knowledge of the subject than me jumped in and berated the offender for using such a slur.

It's just another example of needless labelling.

 

In reply to The Potato:

Another tangent on this to explore is why put your body and mind through such pain to change the way you are physically. We all do it to a minor extent through training for climbing, or running 50-100 miles which takes considerable determination and effort. But years of taking hormones, multiple surgeries etc surely can't be worth it trying to force your body to be something it's not even if your mind thinks otherwise

In reply to The Potato:

Maybe you could ask the people who've done it?

 

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

That is a very good point, it is something that should make no difference at all (wether gender or sex what difference does it really make in society to how you should trest others). I would love more discussion around why gender makes a difference in modern society.

In reply to The Potato:

5 Vs 10 now! Please don't feel disheartened asking such questions. It's much better to ask the questions than live in ignorance.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Are you accepting the label or not - I can't quite work out? I see labels like cishet (assuming it means a cis gendered heterosexual person) as quite unhelpful.

In reply to The Potato:

You're making it sound like a casual choice with huge consequences. The same argument has been made about homosexuality.

In reply to pasbury:

Isn't simply "person" sufficient? 

 

In reply to The Potato:

Perhaps because the experience of living with a body that's utterly different from how you feel it should be is even more painful?

Also, not every transgender person has (or wants) surgery: there's a broad spectrum to that experience and how people want to approach it (as with most things, really)

In reply to The Potato:

The whole point is that the way they are physically, by birth, causes such mental discomfort that they are prepared to endure the physical pain of gender reassignment.

imagine if you woke up one morning, with the body of a woman (assuming you are a man).

In reply to The Potato:

Read about people with body dysmorphic disorder on limbs - some people are convinced they should not have, say, a leg and when faced with a health care system telling them they are mentally ill, will freeze the leg in ice - for example - until it’s so badly damaged their health care system has to amputate it.

That tells me a lot about how strong their mind’s need for the change is.

I’ve never been able to square how gender reassignment surgery is medically accepted for dysmoprhia but limb amputation etc isn’t.  I don’t know if the two sorts of dysmorphia are fundamentally different, or if it’s that gender surgery is more relatable and easier to campaign for.  The last time I raised my views on UKC someone jumped down my neck accusing me of being transphobic which (a) was reading an intent to my message I don’t share and (b) left me none the wiser.

In reply to pasbury:

No, I reject it totally.

Since the person who told me it was offensive is genderqueer I am inclined to take his/her word on the matter.

 

In reply to captain paranoia:

Do I get to choose which one?

 

In reply to captain paranoia:

This is the concept I really struggle with. I really want to be accepting of everyone's chosen gender / sexuality etc. I have no problem accepting homosexuality, even though I'm straight, but I am completely unable to grasp how you can be in the wrong body. My body isn't one many people would choose but I think it's great because it's all I've known. I can't possibly know what it would be like to live in any other body, so feeling that what I have is incorrect and that my life would be better in a different body would just be thinking the grass is greener elsewhere. Waking up in a different body, due to an accident for example, is different. Living in a body that people recoil from is also an understandable reason to change. But being in an "acceptable" body and thinking you should be in a different one, that I just can't understand. It sounds like a psychological issue to me.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Can I be greedy and ask for two?

In reply to The Potato:

  What percentage of people the programme suggest are transgender? (not being familiar with the terminology I use the term to mean  something like "not adhering to either traditional male/female genders")

In reply to Hooo:

It is a psychological issue, but one thats accepted.

But like what was mentioned earlier not all are - body dysmorphic disorder on limbs.

Thats why i asked where does this identification concept stop?

In reply to GoneFishing111:

Psychological or psychiatric (I think of psychiatric as a brain hardware thing, but psychological as a software thing, but maybe this is not the right way to think of it...... )? Aren't transgender people's brains "hardwired" to the opposite gender to their body, so that they feel they have the "wrong" body?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes. It's starting to seem like there may be a genetic cause.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7689007.stm

In reply to Robert Durran:

Interesting, ive just had a very quick read through the causes of gender dysphoria, and it would appear that most of the research points to it being a biological issue, as in slightly different brain structure, androgen receptors and so on.

Ill be honest, id never really considered this before, interesting stuff.

In reply to Timmd:

Yes, a genetic/biological cause (like homosexuality) rather than a lifestyle choice which can be changed through counseling or whatever.

In reply to The Potato:

some of this is discussed in the previous post I linked to at the start and it is quite interesting, however I still cant understand the concept of having the wrong gender body. 

In reply to The Potato:

As far as i understand it, to look at they are male, and assumed male due to the appendage(s) they are born with, but internally their physical brain makeup and genetic mapping if you will, leans or is, more female than male.

In reply to The Potato:

Understand in what sense, do you mean understand in imagining what it might be like?

In reply to Hooo:

You could google about what it's like perhaps, and find out about how it's distressing/depressing to masturbate because of one's body feeling wrong, and not seeing the right gender when one looks in the mirror, and feeling depressed after having sex? 

That's not to sound sarky, more that googling to look into it could be informative...

In reply to The Potato:

Do you need to understand?  There are many many things that there is no possible way someone can understand unless they have actually experienced them.  I don't think anyone needs to understand in order to show compassion. The only thing that is required is acceptance.

In reply to The Potato:

Well I learned something here, I have never heard the term cis before but apparently it applies to me. Having googled the term though I am very confused. I have never seen so many acronyms before. Is their a section of the community that spends all their time coming up with new defenitions that can be turned in to catchy acronyms?. 

I think we should just scrap the lot rather than have male, female and apparently 110 more names for subtle variations in between everyone should just be referred to as a moomin.

I would no longer be Mr Hewitt, I would be Mo Hewitt, my wife would not be Mrs Hewitt, she would be Mo Hewitt. Actually I phrased that wrong rather than say she I should have said Mo. Not sure if wife would be acceptable and certainly not "my wife"  that implies ownership or her, sorry ownership of Mo.

In reply to The Potato:

Lots of nicely worded comments there thank you everyone.

Do do I need to understand no I guess not, no more than we need to understand what's at the centre of our galaxy or at the centre of an atom but it's interesting nevertheless. 

Knowing helps us understand what we are and how we relate to each other and the world around us and yes it can help with empathy through understanding 

I'm being philosophical about this and not judgemental in any way

In reply to Timmd:

But lots of people with perfectly normal bodies look in the mirror and don't think their body is right, someone with anorexia for instance. But in most of these cases we label this as a psychological disorder, something to be cured. 

I'm wary of Googling this sort of thing, because people with psychological disorders are very capable of rationalising their feelings and writing vast quantities of convincing arguments to back up what they feel. 

In reply to Dax H:

It's a minefield. 

But if you don't like the badge some self appointed social analyst has applied to you, you can reject it.

In reply to The Potato:

how does this work in the world of sport or athletics?

As a keen cyclist I came across some news a little while ago about a mountain biker who had been competing in the mens races, had a gender change and 12 months later was in the womens races and beat them all by a considerable margin. Clearly not an issue for casual activities but when competitively participating for a prize or money then it is quite confusing surely?

 

Under the banner of gender equality which seems to be all the news recently why should there be a separate mens and womens category? 

In reply to Hooo:

The difference being, that people who change sex become 'comfortable in their own skin' and find they can have sex and enjoy it, and what feels wrong about their bodies is no longer present in their lives, and they don't feel the urge to take their own life to whatever degree they may feel like that (a proportion of those who don't transition despite feeling that they're the wrong gender do go onto take their own lives). Anorexia doesn't solve anything at all, it's a condition which can develop due to intense stress or similar - the two are different in a number of ways.

If you're not going to google about it, you won't get any further in understanding it, I don't suppose? Post on UKC instead about how you can't understand it...  

You've a fairly straight forward choice as I see it, you can wonder aloud about it on here, and hope other people know something you don't, or you can google about it if you do want to understand it. The internet is probably the best resource we have for finding out about things.

In reply to Hooo:

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/05/transgender-kids-brains-resemble-gender...

Here you go, the brains of transgender children resemble their gender identity (who they feel themselves to truly be), rather than their biological body. 

In reply to Dax H:

No there isn't.

Keeping in mind that the Native Americans used to recognise 7 genders, I'm thinking that what is happening is that we're in the first stages of people being able to re/discover who they are, beyond the binary definitions, and that eventually social norms will become something which everybody with a willingness to look beyond their own nose or personal experience (one's personal experience is probably always going to be pretty limited I guess) can get along fine with.

I've recently started to get to know somebody who informally refers to them self as 'genderful', but I guess 'gender queer' might be the more commonly known term, because of not being transgender, and not feeling like they quite fit into the male gender (being male anatomically) while not wanting to change their body to more closely fit the female gender, either. They like to be referred to as 'they' rather than 'he', which seems fair enough,  and if they're gender queer or genderful - who am I to argue? It's hardly going to ruin my life. 

In reply to kathrync:

So if someone tells me they have seen a ghost, do I have to accept that? I'm not objecting to accepting the transgender experience, just the general principle!

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Why are you objecting to the general principle? There was some research done which found that the more homophobic a man is, the better he is at sensing whether another man is gay. This 'ability to sense' for want of a better term, goes both ways, with gay people generally being able to get a sense for who is homophobic too (it's pretty important for survival or just more generally having a nice life). Are you going to question either of these experiences, or accept them as something lived by people who are (presumably) different to yourself, if yes for these, why not accept it for transgender people - too?

Why do you need to understand the transgender experience to be able to accept it, when it's nothing otherworldly like ghosts? 

In reply to Timmd:

Because is someone told me they had experience seeing a ghost, I would tell them they were talking bollocks because there is absolutely no evidence that ghosts exist.

But those are specifics - as I said I was objecting to the general principle and specifically said I had no reason to doubt the transgender experience since I am not aware of any evidence which makes me doubt it.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Nobody else has mentioned ghosts (AFAIK), which is what confused me about what principle you're objecting to. What principle are you objecting to - just accepting their word for it for life experiences which aren't otherworldly (which you haven't lived yourself)? You've thrown me, rather.

In reply to Timmd:

To spell it out: I was simply using it as a counterexample to show that the principle that you should always accept that a claimed experienced is real is wrong.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's not a very good example, then, is it? Don't get shirty with me, I've been consistently polite.

In reply to Timmd:

Well, if you believe in ghosts then you are a person with whom attempting rational discussion is clearly futile.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I don't. You're the one who brought them up, as an example of why one shouldn't believe the recounted experiences of other people which one can't relate to. I've grounded everything I've posted in reality.  Somehow you've decided I'm at fault, because I couldn't get why ghosts had been brought up.

In reply to Timmd:

No, I brought them up to show that you shouldn't ALWAYS believe that recounted experiences of other people are real.

Not at fault - just that you didn't understand my point.

 

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

''Do you need to understand?  There are many many things that there is no possible way someone can understand unless they have actually experienced them.  I don't think anyone needs to understand in order to show compassion. The only thing that is required is acceptance.''

The thing is, you brought up the principle that one should always believe the recounted experiences of other people are real, in response to this post in quotes, but always believing the recounted experiences of other people isn't actually mentioned, the original point/post says nothing about always accepting other people's word for life, it's more that there's so many experiences that it's impossible to understand without living them, that in the end one just has to accept them. 

You've picked up on something to find contentious, that one always should, where it's only you who has brought it up in the first place. It's like you've created an argument out of nothing - nobody else has brought up always taking people's word for things, it's just that one generally has to - as part of respecting each other's narrative.

In reply to Timmd:

I could show compassion for someone suffering a delusion (such as believing they had seen a ghost) without accepting it is real.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

What is it that you reject? You've said that you "live there", so it seems you identify with the gender identity it is intended to describe. Is it simply the name you don't like, or do you feel that what it denotes is too rigid, and you want the freedom to live there a bit less?

In reply to Ciro:

Most of the people I know don't know what cis means. It might be different  in your social circles  or on UKC, I don't know, but I'm talking about everyday discourse.

I look forward to a truly inclusive society.

The more we compartmentalise people into sub groups with names which differentiate us from other groups in society, the less I like it, and the further we move away from that goal.

 

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

There is no hardware/software distinction in the brain: the pattern of neural firing depends on the pattern of neural connection depends on the pattern of neural firing...

Since the brain is a physical organ of the body, what meaning is there in distinguishing a "biological problem" from a "psychological problem"? Cartesian dualism is unfashionable, to say the least.

If you think of the conscious experience at any one moment as the pattern of neural firing in the brain, which is dependent on the pattern of physical connections between neurons, then yes, the conscious experience is due to "hard wiring". But then, once you've learnt to drive, the ability to drive is "hard wired" because you've created the neural connections. 

Can you unlearn to drive? The connections are there, so until you don't use them and they get repurposed, then no you can't. I would think that the "hardwiring" - the pattern of neural connectivity that makes a person trans is deeper and broader than than the hardwiring of being a driver. Which is why it's easier to have surgery to make your body more like your gender identity than it is to change your gender identity to match your body.

It seems to me that since homosexuals have been formally accepted into social institutions, the craving to look at a minority and say "look at them! Aren't they weird! Is it a choice? Were they born that way? How peculiar!" has been passed on to trans people. When they're accepted as just a way that a small proportion of the population simply are, another even smaller minority will become the subject of fascination and abuse.

 

In reply to Timmd:

You're correct but I do miss encyclopaedias. 

 

In reply to Timmd:

Says who? 

In reply to The Potato:

My issue with the transgender debate, is not whether or not it is understandable for another human being to feel a different way, or whether or not it is a mental health issue to be gender dysmorphic.  If the best way for them to feel happier and enjoy their short time on the planet is to identify them separately from the Gender (Man or Women) associated with their sex (XY/XX) that they were born, then fair enough, life is too short to spend it unhappy!

However, what I do have a major issue with is the misappropriation of the Gender "Women".  "Women" is historically used to describe a Women with XX chromosomes who is happy to be categorised by Gender with the majority of other Women.  Therefore..." a Trans women is a women" in my opinion is plan wrong.  It seems that a (predominately) male (XY chromosome) group has decided that they want to change the meaning of the Gender "women" and everything it stands for.  Surely this is the epitome of misogyny and patriarchy!  

I think the 7 Gender native american model (or something similar) is far better (the 199 Genders is just a bit ridiculous as seems to me to be a lot of attention seeking), if someone wants to identify as agender, or gender queer, then let them get on with it, and support them even if you can't understand it.

But...Leave my Gender alone, and I do not need the preffix "cis" I am a "women" with XX chromosomes and that is how my Gender title shall remain.

 

 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Cartesian dualism...ok.

Anyway, good point.

I was trying to ask wether it was a choice, have they chose to be like they are (trans) or is it completely out of their hands with their body being fundamentally different.

Since asking that i have learned what i needed to know.

 In reality it shouldn't matter either way.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yes, you are right. It is all physical. The distinction I was trying to make is whether or not somebody is destined to be transgender (or homosexual) from birth due to their genetic make up. So by hardware/software I meant like the distinction between my laptop as it came out of the box and with any programmes I might add later. My choice of terms was probably inappropriate.

So you could perhaps forget how to drive, or if not drive, maybe forget how to do long division, but could someone, even in principle, forget how to be trans or homosexual?

 

 

 

In reply to The Potato:

Sport really is the arena in which this issue is likely to remain problematic. I don't see there being an easy compromise between decent laws protective of the rights of individuals and the desire to maintain a rule based relatively level playing field in sport. I suppose the existence of exciting competitive para-sport may indicate a technical solution is achievable if we're willing to pursue it. Long run, my guess is some sports like football will adapt a lot easier than swimming or athletics by simply removing gender barriers to mainstream competitions (while maintaining gendered, age segregated etc competitions for those that wish to compete in that environment), plenty of sports already do offer mixed competition of course.

jk

In reply to The Potato:

 

I think the way to approach it is that the brain is a highly complex organ that filters the entirety of our reality and our perceptions of it including our perceptions of ourselves. Normal is really a point on a sliding scale of those perceptions and is a product of many different factors, chemistry, environment, experience, diet, etc etc. I would consider myself male and masculine but I am definitely towards the female range of “traits” than male. Most people have the ability to square their perception of themselves with the physical body they inhabit but a few people don’t. Most commonly this relates to gender, people believe that they are born into the wrong body but there are also people who believe that they are a different species to their physical body youtube.com/watch?v=AKRr94ssnQo&

Or that their limbs don’t belong to them or even that they are dead. Perception of reality is a powerful thing but it is how we define ourselves

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

So if I were to say that I identify as a mouse trapped in the body of a human, should I be given the same respect as a trans person, or should I be treated as a deluded and offered counseling/medication to rid myself of the delusion?

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

"The thing is, you brought up the principle that one should always believe the recounted experiences of other people are real, in response to this post in quotes, but always believing the recounted experiences of other people isn't actually mentioned, the original point/post says nothing about always accepting other people's word for life, it's more that there's so many experiences that it's impossible to understand without living them, that in the end one just has to accept them."

Thanks Timmd - this is much more eloquent than my own attempts to explain what I meant and hits the nail on the head!

Sometimes, acceptance of someone's experience is also important though, even if their experience doesn't match reality.  From my own experience, an example might be my Grandad who had crippling OCD and believed that if he didn't give into certain compulsions my Mum and her brother would die.  That was obviously never the case, but for him the experience was very real and the most compassionate way to relate to him was to accept that.  To clarify, I do believe that gender dysphoria really is real, this was intended as an example of when the equivalent of accepting that someone has seen a ghost might be the compassionate thing to do.

Having said that, generally if someone tells me they have seen a ghost, I would reject that outright and look for a rational explanation.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Can you reasonably expect a fulfilling life in society while living as a mouse? If so, why not.

I knew a chap at uni who believed he was a wolf, apparently it's common enough there's actually a specific name for the condition, clinical lycantropy. I hope he got some help.

jk

In reply to SAF:

And transgender men? Are they just more evidence of the patriarchy flexing its muscles?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well if you are happy as a mouse

 

In reply to jkarran:

No, because I keep suffering transmusphobic bullying.

 

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I am reasonably happy, but I can't help wishing I was actually a tiger.

 

In reply to kathrync:

Thanks for the clarification. I think there was some crossed wires in what was being meant by "accepted", "understood" and rationally explained.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Then being pragmatic about it you and I have a choice to make, which issue is easier to tackle given how many fellow mousemen are suffering the same fate? Of course counting mousemen is tricky, are you rare or just well hidden? It seems trans people aren't that rare and their plight is real.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

There are probably many of us just in your own house - we just don't come out all that often. It's a scary, confusing world out there beyond the the skirting board.

 

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Like most traits, there's most probably a genetic predisposition that once the environmental influences have had their effect produces physical, structural changes in the brain that are irreversible. 

With homosexuality, there's cases of people having brain damage and when the neurons grow back and reconnect, they turn out gay (the patient, not the neurons). 

I suspect it would take something like a massive stroke, if the trait is due to a deep and broad web of connections laid down in early brain development. 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So do you know if there are any cases of identical twins, one of whom has grown up straight and the other gay (or trans and non-trans)?

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Mate's wife's twin sister is lesbian.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I had a colleague who identified as a pair of curtains. I told him he needed to pull himself together..

In reply to spartacus:

I laughed at this more than I should have...

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, but but have you ever seen a mouse skin rug? 

In reply to SAF:

An interesting point.

I see a lot of people now not accepting any gender, they want to be fluid in their role. But you raise the issue that gender in society isn't just about what clothes you wear or if you have a willy or not but how society as a whole reacts to you. I read of a woman who transgendered to male and suddenly found that there opinion became "valid" within the society they were in. Is a trans-man therefore a woman with extra privilages?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Not sure. I know that all claims of a "gay gene" have turned out to be bollocks, and I'm pretty sure a certain degree of heritability has been shown (usually from twins studies?). For homosexuality the "younger brother" effect is pretty robust I think, suggesting something about conditions in the womb affected by previous pregnancies... Haven't looked at the latest reviews of research, but there's plenty of it. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

or even worse if they are conjoined twins?!

In reply to spartacus:

I had a boyfriend who thought he was a Wilton carpet. I said "The trouble is you let people walk all over you".

In reply to Removed Userclaire14:

What does he care, he can get laid for free by Carpetright.

In reply to aln:

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/opinions/two-spirits-one-heart-f...

You were right to ask, pardon me, it's 5 genders. 'Lots of people including native Americans' is who says.

That does make things slightly simpler, recognising 5 genders rather than 7. 

In reply to SAF:

I get the impression that it's more about male to female transsexuals want to be recognised as the people they feel themselves to have always been mentally (and emotionally too I dare say), more than any kind of misogyny against females. Having transitioned, they'll be having to deal with the effects of the patriarchy along with anybody else who lives as a female, going on accounts of male to female transsexuals finding they can tend to be listened to less by men in professional settings.

As far as the social construct goes, rather than the biological definition, it might seem to be that they fit the definition, but I can appreciate that you feel your gender should be recognised for what it is, with women having been airbrushed out of history somewhat, and marginalised in certain ways. 

I should have double checked about the native American gender model, it was/is actually 5 rather than 7. If the patriarchy didn't exist, might you feel differently about male to female transsexuals wanting to be called women, and what do you feel about male to female transsexuals going to women only gatherings?

I find it interesting how diverse opinions on this can seem to be, with some females saying 'Of course male to female transsexuals are women', and some women saying they're definitely not. I find myself wondering if it comes down to individual experiences. 

I hope the 'neutrally enquiring tone' I intend is coming across in this post, I'm not at all wanting to find something to go 'Aha!' over like sometimes happens on here. 

In reply to Timmd:

Salient example on where subjective gender classification can lead:

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/23/labour-suspends-activist-c...

"Labour has suspended an activist who attempted to stand as women’s officer while claiming he identified as a woman “on Wednesdays”, as the party’s ruling body reaffirmed transgender women were eligible to stand on all-women shortlists."

 

 

In reply to Pan Ron:

I rather think he's been suspended for being a twanker. Hmmn, interesting, too.

It sets me thinking that somebody has gone to the trouble of having surgery on their body to change themselves anatomically, they should probably be recognised by society as male or female (depending on the circumstances), and that it's the present inequalities in society which need to be the focus, so that women don't feel marginalised when male to female transsexuals (seek to) identify as women. It possibly seems to be the misogyny etc, which is at the root of opposition to transsexual binary gender recognition, that if society was equal and fair, the reaction might be more one of 'fair enough'.

I appreciate this is from the perspective of myself being a man and not a transsexual, of course, from experience I know that people who haven't gone through the same things oneself has, and talking with an authoritative air, is pretty annoying...

In reply to Timmd:

Unfortunately a (presumably/hopefully) minority of vocal trans-women have shown a great deal of misogyny towards women, with trans women using there naturally larger physic and muscular strength to attack and intimidate feminists expressing their right to freedom of speech on more than one occasion recently (speakers corner & an incident in Bristol come to mind).  

I strongly believe that Chromosomal Males can NOT be a women, or know what it is like to be a women. Being a women is not a state of mind, or simply a social construct, it is decades of cyclical hormones changing our mood and how we make sense of the world on a day by day basis, it is having and using (if we want to and are fortunate) a female reproductive system, and then forging a way in the world with all this going on in the background.  Without experiencing this from day one to say you "feel" like you are a women and therefore are a women, is not a possibility in my mind.  Saying you feel "wrong" in your body and relate to women more than men in some way is totally fair enough and why we shouldn't automatically pigeon hole people, and these people can say they are any Gender between Man and Women, just not that they are actual "women" (or "man" if it is female to male). 

Not to worry, it's quite interesting to learn that what we perceive as "progressive" ideas in this country at the moment, has been around for millennia in other cultures.  It's always a good day when you learn something new!

I don't think trans-women should be going into women only spaces where it might be of detriment to ANY women there ( eg, female only refuge where women have been victims of rape and extreme violence at the hands of physically stronger males).  I also don't think Trans-women should be participating in womens sport, in terms of taking titles and achievements away from XX women (at whatever level), but more significantly in contact sports, putting women at risk of physical harm. 

I however can't get too excited over the argument that transwomen in women's toilets puts women at risk.  There are sadly those who would take advantage of this situation and use it as a means to access and attack women, but if they didn't have that specific opportunity those individuals would find another way to access and attack women, if that is their goal. 

I do have issues with Transwomen taking protected female only health care roles, cervical screening nurse comes to mind, as it could put women off accessing that healthcare (a basic right) to their detriment.

It's fine to be enquiring, I would recommend the feminist chat forum on mumsnet for some really intelligent and well informed discussion on Transgender rights and the implications it has for women's rights.  Some of the posters hidden behind their user names are pretty high flying academics and politicians.  

In reply to SAF:

I didn't know that transsexuals had actually attacked women there, but I was aware of discord.  I came across a comment on facebook that reported domestic abuse in lesbian relationships is (proportionally) higher than in heterosexual ones, but don't put any store by that until I've verified it.

What about that female athlete (who's name escapes me) who was on TV talking about finding out that she didn't have a womb or a functioning reproductive system when she was in here teens, would you say that she doesn't know what it's like to be a woman like other women do? 

It seems to be the threat or fear of violence (or anything to do with violation) which is your concern, to do with women feeling safe. That's fair enough. I've a friend who's been through horrible things as a woman at the hands of men, and would concur that women need to have places they can feel safe in.

I guess what I have lurking in the back of my mind which is causing disquiet, is that it can almost seem like discrimination, that if somebody is born of the wrong gender, that even after transitioning to the gender they have always felt themselves to be since early childhood, there will be some women who won't recognise them as female because of their 'accident of development' in the womb if you like.  It somehow doesn't seem quiet fair, when for their whole lives they've been wanting to become women (as closely as possibly), that some people will tell them they're not. I can see where you're coming from, but can you see where they might be, too?

 

In reply to Timmd:

There will always be people who unfortunately are born with anomalies, particularly chromosomal syndromes (I had an Uncle/Aunt who died in infancy due to one of these syndromes).  But my understanding is that these individuals are the exception not the rule, and that the vast majority of transgender people have a normal set of chromosomes and a normal functioning set of reproductive organs, and some even have heterosexual relationships in which they produce offspring prior to transitioning.  I think it just makes it impossible to discuss these things if we focus on the extreme and exceptional cases.  

But equally it could be seen as discrimination to women for male-female transgender (the significant majority of transgender people at 3x that of female to male according to a quick google search) to come along and erode hard fought for and still deeply unequal womens rights. 

 

In reply to SAF

Mumsnet: Really intelligent and well informed?

Mumsnet wasn't bad until the TERFs  utilised it to spread hate. In much the same way, SAF is hoping to do on UKC.

For those of you who would like to do more than just  bolster your own ignorance, try this:
http://andiepasdedeux.com/mumsnet-terfs-youre-not-real-women/

and looking at her profile,  SAF is/was a nurse, with 2 degrees, aware that the binary she tries to claim as XX/XY  is nowhere near as clear cut, so it's not willful ignorance when she spouts the following

""Women" is historically used to describe a Women with XX chromosomes who is happy to be categorised by Gender with the majority of other Women.  Therefore..." a Trans women is a women" in my opinion is plan wrong.  It seems that a (predominately) male (XY chromosome) group has decided that they want to change the meaning of the Gender "women"

In her time in the NHS, she will have had to consider the issues of equality and diversity  as part of mandatory training.  Mandatory, because  treating people with kindness is a basic tenet of patient care,

"I strongly believe that Chromosomal Males can NOT be a women, or know what it is like to be a women. Being a women is not a state of mind, or simply a social construct, it is decades of cyclical hormones changing our mood and how we make sense of the world on a day by day basis, it is having and using (if we want to and are fortunate) a female reproductive system, and then forging a way in the world with all this going on in the background.  Without experiencing this from day one to say you "feel" like you are a women and therefore are a women, is not a possibility in my mind.  Saying you feel "wrong" in your body and relate to women more than men in some way is totally fair enough and why we shouldn't automatically pigeon hole people, and these people can say they are any Gender between Man and Women, just not that they are actual "women" (or "man" if it is female to male). "

Presumably you treat transgender patients on gender appropriate wards etc,  in line with this transphobic view?

"I don't think trans-women should be going into women only spaces where it might be of detriment to ANY women there ( eg, female only refuge where women have been victims of rape and extreme violence at the hands of physically stronger males)."

She is aware, or, given that she should be with the vehemence of her bile, that Women's Refuges have her fear mongering already covered, e.g
https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/resources/single-sex-service-trans-gu...

Way to go, SAF!
(I'm in two minds to report this to your professional body should I find out who you are)

 

In reply to Caird:

Yeh I know, surprising that women can be intelligent!!

 

In reply to Caird:

So basically you are trying to close down a civilised, and so far (I think) very polite discussion, about something that is in no way set in stone.  

I have found Timmds very informative post compliment other very different views I have read on this subject.

My views on a complex subject in no way effect how I treat my patients, in the same way as my views on euthanasia/ assisted suicide, another very high profile and controversial area currently, would ever influence my practice, in that I would never even engage in a conversation about it in a patient/HCP capacity as this would contravene current professional codes of practice, it does not mean that I can not question it and discuss it.  Likewise my religion, if I had one, and I am perfectly entitled to have one, would not influence my practice, and is therefore got nothing to do with my professional registration.

And finally if you are planning on trawling twitter to get me shut down, as has been happening to other feminist this week, I'll save you the effort, as I have never and never will have a twitter account.

In reply to Caird:

Nothing quite like casual everyday sexism, what makes you think I'm not a Doctor with 2 degrees, or any other HCP for that matter?!  But I'm a women in healthcare so therefore must be/have been a nurse!!

 

In reply to Timmd:

I took him to be highlighting a logical hole in the "self-identify" movement; the ability to, from one moment to the next, self-identify as anything and that suggesting otherwise is tantamount to oppression.

It is entirely possible my paedophile alter-ego could conveniently choose to self-identify as a female for the purposes of access to girls changing rooms.  I'm not sure parents at the local pool would appreciate it, but a whole lot of time is spent by trans-activists trying to win that exact right for self-identified females.  We have to be at least willing to acknowledge the unintended, or unpleasant, consequences.

So, on one hand, we are being asked accept that people can choose to identify as whoever they want to be at any given time.  On the other hand granting this with no subjective judgement isn't going to work - as the Labour activist and as the pedo examples show. 

I've run in to this first-hand in a university library recently, simply telling some noisy students to adhere to the silence requirements - foolishly using the word "girls" allowed them to derail the entire request and accuse me of harassment and assuming their self-identification.  The issue is being weaponised, exactly is you'd expect if you allow a one-sided, over-wrought embrace of subjective classification with no counter.

A line needs to be drawn. But to say so risks howls of transphobia.

I haven't followed the rest of the thread, but the problem with that definition is it essentially mandates surgery and likely a lack of recognition until such time as the surgery takes place.  That clearly isn't going to work (is surgery "the chop" or would breast implants be sufficient?  What about the fully authentic looking female who keeps the cock and balls for old time's sake?).

I'm uncomfortable with laying the blame at the feet of males and misogyny for a turf war (pun intended) that is the solely between females and male-to-female trans-persons.  

Equally annoying is that males might be considered the only group not to have a valid opinion on this.  Females, given the TERF-Trans battle, are considered legitimate stakeholders in the debate.  Why not males?  Discussion is the only way forward and if you deny an entire gender validity in holding an opinion then that seems regressive.  

As gender classifications are near universal human language traits, and as they serve as broad brush tools for classifying humans - as much as tall-short, young-old, white-black - they aren't necessarily expected to be 100% accurate.  I'm really not that sure much is gained by constant re-classification and an endless array of gender pronouns to suit every persons mood on the day. 

Maybe some people are just best called out for being bonkers and narcissistically self-centered, regardless of whether they are trans-, cis-, or attack-helicopter- gendered.

In reply to Caird:

Report what? Saying something you disagree with on the internet?

I can see that the view "Chromosomal Males can NOT be a women, or know what it is like to be a women" might feel hurtful to some people, but SAF has spent the time explaining precisely what she means by this and why. As such, might it not be better to engage at the same level and explain why you think she should change her mind about what she considers it means to be a woman?

I don't think she expresses any hatred towards trans people, and in attacking and threatening her I think you make your own position appear less credible.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Thanks for the support Jon, but I think this thread has been hijacked by Trans Rights Activists trawling the internet for these types of discussions.

Tim...it has been a pleasure having this discussion with you today, and whilst we will have to agree to disagree about our views on transgenderism (is that a word?), thanks for the little nugget of information about native Americans and their 5 genders...I will have to look it up and read a bit more.  

I have reported Caird to UKC Mods due to their threats and am awaiting a reply.

Hope you all have a safe and sunny weekend climbing

SAF 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Here's a good answer to your question:

youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA&

In reply to Tom Valentine:

A noble goal, however probably a lot easier to pursue when society is generally organised to cater pretty well for your gender identity. 

I can't say I think of myself as a cishet male, or that gender expression is something that comes up much in my social circles, however if I go on a dating site for example, I can say I'm a man looking for a woman, everyone will be generally expecting I am a heterosexual man with a man's body and there will be nothing for me to explain.

If giving a label to that helps others to normalise their position on the gender spectrum then I don't really see a detriment to me from it... It's just shorthand.

When I was a kid, a lot of guys would reject the idea of being classed as a heterosexual man - they'd class themselves as a "real man". These days it's quite normal to refer to yourself as straight or gay and I don't see that society has become less inclusive by adopting and normalising that naming convention.

In reply to Ciro:

Perfectly happy with "straight". People know what it means and can also pronounce it. Anything else is uncalled for.

In fact it's "unwarranted, unwanted and will not be accepted"

In reply to SAF:

  It gets better. Apparently some trans-women have been attacking (verbally) lesbians who for some reason don't fancy women with penises. (I'm not entirely sure that the article I read on this wasn't a spoof but I fear not).

  The outright aggression of some of these trans-women strikes me as (trigger warning: gender stereotype alert) ,well, a bit masculine.

In reply to The Potato:

The big question is, don't people have anything better to do than obsess about gender? 

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Cis (pronounced like sister) I presume comes from chemistry (where cis and trans isomers are molecules with the same atomic structure, but with different orientations, so quite apt).

If we talk about it, soon everyone will know what it means and how to pronounce it, so that won't be a problem.

Some people are calling for it.

That's the bit I don't really get. If it helps make someone else's life a bit easier, and doesn't (as far as I can figure out, let me know if you can see ) cause us any detriment, why not accept it?

In reply to RomTheBear:

Trans people have a significantly higher rate of suicide than cis. That makes it something worth obsessing about in my book...

In reply to Ciro:

I was talking about gender, not about suicide rates.

Sure, there is value in talking about suicide rates. However I'm not sure there is much value in obsessing about gender identity ? 

It seems to me the rather vague notion of gender identity has been weaponised to death by both the alt right and the hard left. It's nothing less than identity politics, us/them, etc etc.. 

I would go as far as saying that the level of obsession about gender identity is probably contributing to feelings of inadequacy and social pressure that those in the minority have to endure.

Personnaly I do not give a single f*ck whether X or Y identifies as male female or trans or as an unicorn, I'm more than happy for everybody to do whatever suits them. 

 

In reply to Ciro:

As I implied, most people I know are not chemists and are therefore not familiar with it

It will be a problem if it is applied to me since I don't consent to the label. It's up to me to decide if it's offensive, not the user.

Who? Are people you classify as "cis" calling for it? I very much doubt it. 

It was a climbing quotation that has stuck with me over the years. I added it in an attempt to lighten the tone, hence

As you said in your very reasonable earlier comment, most people think it normal to refer to yourself as straight or gay. It's good enough for most people I know.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

It's Latin - "cis" is just the opposite of "trans" - so it's been around for a while.  Outside of Dead Languages ( ), it turns up in History and Astronomy, and other places, as well as in Chemistry

How strange: I think it's quite useful to have a nice short term to denote people who aren't trans.  It makes talking about things that might be different between the two groups (but common within them) easier and faster, and who wouldn't want that?

In reply to Niall_H:

The overwhelmingly vast majority of people that apparently fall under the category 'Cis' are quite happy to continue to be described as they are currently i.e. Male or Female. 
Why not keep that convention and assume that anyone who states that they are Male/Female are in fact 'pure' Male/Female and then apply different terms to people whose gender is a mix?
 

 

In reply to FactorXXX:

Because it's almost never a good plan to label one group as "pure"?  It sounds like a hierarchy is being introduced, and that rarely helps a reasoned discussion.  It certainly gets in the way of treating people equally

In much the same way that discussions of relative purity between types of climbing never leave anyone happy

Because some of those trans people have genders that aren't a mix at all, and are very clear about it, so that division would only describe some of them; the cis/trans distinction is more broadly applicable, and avoids it sounding like we're rating people

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I still don't get where the offence is coming from. If you're happy to identify as a straight man, and you're not transexual, why would you be offended by being labelled a cishet man, which is just shorthand for the above?

I'm not having a go, it's a topic I have thought very much about until fairly recently, and I was initially quite sceptical too, but the more I think about it, the less I can see any real reason to object. I'm genuinely interested in your reasons

Well I'm cis, and you can consider this a call

 

In reply to Niall_H:

I was always quite happy to be called a climber and never felt the need to pigeonhole my friends as boulderers, trad climbers, sport climbers, mountaineers, hillwalkers, winter climbers, drytoolers, even.

 

( I am equally unhappy about ticking boxes about my race when completing census forms etc and often wonder why I need to tick a M/F box in situations where it can't really make any difference)

But to go back to the original point, if straight/ gay is widely understood and accepted, why the need to re-educate people into using cis/trans?

In reply to Ciro:

As I pointed out earlier, I was vaguely familiar with "cis" from one of my politically active friends, but I had never heard "cishet" until it was applied to me in an online exchange last week, at which a different poster jumped in in my defence and told the user he should be ashamed of using the slur in an online discussion.

So, having googled it I found that it is a controversial word and users are divided about whether or not it is offensive. So I'd prefer it was not used about me. That's my choice. If the user had stuck with "straight" there wouldn't have been a problem.

In reply to RomTheBear:

That's all well and good, but as it stands not everyone is so accepting.

I suspect once society generally doesn't give a single f*ck how X or Y identifies, and nobody is being descriminated against for it, nobody will be "obsessing" about it any more.

Until then, the people affected will probably continue to fight for that social change, and I don't think we should be classing that as obsession.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

But would you be offended if all you ever did was sport climbing, and you had no interest in any of the other disciplines, and someone called you a sport climber?

You don't see the difference between gay/straight and cis/trans?

If everyone you know is cis, then there may be no need for the distinction in your social circles (likewise there is no need in mine), but if others find that distinction useful, why object to it becoming a thing?

 

In reply to Ciro:

If I was used to the term sport climber and everyone knew what it meant, then someone (probably not a sport climber) invented a new word for us and applied it, I might not be happy about it .

Gay people probably coined the word "gay" themselves to describe their sexuality.

I suspect that straight people did not coin the word"cis" to describe themselves, and that is an important difference to me.

Not everyone I know is straight but I still don't feel the need for the distinction.

Maybe that's why I find being a spectator at a rugby league match so much more civilised than watching a football match. Half the time you can't tell which team the person beside you is supporting.

 

In reply to Ciro:

I can't help but feel the ones obsessing over it all are the ones who have a few issues themselves which go way beyond gender classifications.  To be able to point a finger at those around them, accuse them of discrimination, and essentially find a convenient issue in which they can encapsulate all their problems often seems to the be the underlying reason for this obsession.

If everyone started treating everyone equally tomorrow, I don't think the problem would go away.  Or perhaps the ones' so consumed by gender identity would just be forced to find another issue with which they could attract attention, claim victimhood, or in some way demarcate themselves from everyone else around them.

In reply to Pan Ron:

 

Wouldn't it be a good place to start from, though?


 

 

In reply to Ciro:

Which is exactly the point I am making.

This is not what I classed as obsession. 

In reply to Caird:

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for everyone to get along.  In fact, retributive inequality seems to be all in vogue these days; the sins of our ancestors or younger lives being so manifest that we must be punished for some un-earned privilege. 

No one has articulated to me when my white-cis-male privilege will be deemed repaid.  So whatever advantages I'm afforded in life right now (I can assure you I am seeing very few), I'm not expecting in my lifetime to see an end to the assumption that I'm a sexual predator, afforded unfair employment advantage, paid more per hour, or generally treated preferentially...not to mention be less likely to end up in prison, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to fail academically, or less likely to be sleeping on the streets.

Equality is being approached like a toothpaste tube with the lid on.  Keep squeezing and the paste just ends up at the other end.

In reply to Pan Ron:

Why wait? 

 

Indeed. Maybe it's only coming out the other end because scapegoating and fearmongering are keeping the lid stuck down tight.   But it needn't always be that way. 
Right now, I guess Arlene Foster is  busy with 'because Christian values'.
In much the same way, trans exclusionary radical feminists are fixated with ' because biology' (O level, btw)

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Thanks. Fascinating.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

But that's why "cis" was introduced, because there wasn't an equivalent to "straight" when it came to discussing gender.

So people would talk about trans women versus "real women" or "biological women", for example.

And obviously enough, trans women got pissed off at the implication that they weren't "real" (or weren't "biological", and what would that even mean -- I think it's Riki Ann Wilchins who asked what it was she was supposed to be made of, plastic?).

Think about the discussions about adoption, where people used to refer to a child's birth parents as their "real parents", and the reasons why we've generally switched to referring to "birth parents" and "adoptive parents".

Or imagine that instead of "straight" and "gay" (and lesbian/bisexual/etc.) we referred to "gay people" versus "normal people" (which is also pretty much how things used to be discussed). You'd see why that'd be objectionable, right?

"Cis-" is literally just the prefix that's the opposite of "trans-". All it means is that you're not trans, i.e. you identify as the same gender you were assigned at birth (i.e. whatever the doctors said when they said "It's a boy/girl!").

But "straight" doesn't mean the same as "cis", though -- there are plenty of trans people who are heterosexual, and plenty of non-trans people who aren't.

If you aren't offended by being called "straight", why should "cis" bother you?

(And I speak as one of the dreaded cishets myself ...)

In reply to slab_happy:

Always happy to learn.

Could you clarify why cis is Ok but cishet is controversial?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Cool cool!

Whoops, sorry, "dreaded cishets" was kind of an insider joke, told out of context. My fault for not thinking fully about which of my various internet social circles I was in ... Ahem.

"Cishet" just means "cisgender and heterosexual", i.e. someone who's not any of the letters in the LGBTQ+.

Sometimes people in the LGBTQ+ community will refer to "cishets" in a vaguely dismissive way (often, as far as I've seen, when they've had it up to here with dealing with some sort of prejudice or cluelessness and need to vent, as is only human).

So I'm guessing that the person who objected was doing so because they felt it was being used dismissively in that sort of way, or that it was presuming all cishet people were clueless, or whatever.

But "cis" isn't intrinsically offensive any more than "heterosexual" is.

And I personally wouldn't consider "cishet" offensive per se either; it's not a slur, just a shorthand that's sometimes used in a mildly dismissive way.

In reply to Caird:

Jesus Wept.

I try very hard not to be rude on here, but I’m wobbling on the brink of an unrecoverable abyss right now.  

To try and be nice, I have deleted the paragraph where I suggested what each of your two minds was thinking.  It was not complimentary.

In my view the absolute worst thing for equality and diversity is to shoot down people exploring their thoughts or holding views different to yours.

Publicly threatening to do so is I find pathetic.  

In my professional life I occasionally deal with issues related to diversity and equality.  Some times I make decisions that I personally am not happy with, or even very occasionally (once so far in 18 years) disagree very strongly with.  I do so because I recognise that the policies of my employer - as communicated to me by training - must have preference over my views, and I understand their point of view, however certain I may be in mine. If I chose to air my private views in an anonymous (in terms of me and the subjects) way to explore my thinking on an idea, I would be livid if someone shopped me to my employer.  As it stands I have faith in them to act sensibly.  

Having the freedom of thought, and the freedom of discussion is absolutely vital to me making decisions I sometimes dislike or disagree with in the interests of equality.   

I could not work in a role with neither freedom of thought or freedom of choice.  That is not a good place for society to go to, and that is where your two minds want to take us.

As for threatening someone the way you did SAF, I am generally happy with the anonymity one may chose through UKC, but I consider it cowardice to threaten someone as you did, and the upmost contemptible cowardace to do so anonymously.

Edit: Given your oddly specific and rare posting history, I strongly suspect you are posting from a sock puppet account.  Come on and tell us which regular poster you.

In reply to The Potato:

Maybe I live a sheltered UKC life but this thread seems to have seen more use of 'dislike' than any I have seen before.

 

So many people seem to get wound up about this subject because they think that nature creates all human beings in one of two genders. Nature does seem to be programmed to do that but in reality it keeps getting things wrong.

For me the key indicator in this is the section of the population affected by the range of intersex conditions. Apparently, there are a significant number of these although AIS is the one that always sticks in my memory. Those are people who are genetically male but do not respond to testosterone and therefore grow up externally female.

The AIS population is fairly small but then there are the other intersex conditions, various genital abnormalities that are corrected at birth (some of which there is little or no record of), and a range of abnormalities that we normally do not think of as intersex or connected in any way with a transgender range. There is no reason to expect that there are not effects that manifest themselves purely psychologically. Add up all the undescended testicles and retroverted uteruses along with the rest and you have a substantial number of people in the population with various levels of deviation from the accepted norms of human gender. 

Surely the conclusion must be that in reality, human gender exists on a range, with female at one end and male at the other. The bell-curve is inverted on this range.

The next reasonable conclusion must be that somewhere on this range are transgender persons.

Society has programmed us to respond positively only to normal gender stereotypes. If we are intelligent beings "endowed with reason and conscience" then we should be able to use that reasoning to stop being a bunch of uptight ar5eholes and "act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood" including those whose existence defies that genderlect. 

 

In reply to Jim Fraser:

 

 

  What percentage of people are intersex or transgender?

 

In reply to Postmanpat:

He just made the point that - according to him - it's a range. In that paradigm, your question is like asking "what percentage of people are tall", nobody can answer that question unless you can get people to agree  precisely on a threshold.

 

 

In reply to RomTheBear:

  Yawn

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Funny how you point to the use of dislikes and say it's from people who are certain that there are only two genders, and yet the actual dislikes on the page are largely against those who are questioning the new orthodoxy on gender/sex.

If the vast majority fit X and Y, which certainly seems to be the case, then those who don't are outliers.  They don't show that there is a range at all, they just highlight that occasionally errors happen.  Humans have 2 legs and arms, that a very small minority have an extra limb can't sensibly be used to say that humans have a range of numbers of limbs.

In reply to thomasadixon:

As underlined by the existence of the AIS condition, the default human development is female. I think that is an indicator for there being no outlier to the opposite side of female from male. I am not seeing any indicators for there being an outlier beyond a fully androgen developed male either. Therefore, a range.