cis male is a slur

[Lexi Darling]

The lines between men and women were redrawn like 70 plus years ago when documented medical transition began happening. This is not a new thing lol.

But honestly I don't want to keep debating you on this. I've said what I have to say, and really the root of this is just that your posting these links, both in this thread and the standup comic segment you posted in that thread, is honestly just really making me uncomfortable.

I took what you said to heart about me posting about my D/s relationship making you uncomfortable. I'm making an effort to dial back the more obviously kink coded things in regular threads. I don't want you to shy away from posting what you want. All I want to do is let you know that a lot of these links you post that have these takes on trans identity (not even specifically talking about this particular article) just really make me feel hurt.

I know I contribute by clicking those articles, but I sometimes feel like the onus is on me to counter what I feel those articles get wrong about trans people and stand up for my community.

This is how I feel. Make of it what you will.

[jadis]

Things that make us uncomfortable can be interesting though, or at least teach us something interesting.

For instance, in one of your responses you wrote

They literally cite that right wing anti-trans person who got juice dumped on her in New Zealand, such an unbiased and reliable source.

In other words, part of the case against someone's reliability is a violent act done to them. Once you assault someone, that person's credibility completely goes out of the window because now s/he really has it out for you. The logic here is peculiar but not uninteresting.

[Lexi Darling]

Things that make us uncomfortable can be interesting though, or at least teach us something interesting.

For instance, in one of your responses you wrote

In other words, part of the case against someone's reliability is a violent act done to them. Once you assault someone, that person's credibility completely goes out of the window because now s/he really has it out for you. The logic here is peculiar but not uninteresting.

Lol, I wasn't saying the fact that she was juiced was a reason she wasn't credible, I just thought it was a funny fact. I could have said "that far right anti trans person whose rallies are regularly attended by literal nazis calling for violence against trans people", that would have been a bit more proper to get my point across I guess.

Fun fact: My sister was actually at that rally and witnessed that glorious event in real time. So proud of her

[Guybrush]

I'd chime in, but I feel like that whole trans debate against an american backdrop takes place in an environment I don't know and much less understand.

If it were here, I'd probably say most people just wanna figure out the best way to help kids/young people with gender dysphoria. They want them to have a good quality of life for as long as possible, but just diverge a little on the best way to achieve that. There's a lot of common ground and discussing it is a good idea.

But my current impression of the US is it seems like there's no space for people of slightly differing views to have this discussion, at least not in a way that's healthy. I can see one reason for this is that the issue has become politicized (why oh why?), but there's probably a lot more going on as well that I don't understand. It sucks because if you want to change people's minds, talking about it in an echo chamber isn't going to do that and neither is being aggressive or attacking people - whatever side you're on or what your views are.

So this post probably isn't worth much and my impression might even be very wrong, but that's my current two Norwegian kroners.

[Lexi Darling]

I'd chime in, but I feel like that whole trans debate against an american backdrop takes place in an environment I don't know and much less understand.

If it were here, I'd probably say most people just wanna figure out the best way to help kids/young people with gender dysphoria. They want them to have a good quality of life for as long as possible, but just diverge a little on the best way to achieve that. There's a lot of common ground and discussing it is a good idea.

But my current impression of the US is it seems like there's no space for people of slightly differing views to have this discussion, at least not in a way that's healthy. I can see one reason for this is that the issue has become politicized (why oh why?), but there's probably a lot more going on as well that I don't understand. It sucks because if you want to change people's minds, talking about it in an echo chamber isn't going to do that and neither is being aggressive or attacking people - whatever side you're on or what your views are.

So this post probably isn't worth much and my impression might even be very wrong, but that's my current two Norwegian kroners.

I agree with the sentiment, of course our only goal is to help trans people. In a perfect world I would agree with all of what you said. It's a difficult area for us, because as much as we would like to "reach across the aisle" and hear out different approaches, it's also true that there are a massive amount of bad actors out there and a lot of trans people feel like if you give the side that thinks trans healthcare should be more restricted an inch, they will take a mile.

I would be more receptive to the idea of puberty blockers being harmful if I knew we could all have a levelheaded discussion about it where I knew everyone actually had trans people's happiness as the goal. But it is hard for me to be completely trusting when that article spends more time whining about "the left" than providing concrete points against blockers.

So I would like to once again say that if there is in fact raw evidence acknowledged by both sides that blockers don't help trans people and should not be used, I will gladly honor that evidence. But as it stands I have reason to be skeptical of the other side's intentions and I stand by that.

I admit part of my skepticism is rooted in the fact that Jadis has posted several articles on here in the past that are, let's just say less generous toward trans identity. I admit I may be making assumptions about his motivations for posting these articles and questioning those motivations was part of why I engaged in the first place.

I'm just so exhausted from trans discourse from all sides honestly.

[jadis]

I gladly take this opportunity to repost this wonderful article https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/gender-neutral and if anyone wants to discuss it, having read it in its entirety, I'm all for it

I would be more receptive to the idea of puberty blockers being harmful if I knew we could all have a levelheaded discussion about it where I knew everyone actually had trans people's happiness as the goal. But it is hard for me to be completely trusting when that article spends more time whining about "the left" than providing concrete points against blockers.

Chait's entire point is that we are in the dark about the a lot of the long-term effects of something like puberty blockers and thus would be best advised to adopt some humility. Which is an idea alien to the twitter left.

Re the highlighted part: I am not sure I'd place the onus of proof entirely on those who are against chemically interfering with the body's natural development.

So I would like to once again say that if there is in fact raw evidence acknowledged by both sides that blockers don't help trans people and should not be used, I will gladly honor that evidence. But as it stands I have reason to be skeptical of the other side's intentions and I stand by that.

You define the issue from the outset as "helping trans people". There are other ways to frame this.

Some see the issue as girls (it's becoming increasingly prevalent among girls) hitting puberty being uncomfortable within or alienated from their bodies.

The definition of gender dysphoria is controversial in itself, and in England there is no consensus among clinicians over whether an adolescent's desire to transition should be quickly affirmed or they should be encouraged to pause before changing their name and starting hormone treatment.

The Cass report revealed there was "a lack of agreement, and in many instances a lack of open discussion" about the best approach to take.
"The disagreement and polarisation is heightened when potentially irreversible treatments are given to children and young people, when the evidence base underlying the treatments is inconclusive," it added.

Anyone looking for clarity from NHS England's most recent draft guidelines on how to support under-18s experiencing what it calls "gender incongruence" may not find it helpful.

Published in October, the draft seems to put greater emphasis on the possibility that, for some, particularly pre-pubescent, children, this may be a "transient phase".

[Lexi Darling]

You define the issue from the outset as "helping trans people". There are other ways to frame this.

I define that as the issue because "helping trans kids" is literally in the title of the article. That's... what we're talking about.

And I stand by what I said about that "wonderful" article the first time you posted it. I think it's very much unhelpful beard stroking from someone who makes a hell of a lot of assumptions about trans "ideology" as if that were a real thing beyond "trans people deserve the right to healthcare and to be able to live their lives free of discrimination and hateful attacks".

The writer strikes me as someone whose exposure to trans people has been limited to the contingent of hard left very online gender anarchists, who, believe it or not, do not actually represent the breadth of the trans community. And the dig about respecting pronouns, as if repeatedly calling a cis woman "he" or "sir" wouldn't also be harassment that an employee could be penalized for. Honestly there are a million undercooked takes on trans identity in that article, but I have a kitchen to clean so I'm not going to bother.

I've made my position clear. It's clear to me that you have a different position. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and I have debated you in good faith. I even agree with some of your points on puberty blockers, for the record. But I cannot continue to give good faith arguments when you never seem to give me an ounce of credit that maybe I, as a trans person, know what I'm talking about.

You know what, for the sake of my own mental health, I'm done with trans discourse. I have more important things in my life than endlessly debating internet strangers in favor of my identity. Have a nice day.

[jadis]

The bottom line of Smith's piece is that Marty's critique of "gender ideology" is too sweeping. You haven't read it.

a lot of assumptions about trans "ideology" as if that were a real thing beyond "trans people deserve the right to healthcare and to be able to live their lives free of discrimination and hateful attacks".

It is as simple as that once you decide that the only meaningful and legitimate metric is self-ID, and dismiss as bigoted and illegitimate the legion of questions that arise about the effects of, say, biological men declaring that they are women. That's where we differ. Personally I'm fascinated with the phrase "trans women are women." It really takes some proverbial balls to adopt as a motto a statement as stunningly circular as this and I love it. But we are still none the wiser about what any of its three terms actually mean. Least of all the verb "to be." 

If being born a woman is no longer the criterion of being one, what is then? Surgery? Hormones? Female clothing? None is universal so we're left with self-ID and anyone declaring oneself a woman must be recognized as one. 

What are some other categories the inclusion within which is based on self-ID? Or that have undergone a shift in scope from "XX chromosomes" to "it is whatever you want it to be"? Seems like pretty momentous stuff. There's more at stake here than the simple politeness of addressing someone by their chosen pronouns.

Are trans women women for the purposes of medical statistics? How about statistics on violent crime? Spousal abuse? I suppose some would reply to that with "let's not get literal minded, it can be sorted through common sense." Oh yeah? What yardstick of "common sense" do we adopt in each case so as to not make anyone feel excluded and discriminated against?

[Lexi Darling]

The answers to all of those questions are all out there and have been debated on for years. You can easily google them to find out what the consensus from the trans community is on these issues. Like I've always said, trans people are not a monolith and I cannot speak for the entire community, so me trying to give you definitive answers to those questions is not productive for anyone.

[Guybrush]

The bottom line of Smith's piece is that Marty's critique of "gender ideology" is too sweeping. You haven't read it.

It is as simple as that once you decide that the only meaningful and legitimate metric is self-ID, and dismiss as bigoted and illegitimate the legion of questions that arise about the effects of, say, biological men declaring that they are women. That's where we differ. Personally I'm fascinated with the phrase "trans women are women." It really takes some proverbial balls to adopt as a motto a statement as stunningly circular as this and I love it. But we are still none the wiser about what any of its three terms actually mean. Least of all the verb "to be." 

If being born a woman is no longer the criterion of being one, what is then? Surgery? Hormones? Female clothing? None is universal so we're left with self-ID and anyone declaring oneself a woman must be recognized as one. 

What are some other categories the inclusion within which is based on self-ID? Or that have undergone a shift in scope from "XX chromosomes" to "it is whatever you want it to be"? Seems like pretty momentous stuff. There's more at stake here than the simple politeness of addressing someone by their chosen pronouns.

Are trans women women for the purposes of medical statistics? How about statistics on violent crime? Spousal abuse? I suppose some would reply to that with "let's not get literal minded, it can be sorted through common sense." Oh yeah? What yardstick of "common sense" do we adopt in each case so as to not make anyone feel excluded and discriminated against?

Possibly putting my foot in it - and if so I'm sorry (I don't wanna write anything hurtful/inconsiderate) - but with a background in biology, it is relatively clear to me what the biological definition of a female is. It's an organism that will, if given time enough or opportunity to express their biology, express the large kind of gametes (eggs) - unlike the male of its species which is the kind that would express small gametes (sperm).

If you're a human, that's decided by sex chromosomes. If you're a hymenopteran, that means you're diploid (have two sets of chromosomes) rather than haploid (have one set of chromosomes).

We need these definitions in biology to explain nature, evolution, ecology.

But trans isn't about population ecology, so when I think of this discussion, I always think that it's about gender identity - not biological sex - and then it doesn't really hinge on stuff like chromosomes anymore.

In essence, I think the biological definition is useful for population ecology, for medicine, etc. but not necessarily how we talk about / treat people in society.

[Lexi Darling]

Exactly. Nobody is saying we change our biological sex. There are relevant cases, for example, where I have to look up something medical that is filed under "male" and I'm not offended because I recognize that I was born a biological male. But Guybrush is completely correct in saying that there is the identity element, which is the gender I feel comfortable presenting as and being seen as in the societal landscape. Why is it so hard to have enough respect to just treat me as I want to be treated? The questions you're asking have their time and place, but trans people know ourselves better than you do and random strangers scrutinizing our identity up and down is not something we appreciate. In a lot of cases the answers to your questions vary greatly on context anyway, and I agree that "trans women are women", while true, doesn't say everything it really needs to.

[jadis]

Possibly putting my foot in it - and if so I'm sorry (I don't wanna write anything hurtful/inconsiderate) - but with a background in biology, it is relatively clear to me what the biological definition of a female is. It's an organism that will, if given time enough or opportunity to express their biology, express the large kind of gametes (eggs) - unlike the male of its species which is the kind that would express small gametes (sperm).

If you're a human, that's decided by sex chromosomes. If you're a hymenopteran, that means you're diploid (have two sets of chromosomes) rather than haploid (have one set of chromosomes).

We need these definitions in biology to explain nature, evolution, ecology.

But trans isn't about population ecology, so when I think of this discussion, I always think that it's about gender identity - not biological sex - and then it doesn't really hinge on stuff like chromosomes anymore.

In essence, I think the biological definition is useful for population ecology, for medicine, etc. but not necessarily how we talk about / treat people in society.

The word "gender" by now means many contradictory things. When it first came into use, in the 1970s, it referred to "sexed" social roles in a given historical context, that there's social, not just biological, determination to how femaleness (it was formulated by radical feminists) is "constructed" in any particular time and place.

But in certain current usage gender means something like "the true sex of our soul, which doesn't always align with the sex of our body." As you can see, the conceptual logic is reversed into something I like to call "Tumblr Cartesianism."   

There's no doubt that the idea of gender (as it was coined along the "Paris-Berkley axis" in the 1970s) is one of the most consequential and fascinating ideas to ever come out of the academia. But when one invests the disconnect between sex and gender with the weight of a dogma and proceeds to entrench it legally, there are shall we say unintended consequences. That's how you get Lia Thomas's cock in the girls' changing room.

"I'm a woman, just like anybody else on the team," says Lia Thomas. Clearly, she has her identity as a woman, which is her own private business. But the swimmers forced to compete against her and share the locker room with her chose to emphasize things other than her gender identity and self-perception when they spoke about the situation.

[Guybrush]

If I were to put it very simply, I'd say those sort of troubles or conflicts are not so much trans people's problems as it is sport's problems. The times change, sports should change too.

There's a definition of sex we use in biology. If they want, they could (or already have) make up one or more definitions of sex to use in sports. Possibly, they could abolish sex/gender in some cases and let people of different sexes compete based on their likeness in other biological parameters - like more similar to weight classes in boxing.

Similarly, the changing rooms or policies about who gets to use them can be changed.

It would seem weird to me to limit people's freedoms because it causes headaches in some sport they may or may not be interested in.

[Lexi Darling]

If there is further interest in continuing with the trans stuff, perhaps moving it to its own thread, or maybe TR's "cisgender is a slur" thread could be a good home for this discussion?

[Guybrush]

If there is further interest in continuing with the trans stuff, perhaps moving it to its own thread, or maybe TR's "cisgender is a slur" thread could be a good home for this discussion?

Yes, this is off-topic here and so I've been thinking the same thing. I could merge it with that thread, although I abhor the title which seems to invite all sorts of silliness.

As OP doesn't seem to be around, maybe I could just change it 🤔

Edit:

Split aaand.. merged!