Is Sex Socially Constructed? Examining the arguments

Planet, on the other hand, is not a socially constructed category: the Earth currently hosts many societies, but this is irrelevant to its status as a planet. The planets in our solar system were around for billions of years before life even evolved. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union proposed a definition of “planet” that excluded Pluto. The IAU’s decision to define “planet” in this way was a social matter — the IAU itself is a social organization. But that does not mean that the astronomical category the IAU decided should be labeled by the word “planet” is socially constructed, and it isn’t.

Finally, queen (in the monarchy sense) is a socially constructed category. Elizabeth Windsor, for instance, is only the Queen of the United Kingdom because she is embedded in a society with certain political practices. In a world with no societies, there are no queens.

The terminology of “social construction” is unfortunately very misleading. Engagement rings are literally and straightforwardly constructed: they are manufactured by jewelers. Queens are constructed only in a loose and extended sense: the present British queen wasn’t built by anyone (your parents don’t exactly build you), but Elizabeth only became a queen because certain social groups did certain things, like place a crown on her head in Westminster Abbey. However, the categories themselves — engagement ring and queen — are not “constructed” in any helpful sense. Societies produce engagement rings, and also various phrases to label them (“engagement ring” in English, “anillo de boda” in Spanish), but not the category engagement ring. If there hadn’t been any engagement rings, the category engagement ring would not have disappeared — rather, the category would have had nothing belonging to it. Similarly, the category existed before the ancient Romans started the tradition of giving engagement rings.

More cautiously put: It is highly controversial whether categories are the sorts of things that can be “constructed.” A much better term than “socially constructed category” would simply be “social category,” but let’s keep the misleading terminology for uniformity.

We should guard against another potential confusion. It is crucial to distinguish socially constructed categories from socially significant ones — categories that social groups regard as important in one way or another. But not all socially constructed categories are socially significant, and not all socially significant categories are socially constructed. The category Pepsi drinker is a socially constructed category, but is pretty insignificant: apart from the Pepsi company, no one really cares whether you drink Pepsi, Coke, or something else. On the other hand, despite the fact that the category gold is not socially constructed (gold is just a chemical element), it is highly socially significant: King Midas personifies the human obsession with this metal. It is not in dispute that the categories female and male are socially significant — nothing could be more obvious. What is very much in dispute is whether those categories are socially constructed. And that leads to our second question.

Why Is It Important Whether Sex Is Socially Constructed? What exactly rides on whether female and male are socially constructed categories? We have already gestured at the answer. At least for many socially constructed categories, if we change society, or the position of people within a society, we can change what belongs to the category. Legalizing same-sex marriage might have increased the number of things belonging to the category engagement ring. We can ensure that there will be no more queens (or kings) by abolishing the monarchy and establishing a republic. If sex is socially constructed, someone might be able to change his sex by changing his social position — a truly spectacular feat of self-determination. When the transgender woman and reality star Jazz Jennings says “I am female,” she could be speaking the plain truth. She is socially female, in almost all the ways that matter, and this might be sufficient — or might be sufficient with some surgery or hormone treatment — for simply being female. More ambitiously, perhaps if we drastically reorganize society we can look forward to an androgynous future, without females and males, or one with a number of liberating new sexes. To the revolutionary minded, social construction presents an opportunity.

Of course, what belongs to categories that are not socially constructed can also change. If you put on a few pounds you are changing your weight: you cease to belong (say) to the category weighs 164 pounds and now belong to the category weighs 166 pounds. Neither of those categories is socially constructed. If sex is not socially constructed, someone might still be able to change his sex solely by medical means. (However, current medical means do not reproduce the processes that allow some animals to change sex.) Humans could perhaps be genetically engineered to be sexless, with reproduction taking place by cloning. But all this is science fictional speculation; at least in the case of female and male, if those categories are not socially constructed then the revolution will have to wait.

Is Sex Socially Constructed? So, is sex socially constructed? Since a yes answer is hardly obvious, we need an argument. Unfortunately, explicit arguments are hard to find, let alone ones that are carefully laid out and worth taking seriously. Still, we can extract two arguments from the literature. The first can be found in the writings of Butler, and the second is close to the surface in many discussions of so-called intersex conditions (for instance, in Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Sexing the Body). There is a third argument which—unlike the first two—is carefully laid out and needs no extraction; we will get to that later. Let us start with Butler.

The Performative Argument

Butler has an argument for the social construction of sex that turns on a kind of sentence called a “performative.” (You might have heard of Butler’s “performative” theory of gender, which is related; luckily, we do not need to examine it here.) The term “performative” is due to the British philosopher J. L. Austin, who wrote and lectured about the topic starting in the 1940s. What are performatives?

Sometimes we use language simply to report the facts, as when we say “It’s noon,” or “The Earth is a planet.” But sometimes we bring about what we report, just by reporting it, as when we say “I apologize,” or “I name this ship Queen Elizabeth 2,” or “I sentence you to three months in prison.” As if by magic, saying it makes it so: if I say “I apologize” in suitable circumstances then I will have made it the case that I apologize. The qualification about “suitable circumstances” is important. If I say “I apologize” as an actor on the stage, then I am only pretending to apologize, not really apologizing. The need for the qualification is even clearer with the second and third examples. Saying “I name this ship Queen Elizabeth 2” will only succeed in naming a ship if the speaker has some social position that confers authority in ship-naming. (The QE2 was christened by Elizabeth herself.) If I spot the USS Constitution in Boston Harbor and exclaim “I name this ship Queen Elizabeth 2!” I will not have renamed Old Ironsides. Similarly, without any legal authority, saying “I sentence you to three months” will not succeed in sentencing anyone.

Sentences like “I apologize” — which can be used, given the appropriate social setting, to bring about what they report — are called explicit performatives. Note that there are other ways to apologize than to utter an explicit performative. “I’m sorry” will usually do just as well, but is not itself an explicit performative. Saying “I’m sorry” does not report the speaker as apologizing, and does not bring about what it does report, namely a feeling of regret; it is, rather, an implicit performative. Similarly, one can name a ship or sentence someone without uttering an explicit performative. In the appropriate social setting one can name a ship simply by keeping quiet and cracking champagne on the bow. And a judge can sentence someone to three months by saying “You will go to prison for three months.”

What could this have to do with whether sex is socially constructed? One more preliminary observation and all will be revealed. By uttering a performative, the speaker can make it the case that she apologizes, or that a ship is named, or that a defendant is sentenced to three months. Put in the jargon of categories, the speaker can make it the case that a thing belongs to a category — that the speaker belongs to the category apologizer; that this ship belongs to the category named “Queen Elizabeth 2”; that the defendant belongs to the category sentenced to three months. Now notice that all three categories are socially constructed categories: without some kind of society, there would be no apologizers, no things with names in a public language like English, and no one would be sentenced to jail terms. Consideration of these and other examples should make the following principle plausible: if performatives can be used to bring it about that a thing belongs to a category, that category is socially constructed.

In Bodies That Matter, Butler writes:

Consider the medical interpellation which (the recent emergence of the sonogram notwithstanding) shifts an infant from an ‘it’ to a ‘she’ or a ‘he’. Never mind what “interpellation” means — the example is simply one in which a medical authority examines a fetus or a neonate and says “It’s a girl,” or “It’s a boy.” Butler claims that those sentences are “initiatory performatives.” As Sara Salih puts the idea in her useful book on Butler,

When the doctor or nurse declares “It’s a girl/boy!,” they are not simply reporting on what they see…they are actually assigning a sex…to a body that can have no existence outside discourse. In other words, the statement “It’s a girl/boy!” is performative. Using the principle mentioned at the end of the second paragraph above, we can now set out the Performative Argument.

Premise 1: “It’s a girl” as uttered by an appropriate medical authority is a performative; specifically, such performatives can be used to bring it about that the baby is a girl, and so belongs to the category female. Similarly with “It’s a boy.” Premise 2: If performatives can be used to bring it about that a baby belongs to the categories female or male, the categories female and male are socially constructed. Conclusion: The categories female and male are socially constructed. Since the conclusion follows logically from the premises, the only way of resisting the argument is to reject one of the premises. And premise 1 seems very easy to reject: it is not plausible at all that “It’s a girl” is a performative. Explicit performatives contain an action-verb like “apologize,” “thank” (“I thank you”), or “bet” (“I bet $100”), and “It’s a girl” does not. That sentence is therefore not an explicit performative. And if it is an implicit one, then we should be able to make what is implicit, explicit. Just as we can roughly paraphrase the implicit performative “I’m sorry” by the explicit performative “I apologize,” we should be able to find an explicit performative that corresponds to “It’s a girl.” Explicit performatives are typically in the first-person present indicative: “I apologize,” “I thank you,” and so on; their performative character can be further highlighted with the adverb “hereby” — “Hereby, I apologize.” So is the doctor or other medical authority in effect saying “Hereby, I make the baby a girl”?

What about gravity? That’s the one I’m really curious about.

Queer theory is absolute garbage and sex is a provable, observable phenomena rooted in material reality. There is no amount of linguistic trickery or philosophical bullshit that can turn water into wine, battery acid into milk. If you refuse to acknlowedge the battery acid is not milk and even manage to brainwash a few people into calling it milk, it's still going to kill you if you drink it.

The essay continues at the link, but I'm finished copying and pasting.

The answer is "No" sex is not socially constructed.

The arguments are flawed, based on logically flawed syllogisms.

Of course sex isn't socially constructed. The categories of male and female were created by nature, not by society. The existence of a minority of people with intersex conditions does nothing to disprove this. Some people are born with only one leg; this does not change the fact that our species is bipedal.

Try to get two bulls, or two roosters, or two male lions, to mate. See how long it takes for one of them to get pregnant.

Spoiler alert: IT WON'T WORK

Of course sex and gender roles have been socially constructed for millenia.

- Sex before marriage is a no-no! Get married first, then make lots of babies!

- Gender roles: Women stay at home and take care of the kids while the man brings home the bacon

This is the equivalent of a right wing philosopher trying to argue global warming isn't real because the Earth itself is a social construct. Even THEY'RE not that brazen.

Distinguishing sex from gender as if the two can be incongruent is another semantic dupe they use to con well meaning people into their dogma. Gender may well be how society processes me as a man and my experience of being a man in society, but it is only through the parameters of existing as a man (adult human male) that I can experience that 'gender.' It is no more possible for me to "feel" like a woman than it is for me to feel like a lobster or the Queen of England. I'm provably not either of those things.

[quote]- Sex before marriage is a no-no! Get married first, then make lots of babies!

You really should become conversant with the underlying argument before chiming in. No one disputes that gender roles are socially defined.

R9 Trans don't know shit about intersex conditions and purposefully mislead people into thinking they exist on some sort of "spectrum" between male and female. That's not what it is at all. There are over 50 distinct recognized intersex conditions and pretty much ALL of them are /easily/ classifiable as male or female specific. The harder to classify ones can be technically classified with the presence or absence of a Y chromosome or SRY protein criteria, but there might be a phenotypic incongruence. It still doesn't mean your 100% male body has a "ladydick" or whatever. People with these conditions are just props and scapegoats for people with a psychological condition.

When you point out how nonsensical their ideas are they accuse of you causing suicides (lie) or other emotional blackmail like saying gay rights were won by transies and the LGB owes them. Such bullshit.

It's kind of like Thomas Aquinas trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

R6 my feeling exactly when I read people theorize about biological matters. No thought can change reality as we know it. Only our perception of it.

Sex is sex. My god.

Breaking News: Sex Means Something Different To Different People!

I love you R16.

R17 Sex doesn't mean different things to different people. There's no "opinion" one can have on sex. It's not an abstract concept subject to theorizing. You either understand it or you don't, or you reject reality and become a denialist similar to a flat earther.

You people realize that half of the folks responding are using "sex" interchangeably with "sexual intercourse" and others are using "sex" to mean male and female genders, right.

[quote] You either understand it or you don't, or you reject reality and become a denialist similar to a flat earther.

Once upon a time people rejected homosexuality because it deviated from heterosexuality, the apparent one and only true sexual identity. History does not look very kindly on those narrow minded folk.

R21 People still reject homosexuality and they're mistaken. Very few are able to seriously deny that it exists. Many of those people are actually TRANS ACTIVISTS that have determined same-sex attraction is at odds with their internal delusion, so the former must be redefined or must not exist at all.

You're not only narrow minded, you're completely ignorant about what trans ideology is and how it negatively impacts homosexuals.

[quote]Once upon a time people rejected homosexuality because it deviated from heterosexuality, the apparent one and only true sexual identity. History does not look very kindly on those narrow minded folk.

Flawed logic. In order for this position to be comparable, the argument would have to be that homosexuality didn't exist, not that it differed from heterosexuality.

History has applauded narrow minded people through the ages - people with a singular focus and determination who stood their ground against either the established order OR ephemeral trends of the times. You are incorrect that being narrow minded in itself is either worthy of censure or praise.

r20 half this thread couldn't be bothered to read the essay before commenting

I'll tell you who history will not look kindly on, People who think:

-Men should have access to captive women in prisons (where one was recently raped in the UK) because they 'identify' as women, violating these women's human rights -Men should have access to women's scholarships, reserved political representation, be able to set world records in women's sport -A heterosexual man that calls himself a woman is now a lesbian and lesbians are obligated to sleep with him and must "unlearn" their sexual orientation which is reduced to a "genital preference" -People who REVISE history, such as attributing the legacy of a lesbian activist to a "trans woman" (who actually a radical drag queen) at the Stonewall rebellion -Those who advocate for HUMAN MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION ON MOSTLY GAY GENDER NONCONFORMING YOUTH who will grow up to be happy gay men and lesbians if they're allowed to go through puberty -Those who deny objective reality to soothe a fragile ego

History will judge YOU for your lack of thought and concern for any of those issues raised.

And I STILL don't know how to format posts here, sorry for that jumble, but seriously--- fuck off with that whole "you're on the wrong side of history nenenene" bullshit. That's the single worst cop out in this entire ordeal.

The flawed logic is that we aren't Borg. Your right way to live isn't everybody else's right way to live.

Some like to live straight, some like to live gay, some like to live bisexual and some like to transition from one gender to the other.

We gays have our fair share of hate thrown at us for being different and wanting different things that aren't considered (biological) normal even to this day.

[quote] History will judge YOU for your lack of thought and concern for any of those issues raised.

I don't know about history, but I judge you as hatemongering troll. Bye!

[quote] You are incorrect that being narrow minded in itself is either worthy of censure or praise.

They are quickly forgotten, because they had no part in progress. History is all about the people who moved and pushed humanity forward and how they defeated those who tried to push against progress.

Lol r6...true that

R9, every farmer in the world knows it’s impossible to change sex.

If only PhDs were as smart as farmers.

We gays?

R29 Transgenderism is a regressive conservative ideology masquerading as left wing social justice. It is based entirely on gender stereotypes. The same logic that fuels it is used to forcibly mutilate homosexuals in Iran with government subsidized SRS (where the punishment for homosexuality is death) because being "born in the wrong body" is preferable to being gay.

How much money is thrown away on this naval gazing? Is reality, reality? Blah blah blah

"History" will tell us who was on the wrong side, not hectoring extremists on either side.

What no one should be tolerating is intellectually dishonest arguments, arguments unsupported claims without any data to back them, or purely emotional appeals ringing with moral finger pointing.

[quote]-Men should have access to captive women in prisons (where one was recently raped in the UK) because they 'identify' as women,

A prime example of an intellectually dishonest argument. Rape is a common occurrence in prison - irrespective of the gender of the victim or perpetrator. A single example proves nothing. A list of examples proves nothing until you can show that rates of such rapes occurs at a higher rate than what occurs otherwise.

Secondly, it attempts to make an emotional appeal rather than a substantive one.

It is no more honest in it's debate than the ridiculous "sex is socially constructed one" that started this thread.

[quote]They are quickly forgotten, because they had no part in progress. History is all about the people who moved and pushed humanity forward and how they defeated those who tried to push against progress.

No, it's not, and anyone truly interested in learning from history would know this. You're simply making a facile argument that sounds good, but means nothing. History is filled with people who both enacted change and fought it. You simply lack the perspective to understand this - a recent case in point would be people who fought for the status quo to prevent the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP which would have eviscerated US environmental and consumer protections in favor of multi-national corporations.

Well done, r22.

R27 There is no such thing as "transitioning from one gender to other." Sex change is a misnomer. Humans aren't clownfishes. No one is judging them, but you're not going to force to people to agree to the lie that men are women on their say so.

Evolution is a mighty machine. It wants you to have babies. It’s not letting society decide what gender you are

R35 I didn't make an emotional appeal, I made a factual one. Men have no place in women's sex segregated prisons. YOU have made the intellectually dishonest argument by equating female-on-female rape with being penetratively raped by a man with a penis. That rape would not have occured if those women's human rights were being upheld. Fact.

Another piece of information for you, R35, up to half of the transgender prison population in the UK are in for sex related offenses not related to prostitution. That is, violent rape, child pornography, you name it. That's over DOUBLE the rate of the regular male population. They have no right to be housed with captive women-- it's unethical and a violation of these women's rights. High risk units away from the rest of the male population have been proven effective in the U.S. Do your research.

[quote]some like to transition from one gender to the other

You are conflating gender with bio sex.

Men can cross-dress all they want. But they can’t change sex

Bathrooms & the like are segregated according to sex — not gender.

So transwomen are bio males. They should use the restrooms that are for bio males. These are the restrooms with urinals.

The restrooms with tampon machines are for the female sex only. And females require & deseve privacy from people with the opposite reproductive system ...these are men, & they have penises. Men are waaay more likely to exploit, assault & rape women than other women are.

In fact, men are so opportunistic in their sexploits that women get blamed for being attacked if they are wearing sexy clothes or are drunk or naive.

R28, violence against women is a global epidemic. Allowing men in women’s restrooms is a radical new thing.

Wanting to protect girls & women from being victimized in bathrooms & dressing rooms is not “hate.” Its common sense. It’s compassionate. It’s wise.

Blindly opening up female spaces to men is hateful. It’s a recipe for disaster.

"What's the matter with a man in a dress raping a woman in a jail cell? Lezzies do it all the time! Same difference"

[quote][R35] I didn't make an emotional appeal, I made a factual one. Men have no place in women's sex segregated prisons. YOU have made the intellectually dishonest argument by equating female-on-female rape with being penetratively raped by a man with a penis. That rape would not have occured if those women's human rights were being upheld. Fact.

Men have no place in women's sex segregated prisons - is a flawed syllogism. It draws a conclusion from it's own premise.

Rape is rape - whether with a penis, an object, a finger, or any other method of coerced sex. The victim's trauma is neither lessened nor mitigated by the gender of the perpetrator nor method of violation. Sad that you would even think such a thing. For someone seemingly to advocate for women, you certainly seem to have an odd way of doing so.

[quote]up to half of the transgender prison population in the UK are in for sex related offenses not related to prostitution. That is, violent rape, child pornography, you name it. That's over DOUBLE the rate of the regular male population. They have no right to be housed with captive women-- it's unethical and a violation of these women's rights. High risk units away from the rest of the male population have been proven effective in the U.S. Do your research.

No, you support your claims with actual RELEVANT data and studies. Here's a hint: even if you provide supporting data for these claims, your conclusion doesn't follow - it's merely a typical strategy to throw a lot of information that is troubling in order to sway the emotions of people without PROVING the premises of the argument.

You know nothing, R44. In the UK the actual legal definition of rape means a penetrative act from a male. A woman cannot legally rape. I'm not going to sit here and play into your semantics game because you're devoid of any ethical backbone and want to pretend sex segregated spaces serve no purpose. The fact of the matter is, you're more concerned about catering to a man's comfort than the safety of women. This is partly why gay men are called misogynists by feminists and lesbian activists.

Karen White's victims have names and more and more sickos are catching on that they can play the trans card in prison to have access to captive women.

"The victim's trauma is neither lessened nor mitigated by the gender of the perpetrator nor method of violation."

Completely false.

[quote]unsupported claims without any data to back them

The data has been corrupted. Crimes committed by transwomen are not being tracked as being committed by men but by women. So the data is meaningless. Just like the concept of gender.

I’m not waiting around for transwomen to rape & kill more women to prove that they have the exact same male violence pattern as other men. That’s fucking stupid.

Just like how imprisoning men with women is fucking stupid. Hell, before all this bullshit, it was considered a violation against human rights to do so. It still is a human rights violation.

"it's merely a typical strategy to throw a lot of information that is troubling in order to sway the emotions of people without PROVING the premises of the argument."

All the information about trans prison population statistics is relevant. The premise of the argument is this: Men are not women. "Trans women" are men, adult human males. Women have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy away from men. Men do not belong in spaces reserved for or for the safety of women. What about this do you find uncomfortable or hard to grasp?

R47 They lead an organized effort to take down GenderTrender and GIDwatch, two of the most comprehensive resources for tracking the stunning amount of crimes committed against women. They get to say "this never happens" with assurance now, because they've scrubbed the records of all the times it has.

"This never happens! Women rape too! Method or gender doesn't matter!"

One woman raped in prison by a man who identifies as the opposite sex is too many. Stop the rape apologetics, please.

Theorize all you want about the emperor's new clothes

[quote]The idea that sex is socially constructed did not originate with Butler, but her influence has been enormous, both in academia and popular culture. You can find the idea endorsed in sociology, gender studies, and philosophy — it sometimes even makes an appearance in psychology. (Biology is an exception — [bold]the biologists are apparently not up to speed with the latest discoveries[/bold]

The [italic]latest discoveries?[/italic] Like what exactly?

^ I couldn’t decide if that line in the article was intended sincerely or sarcastically R53.

Pretty sure it's facetious r54

[quote]A woman cannot legally rape

Talk about a semantics game.

[quote]The fact of the matter is, you're more concerned about catering to a man's comfort than the safety of women. This is partly why gay men are called misogynists by feminists and lesbian activists

The fact that you don't think a woman can rape another women or generalize that it is a less traumatic or invasive violation says that you're posturing or that you're a woman who actively participates in such activity - reprehensible either way.

Personally, I'm undecided about this issue. I lean toward gender segregated prisons that provide protective custody areas for people who identify as T, but have not heard a compelling argument that includes resource, space, and financial limitations to enacting such a policy. As a general rule, one abdicates a host of rights (and personal freedoms, obviously) when one is convicted of a crime. Human and humane treatment certainly, but I have not seen any meaningful data on issues like the impact of co-location or prisoners, socialization, access by visitors (that would make geographic location for incarceration a consideration) - all of which would bear on any plan.

But, have you ever wondered why the Ts have been as successful as they've been? It's because people opposing them have not articulated a compelling argument. The majority of objections have come across as hysterical screeds, rather than well-considered debate that acknowledges valid points made on the other side of the argument. With the emotional diatribes that lack a supportable premise with actual data, it ALL can be ignored as "transphobia" rather than being a well-reasoned policy position.

As unfortunate as it may or may not be, until someone can articulate a well-reasoned position that considers valid concerns on both sides, the current trend will continue.

Disagreements are the result of three inconsistencies: 1) Data - you think 3, I think 5; 2) Interpretation - half full so good, half empty, so bad; 3) core beliefs - murder is wrong. The only way to change someone's mind about their core beliefs is to identify a greater good that is within that belief system. Murder is wrong, but not when you kill someone about to kill your child. The belief that protecting your child is a higher moral position than murder is what makes that possible. In order to limit the scope of the debate to the final point, one MUST proceed though the first two bases of disagreement. Good policy is the result of vigorous debate that considers all valid points of view, relevant data and information.

With regard to Ts and T rights, here's what I believe:

- People should be allowed to live their lives without interference or fear of persecution or violence.

- The rights of the minority should be protected, but not to the exclusion of others. To paraphrase: the right to swing your fist ends where the tip of my nose begins. Rights need to be protected and balanced. Reasonable accommodation needs to be made by all parties when rights conflict.

- There is a growing group of militant Ts who are no longer friends of gay people in general, and gay men in particular.

- There is a growing rift between the goals, objectives, and best interests of Ts and gay people in general, and gay men in particular.

- While the (still incomplete) gay rights drive is regularly brought into a false equivalence with current T rights, it's a false equivalence. What they have in common, they both have in common with black rights movements, women's rights movements, human rights movements in general.

- I'm interested in human rights. Not being offended is not a human right. Saying offensive things (excluding calls for violence) is the right of every person - as is living with the consequences of making oneself a pariah by saying offensive things.

None of that is antithetical to either side of the prison debate or women's rights to safe(r) spaces inside or outside of prison.

Can you imagine thinking being cornered in the shower and fingerbanged by a dyke is the same as being held down and thrusted into by THIS?

Meet Miss Karen White, trans lady convicted of raping a woman WHILE IN prison. Good use of taxpayer's money.

World gone mad. Poster above defending it is a sociopath.

Sorry, TWO women!!!

Sex is a biological fact. Gender roles are socially constructed. Pronouns are colloquial, so I would categorize them as gender-related. I would classify genitals and chromisomes as “sex.” This gets foggier if someone has sex re-assignment surgery. People still use chromodomes to define sex. So many questions:

Is a sex change op really a sex change? Are sex and gender one and the same? Are women OK with a post-op trans man in their locker room? Are gay men OK with seeing a trans vage in an all-male sauna? What about super-masculine looking bio women being in danger of being maced or otherwise assaulted in female spaces?

The post-op transsexual community is incredibly small, but there is still the fear that allowing them into spaces of the gender they identify with will open the floodgates of anyone who identifies as a different gender, primarily non-op MTFs, “invading” women’s spaces. If we draw the line at chromosomes, there should be a way to accommodate trans and gender-nonconforming people so they are not put in danger by being in the “wrong” bathroom, etc. There should be private stalls and dressing areas in locker rooms, I believe.

Karen White was responsible for 20% of the reported sexual assaults that occured in the women's estate in one year. So 20% were committed by the person with the penis, and the other 80% were committed by the other thousands of prisoners. I think we can see the problem here.

We know exactly why the trans movement has been so successful, R56, and it's not because of a lack of convincing arguments; it's because of mass gaslighting, an immensely funded political lobby, and of course useful idiots like yourself.

Sex: Physical

Gender : Fashion Statement

Penises and vaginas aren't socially constructed; they're anatomically constructed. Our anatomy dictates and executes their physical construction which is inarguably present / evident in three physical dimensions in this universe.

Gender is socially constructed, because it is a linguistic term describing something that is a non-physical, intangible or an [italic]ABSTRACT [/italic]concept like "identity" and "feelings" and "love" etc. It is something that only exists within a human context. Human things. Like dresses and calling your wimpy little pussy a dick--the action of "calling" or "labelling" <-- abstract.

Sidenote: Laci Green is the one, I believe, who posted a youtube video stating that "Gay people are assholes".

She's a straight white cunt who wants to be different but isn't and needs some kind of validation or attention or whatever and really just needs to have a cock stuck in her dumb straight bitch mouth to shut her up.

Just like women who say "his dick smells like shit" when anything gay could be possibly involved

Just like women who call men cocksuckers and don't call women cocksuckers, because they don't want people to hear them say "faggot" which is what they really want to say.

Especially when she wants to be a homophobe. She needs to understand that "if you keep running your mouth like that, one say someone's going knock you out" also applies to women. *Equal rights* = equal lefts. I think that it's sexist and that it hurts women when they aren't told things like this AS MEN ARE.

Also why are all these cunts: Jewish, Morman, etc. Are all of these gender fucked idiots from religious / monothestic backgrounds where "gender roles" are heavily enforced?

Where are the studies on that? Is this where their non-experience and non-knowledge come from?

If you're in a hospital and you have to see a doctor, you tell them that you're a man when you have a dick and balls (ovaries on the OUTSIDE of your body) or a woman when you don't have a cock and have ovaries on the INSIDE of your body.

You don't get to pick and choose EVERYTHING in life just like when your parents actually let a fucking STUPID child select what food they were going to eat for dinner instead of saying "This is what you eat; you don't want it? You don't EAT." You have a cock, you're male, DEAL WITH IT. Straight men do not want to fuck you, if you have a dick and they want to fuck you they are by definition NOT STRAIGHT. Get over your SELF HATRED like the fucking tard who says gay men turn him off. Dumb effeminate tiny wimpy pussy fuck that he is.

Stop. Fucking. Coddling. Fucking. Bratty. Fucking. Children.

The idea that a kid should be able to control the actions of their creators ( or guardians or parents or whatever you want to call them) has now translated into their brat ass, spoiled cunt, adult life and they now think that their words can somehow manipulate or control the immutable processes of our physical world because they're so used to being catered to. Even REAL experts (who have probably taken 7+ years of actual schooling -- gender studies is not a real subject, it's something a low I.Q. asshole takes in order to get a piece of paper so that they can claim that they're educated, like "fine" arts) must cater to them and their lack of life experience and expertise in any subject so that they don't get sued or fired for hurting the feelings of a psychopath. And yes, if you are so DELUSIONAL that you think you're a woman when you have a dick or VISA VERSA and your brain through it's weird hazy delusional psychotic visual senses is still "telling you" that you're a woman... with the dick there? You're psychotic or too fucking stupid for fucking words. You're fucked. Go lock yourself in a white padded cell.

That feels better. Now that I have channelled all of my anger into this I can knock things off of my to do list without it getting in the way.

Thanks tranny / bored straight cunt who started this mess (not OP).

R56 is exhausting.

Sex isn't socially constructed but human behavior surrounding sex is.

In ancient times after emerging from the caves (and likely before) humans constructed behavior related to sex that would protect women and infants. If a woman mated with all and sundry men, none would stay and protect her in the vulnerable months and years after babies appear. Fathers protected their daughters by fending off unworthy suitors and the resulting behaviors surrounding sex were developed to protect children and women, who at the time, often died during childbirth and were vulnerable to rape and capture. From those early family units came homes and communities, all which required defense, shelter, and food.

Women worked close to home caring for children, preparing food, and other tasks related to the home. Men, unfettered by crotch fruit, roamed far and wide hunting and fending off invaders. The roles developed from living in a hostile world unprotected by modern weapons and law enforcement.

Sexual variants like homosexuality are simply, that variants. Any human can have sex with another human for pleasure, specific genders are not required. As many communities developed some people became intolerant of those who did not fit the customs of their tribe.

As humans became liberated from old customs and traditions, anything became possible and lifestyles formerly lived in the shadows are lived openly. We still have a long way to go to attain true equal rights as in many cultures around the globe many still live in severely restricted and oppressed societies.

R61 I’m curious how a portion of a percentage of the population got such an immense lobby all of a sudden. I think it’s a bunch of attention-seeking straight people cosplaying as trans, “AKA queer polysexual demi-boi” (or whatever) who’ve hijacked trans rights to push other agendas - such as absolving themselves of the harm they’ve caused to feminism and the LGBT community by inserting themselves as the ultimate victims in the oppression olympics.

When "they" come for the Laci Greens and Judith Butlers, I won't say a word.

New research and discoveries about reality say the right is left, up is down, black is white,.

R60 For you to reduce the trauma White's victims endured to a statistical competition to defend men in women's prisons shows how much a psycho you are. He didn't belong there in the first place. It would have been averted if validating his gender feels hadn't taken precedence over the women's rights to sex segregated facilities. You keep demanding convincing 'arguments' to what should not even have to be said. Just because an UNRELATED event to men raping women occurs (which is women raping women) does not justify the first act taking place, especially not when it COULD BE PREVENTED by not allowing men access to captive women. Do you see the difference?

Either you're a trans troll or a seriously amoral character.

[quote]But, have you ever wondered why the Ts have been as successful as they've been? It's because people opposing them have not articulated a compelling argument.

No, it’s because of misogyny & homophobia. If Bruce Jenner, winner of men’s Olympic gold medals, says he's a woman then...boom. He’s ENTITLED to a “Woman of the Year” award & the cover of Vanity Fair.

Despite that he fathered a bunch of kids. Despite that he lived his entire life as a successful & rich man. Despite his right-wing politics. Despite his secretly trying on his daughters underwear. Despite his killing of a woman.

[quote]The majority of objections have come across as hysterical screeds, rather than well-considered debate that acknowledges valid points made on the other side of the argument.

Again, not true. Caring about the safety of women & children is “hysterical” only to woman-haters.

[quote]What about super-masculine looking bio women being in danger of being maced or otherwise assaulted in female spaces?

What about what about what about

Never in my life have I heard of a woman attacking a masculine woman in a bathroom.

Never in my life have I ever heard of a woman attacking men in a bathroom.

Woman just leave and/or call for help.

It’s like you don’t even know women. Like you really think men are women are interchangeable. Maybe you think of women as dickless men. Maybe you think of womanhood as just a costume.

Maybe you don’t consider women as human beings.

R65 It happened after marriage equality was passed in the U.S. Basically, this became LGBT orgs pet project. You can look at the funding reports for 2016 to see the breakdown of how monies are distributed from these orgs to each individual letter in the acronym. Individual trans causes received DOUBLE the funding (22mil) of all the other letters combined, L, G, and B. This isn't even mentioning all the individual schemes the trans lobby has going for it raised by private benefactors like the Tawani foundation/ 'Jennifer Pritzker' (Hyatt heir, part of a huge political family who are all billionaires), Bill Gates and others. It's global in reach. Last I looked the GLAAD board was almost exclusively trans, many of them heterosexuals. They've also completely taken over all gay media outlets and work in an advisory and educational capacity for pretty much all liberal institutions on how to handle the gender issue and what propaganda to swallow and subscribe to. Stonewall is the biggest culprit in the UK.

So Bill Gates is another "Fox in the Liberal henhouse?"

And r71 it’s purely from western elites. T is not a thing in third world countries. Gender dysphoria is a first world luxury I mean problem.

R68 - you read R60 wrong. They actually agree with you. The 80/20 is the Pareto Effect - most of the problems being caused by a minority of the population - in this case, male prisoners in a female prison. That a single male prisoner commited 20% of the sexual assaults in a facility of thousands of women is a significant statistic.

[quote]Again, not true. Caring about the safety of women & children is “hysterical” only to woman-haters.

Again, QED. You fail to make the argument coherently, so resort to name calling. As a gay man, I would not want public policy to be enacted based on the activities of Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy or the thousands of pedophiles who abused little boys. If we extend your baseless argument, you're saying that all gay men should be kept away from children for their safety since there have been literally thousands of cases of child abuse perpetrated by gay men. By your standard and logic, children are not safe with gay men.

You don't make public policy based on the aberrant behavior of individuals. We see YOU, r69, pretending to care about women or children.

[quote]R56 is exhausting.

Yes, I'm sure I am for someone who is used to their echo chamber message boards where no one applies any critical thought to their positions, but merely gets revved up by dubious emotional appeals.

There's also Soros' foundation which makes no attempt to obscure the large amounts it donates to trans specific causes, but you can't bring it up without being accused of being an antisemite. I understand why, since he's usually at the center of most right wing conspiracy theories. But yes, tens of millions each year are being funneled into these orgs and trans foundations to promote this shit from numerous benefactors. They still have managed to hoodwink the public into thinking trans are marginalized within 'LGBT' but it's completely the opposite.

This works by:

Spreading fake suicide statistics

Spreading fake crime statistics extrapolated from Central and South America regarding trans individuals involved in the sex trade (in the UK there were /0/ trans deaths in 2017 but Munroe Bergdorf still takes to twitter to proclaim his life expectancy is 32 years old)

Spreading revisionist history about Stonewall and how transes supposedly gave gays our rights and freedoms and how we owe them

Intense media coverage and gaslighting

Shut the fuck up R75 the only way you can reason a violent male rapist belongs in a women's prison is through emotional appeal. You have no case.

R74 Thank you for clearing that up.

R75, your homophobia is showing

Wow - so much viciousness and toxic masculinity here - “ladies” misreading each other’s posts and tearing up each other over semantics like crabs in a bucket.

Wordpress must seem like a ghost town in comparison.

[quote]Shut the fuck up [R75] the only way you can reason a violent male rapist belongs in a women's prison is through emotional appeal. You have no case.

No, there are several ways to argue the point - all of which should be considered before making public policy. Emotional appeals are what led to Brexit. Emotional appeals for safety are what led to the enactment of draconian laws post-9/11.

Second, the issue of that Karen White example has several issues that are being wholly ignored: How is it possible that this person was able to perpetrate so many acts of rape? Where was prison security while this was occurring? What failures in procedures both in actively managing the prison population, as well as administrative, that allowed such behavior to continue without effective remediation. While White may have committed a monstrous number of the attacks, there were still 80% of those attacks done by OTHER people, presumably women - who was protecting the other women inmates from these acts of violence? What flaws in the system allows such a degree of predation to occur?

Anyone interested in prisoners' rights in general or women's rights should be taking a penal system to task that allows such wanton violation of human rights - a system so flawed to begin with that the introduction of a single person could wreak such havoc.

I continue to believe that the solution that best balances the rights (abridged though they may be by incarceration) is likely a segregated facility that reflects at risk persons - irrespective of how they identify. The designation should be "at risk" not so-called gender identity, but the likelihood of being victimized by other prisoners.

[quote][R75], your homophobia is showing

No, actually yours is in that you would set a precedent detrimental to gay people in order to achieve your other goals.

R80 No. There's one single troll here who has been arguing for several longwinded posts that men belong in women's prisons. I misread someone else's post thinking it was him.

"I continue to believe that the solution that best balances the rights (abridged though they may be by incarceration) is likely a segregated facility that reflects at risk persons - irrespective of how they identify. The designation should be "at risk" not so-called gender identity, but the likelihood of being victimized by other prisoners."

No dear, the best solution is to recognize women have human rights and those don't disappear all of the sudden once a man says he's a woman. High risk group units WITHIN male prisons have been shown to work. You argued earlier that prison shouldn't be a luxury trip vacation, but I guess that applies only to the women at risk and not the men who are often in for violent sex related crimes.

R81, emotional appeals are T GoFundMe pages.

Emotional appeals are insisting you be recognized as your opposite sex or commit suicide.

Emotional appeals insist that more violence is committed against transwomen than women.

In fact, as many women are killed in one month than in transwomen are killed in one year.

Are you female? If not, then you have no say here. Only women can decide who uses the women’s restroom. It’s no skin off your nose if (and when) things go bad.

You don’t care about women. That’s obvious.

[quote]In fact, as many women are killed in one month than in transwomen are killed in one year.

Oops — ten years.

In fact, as many women are killed in one month than in transwomen are killed in TEN YEARS

R84. This. Women's rights are not men's to offer up and bequeath to other men who wish to opt-out of manhood.

[qutoe]No dear, the best solution is to recognize women have human rights and those don't disappear all of the sudden once a man says he's a woman. High risk group units WITHIN male prisons have been shown to work. You argued earlier that prison shouldn't be a luxury trip vacation, but I guess that applies only to the women at risk and not the men who are often in for violent sex related crimes.

You're so concerned about arguing and being right that you don't even recognize that "segregated facility that reflects at risk persons" and "High risk group units WITHIN male prisons" are the same and essentially what I currently favor, lacking any additional argument from the Ts. I favor such segregation as likely the best approach to ensuring safety for all prisoners - lacking any additional argument from either side. By the way, people who identify as FTM would also require a separate facility within women's prisons.

However, neither side has articulated a sufficiently compelling argument to make public policy. And what is pointedly missing is any analysis on the feasibility of any solutions that have been proposed.

Fuck that bored narcissistic slag Judith Butler. And Fuck white , bored academics that are intent on competing with a paradigm that can't be competed with ( nature) and thus ruining it for everybody else. I hope The Revolution comes, if only to kill off the educated middle class who seem to have lost it hook , line and sinker, even the fucking doctors who SHOULD know better. They ALWAYS go for the middle class and "educated" first. And I hope that they go for those who did not speak up and against this postmodernist shit on behalf of those who did, first.

That will teach cowards who do NOT believe that a person can change sex and who berate others who equally don't believe, aren't afraid to say so and are being socially and financially punished for it. Left Wing middle class people in the UK do NOT deserve their privilege, for the fact that they have wholesale chosen to parlay it into oppressing , through censure , those that they do not agree Trans Ideology. I any set of people should be getting sterilised instead of confused children, it's these slags ( both sexes) who have pushed out the pink and blue haired, bad bodied, badly presented, ugly from the inside, pasty fucks ( of all races) nutters that we all have to contend with.

Off with your fucking heads, tired, cowardly bitches. And Dawn Butler? ( black UK Labour politician who is a closeted lesbian and looks like a troll) .There is a place in hell with White Satan stabbing you hourly for selling women ( real ones) down the river. I hope that you enjoyed your filthy lucre from the lesbian woman ( !), Linda bailey who saw fit to build a museum for Jack the fucking Ripper ( how pro woman!) and who keeps on starting businesses up and closing them within a year, owing money to the tax man. I've followed the money and Post Modernism vis a vis Transactivism is a panoply of money changing hands and perverts finessing laws for access to kids and women.

Anybody on here who really gives a shit and is white , male and of means needs to start opening their mouths in public, now. My basic and black arse had to leave my job for speaking up. I haven't seen too many so called "better than those straight men" gay men of means speaking up on behalf of what they KNOW is right. It's the bitch lesbians and the increasingly alarmed straight women ( fraus) who have your backs whether you like them or not. Not even LGBT inc has your backs anymore. This is not to say that many a Frau , especially of right wing likes ya, but they KNOW what gay really is . They KNOW it isn't something that can be dependant on the mere gender presentation of a somebody. and their fucking say so.

And it isn't the black/POC/LatinAmerican trans of or not of a prostitute disposition who are the ones trying to upend creation. This is Privileged, Connected White People Shit with a few "aspirants" tagging along. Control your bitches, because the pushback, when it comes will have the innocent injured, too, more than they are being now.

R87 Oh so you've done a 180 while pretending it what's you were saying all along. Well that's one way to defend your ego. Good job.

Yes, r86, especially beta males looking to be kings of SOME hill.

[quote][R60] For you to reduce the trauma White's victims endured to a statistical competition to defend men in women's prisons shows how much a psycho you are.

Hahaha, R68 - you go, girl! There is much Adderall being washed down with Red Bull in this thread.

Do transwomen get erect when they dress up?

Does being in a ladies restroom make them hard?

How much porn do they consume? What kind?

Do they masturbate in public restrooms?

Just to be clear, R87: You argued that a man raping a woman in a women's prison is no different than a woman raping a woman EXPLICITLY for the purposes of challenging the common sense statement that men do not belong in women's prisons. You called it intellectually dishonest and emotionally manipulative to talk about the consequences. You then said you were "personally undecided on the issue" before comparing the very real threat this poses (and the example given) to homophobes talking about Jeffrey Dahmer in order to impugn gay men.

I don't mind people with poorly formed opinions-- just verbose assholes like yourself that pretend they're not weighing in on something but taking a neutral stance. You're fooling no one. It's been a delight

R92 They just want to pee. And steal and wear your used tampons. Cis bitches need to get over it.

On the subject of womens prisons, why on earth are there still ANY male guards? They also sexually assault feame prisoners. There should be ZERO male guards at womens prisons.

[quote]I would classify genitals and chromisomes as “sex.” This gets foggier if someone has sex re-assignment surgery. People still use chromodomes to define sex. So many questions: Is a sex change op really a sex change?

How does it get foggier? If you consider genitals as definers of sex, then naturally genitals include the internal reproductive organs- the uterus, the ovaries, so forth. Sexual reassignment surgery isn’t an organ transplant. Even if we get to a point of madness where there are attempts to transplant a uterus in a man, neither the male skeletal structure nor vascular system are designed to accommodate it.

If we’re ignoring the internal reproductive organs and just talking about the ones used for sexual intercourse— a vagina is not just a hole. A clitoris isn’t just a nob. Amputating the penis and creating an artificial hole isn’t remotely similar, no more so than harvesting a piece of flesh from a woman’s thigh, rolling it up, and sewing it over her vulva is anywhere near being a penis.

Biological sex is not binary. Sex determination controls sex differentiation. However the pathways to sex differentiation are not clear. That's why scientists balk at defining sex as immutable.

I know it's pointless to argue with science deniers but I do it.

For example, reading through the abstract, you will see "both sex and gender are fluid"

And the supposed dichotomy is not straight forward but marked by complexity.

Totally false, R97. Sex is binary. Sexual dimorphism is settled science. The journal you provided was written by 2 sociologists and an art major. As if that needed pointing out.

You're the flat earther coming in here calling others science deniers. Bye, Felicia.

Butler really really hates women. And reality. And good writing

R97 Science deniers? Fuck, this is why your family ignores you

The problem with adding a “trans wing” in a prison is that it still puts them at risk because any predatory male can claim he’s trans, get housed in there, and start raping them. I think there should be seperate facilities for T or intersex people, but with some kind of gatekeeping before admitting prisoners into the trans wing.

[quote]Just to be clear, [R87]: You argued that a man raping a woman in a women's prison is no different than a woman raping a woman EXPLICITLY for the purposes of challenging the common sense statement that men do not belong in women's prisons. You called it intellectually dishonest and emotionally manipulative to talk about the consequences. You then said you were "personally undecided on the issue" before comparing the very real threat this poses (and the example given) to homophobes talking about Jeffrey Dahmer in order to impugn gay men.

No, you have neither summarized my position nor the actual premises of my argument correctly - you can re-frame what I said in whatever manner you choose. But, since posts cannot be edited, I'm fine with letting my own words stand for themselves - all of them, not just those you've selected out of context to prove whatever point you need to win an argument.

In the end, agree or disagree with what you think I said or the positions I've taken as you see fit.

Public policy should ALWAYS be vigorously debated with the pros and cons weighed for all positions with acute attention paid to both the rights and responsibilities of people AND the individual.

No where does "gender" ever enter the field of hard science. Never. It's entirely a theoretical and political endeavor R97 Is the type of propagandist that preys on weak minded or well meaning individuals like a Scientologist.

[quote]Biological sex is not binary

Lol. I would love to hear you explain how babies are made.

[quote]Public policy should ALWAYS be vigorously debated

Of course.

But the Ts censor debate every chance they get.

To them, debating T ideology is LITERAL VIOLENCE

(More “emotional appeal”)

Blah blah blah, lie about what you were saying and why you were saying it as if it's not all written there, conclude with some common sense bullshit no one even contested to make yourself appear sensible. Transparent.

[quote] lie about what you were saying and why you were saying it as if it's not all written there, conclude with some common sense bullshit no one even contested to make yourself appear sensible

Lie? I don't need to lie. I'm the one who pointed out that what I wrote is readily available and cannot be edited (as far as I know).

But yes, it is all written here with my suggestion that others (if they have the time and patience, that is - as has been noted, it's rather long, but a complex subject is not easily summarized in a media ready sound bite of trite tautologies) read it for themselves, rather than depend on your inaccurate assertions about what I might have written or the positions I've taken.

Make a Trannie breastfeed a baby and you'll get a baby who starves to death every time.

You either have a dick or you don't.

Here's Stanford medical.

But I guess that's not good enough either for you

Sex is not binary and it is not settled science, no matter what you learned in 7th grade

R107 Buddy I've been doing this whole trans debate thing for years. Anyone that uses lesbians as a red herring to detract from the fact that a MAN rapes a woman in prison is no friend to homosexuals and is not debating in good faith. Scram.

And look more science

And more science

[quote]its rather long, but a complex subject

No, it’s not. It’s quite simple.

Xx = female

Xy = male

No male will ever be female.

Changing bio sex is impossible.

Biological sex is MOSTLY binary There’s a minutia of people with intersex genotypes, but, in the past, doctors of the binary mindset whipped out their phallo-meters and cut off anything that exceeded a certain length on intersex babies without a fully formed penis. Then there are those cases of androgen insensitivity syndrome, where parents who think they were raising a “girl” are shocked to find out they have a son.

As far as sexual dimorphism goes, that varies in primates (compare bonobos to silver back gorillas). This indicates millions of years of sexual selection - you can tell which species have females who prefer nurturing males vs species where chicks go for the alphas. We humans are trending towards less dimorphism, I think. Thanks, soy!

And more reading with links to science!

[quote]Buddy I've been doing this whole trans debate thing for years. Anyone that uses lesbians as a red herring to detract from the fact that a MAN rapes a woman in prison is no friend to homosexuals and is not debating in good faith. Scram.

Yes, and you know what they say about people who continue to do the same thing, but expect a different result.

At no point did I use "lesbians as a red herring to detract from the fact that a MAN rapes a woman in prison..."

Likewise, anyone who misrepresents someone else's position is also not debating in good faith.

And by the way, the fact that I note which posts are mine to facilitate better understanding of my points, rather than hide, is greater sign of good faith than you've exhibited by misquoting and misrepresenting my points in the worst possible light.

R113, show me one medical doctor who says it’s possible for a boy to become a girl.

R110 Yet again you send me a link to a student contribution based blog's article written by an ANTHROPOLOGY major. Did you not read what I wrote about HARD SCIENCE?

You're basically the anti-abortion activist that sends me a link to a Harvard student group's blog and shouts "LOOK, HARVARD!"

Sexual dimorphism is an undisputed reality and is taught from 7th grade, as you said, all the way into the highest biological fields. It is plainly observable. You're fooling no one.

Look more science stuff

R117 Stop trying to save face.

[quote][R117] Stop trying to save face.

I will if you will.

R120 Magic transgender brains debunked. Subjects are all on estrogen and the sample sizes are abysmally small. Non replicable results.

R119 I've sent several sources.

But here's something: you do know anthropology can be a science right? Cultural anthropology is different from say physical anthropology.

Let me guess, you don't science and you don't math.

[R113], show me one medical doctor who says it’s possible for a boy to become a girl.

—Anonymous [R118]

I say it's possible, and if you disagree I'll kick your ass.

R123. Ok sweetie and I guess WHOs work on genomes is bullshit too

Typical trans propagandist. Floods a thread with conjecture from art majors, sociologists and anthropologists and tries to pass it off as hard science. When that doesn't work, do the "some men actually have female brains" bit-- which has been debunked over and over and over. Keep insisting the science proves you right.

R124 You poor thing. Cultural anthropology has nothing to do with biology or the hard sciences.

So - Given that there is a binary: if males are innately more violent than females, is it due to their brains, or their socialization? Both? (If so, what percent of influence does each have?)

Look at these poor doctors.

No chemistry, math, physics, anatomy for them

They can't science, I guess.

R128, sweetie, I was the person explaining that a physical anthropologist is different from a cultural anthropologist.

Reading and math are hard, huh.

The world needs English majors, too.

ARE YOU EVEN READING THESE THINGS YOU'RE SENDING? That last one was about ear nose and throat specialist surgeons working with the trans community and whether or not the majority respondents had direct experience with them? What on EARTH do you think you were trying to prove?

Are you 12?

[quote]ARE YOU EVEN READING THESE THINGS YOU'RE SENDING? That last one was about ear nose and throat specialist surgeons working with the trans community and whether or not the majority respondents had direct experience with them? What on EARTH do you think you were trying to prove?

See r132 - and you thought we'd never find common ground. We wholly agree that r130's post makes zero sense and adds nothing worthwhile.

R131 Physical anthropology is a social science, just to clear up for you. All disciplines work from the framework that humans are sexually dimorphic. This is enforced from Bio 101 to A&P all the way up. I'm not debating this a 14 year old that just sent me a link to a fucking ear nose and throat doctor survey thinking she just disproved sexual dimorphism.

R133 Peace and love

Who's to say ears, noses, and throats aren't also social constructs worth debating?

Many noses have transitioned

Medical needs for males and females are vastly different especially in surgery. You had better hope to high heaven your ENT knows what a man and a woman is if you start to aspirate or have an RTI. They've found men who receive blood transfusions from a woman who has ever been pregnant are more likely to die....

Sex is a binary. The primary function of biological sex is reproduction. Penis goes in vagina. Simple, right? That being said, a small portion of us have brains that are attracted to the same sex, so biological norms in this case do not apply. I think we do better as a culture to allow a social recognition of gay couples as romantic partners, despite that not being in line with the design of our genitals.

In the same vein, I think we can allow a social recognition of someone being a different gender than their bio sex in terms of social roles (pronouns, attire, etc.) That being said, bio sex still takes precedence in some cases - sports and communal nude spaces like locker rooms, for instance. However, I don’t see why T people should be not allowed to use bathrooms with individual stalls if they “pass” as the gender designated by the bathroom they are using.

To completely erase T people from society is as cruel as erasing homosexuality by calling it a “mental illness” instead of an immutable personal trait, which - in most cases - gender identity is.

There are only two sexes: male and female. There have always been understandings of individuals, like hermaphrodites. Societies, at large, don't (and should not) restructure themselves for a handful of genetic anomalies.

Leave women and girls alone and stop trying to role back the gains they've fought for to become equal participants in society (public facilities, sports, etc.)

Fight men for acceptance of effeminate males. Sissy boys are not girls and never will be. Male criminals need to serve their time in men's prisons with the basic necessities; no makeup, lingerie, or hormones. Welcome to jail! Let the sadness of not being able to play dress up motivate you to not be a repeat offender.

Transgenderism has found so much success with the Left, because of our accommodating spirit. We like to entertain all sorts of bullshit and elaborately spun nonsense. We should hit them and their proposals with the brick wall of reality.

No! Men can't hang out in the ladies' room. Piss off (literally) to the men's room. The discomfort of a man in a wig lurking in the next stall is men's discomfort to deal with.

No! Girls cannot drug themselves and chop their breasts off. Don't like puberty? Join the club! No body mods (not even tattoos) until you're eighteen. Learn to be a happy tomboy and/or lesbian. If you have deeper issues, mental health care is what you need and we'll give it to you.

Gender studies is the intellectually bankrupt word salad served up by the some of the worst academics to receive tenure over the past quarter of a century. If you wasted time reading the OP's entire article (like I did) that time would have been better spent reading the Human Reproduction chapter of a 9th grad science book.

Great post 140

R129, I think it’s due to their testosterone which is why young males pay the highest car insurance premiums...they are the most aggressive & dangerous drivers.

When women take testosterone, they become more aggressive.

It’s so dominant that even when men are on cross-hormones they are still aggressive ...because they can’t get rid of their natural testosterone.

R139 is the very definition of “heteronormative”.

See how homophobic T is? They’re basically saying that homosexuality is queer. If it’s to be accepted then anything that’s not heteronormative must also be accepted.

That’s why they call us queers now...against our wills. They think we are freaks. And that gay Rights is freak rights.

Nobody is erasing Ts, r139.

We are just saying it’s impossible to change sex. Show me a physician who says otherwise.

Transwomen can identify & dress however they wish. But they are not women & never will be. Even if they remove their penises, they are still men. Women are not dickless men.

[quote]However, I don’t see why T people should be not allowed to use bathrooms with individual stalls if they “pass” as the gender designated by the bathroom they are using.

Who decides who “passes” and who doesn’t? Is there a “look” to gender? Does long hair belong to the female gender, and short to the male? What about women and men who accept their bio sex, have no dysphoria, but dress and groom themselves outside of these gender norms?

You see how absurd this is, or at least I hope you do r139. Pissing, shitting, and dealing with menstruation are all biological functions— and one of those is sex-specific. Thus it is logical to keep the spaces meant for these functions designated per one’s biology, not identity.

R139 Biological sex IS heteronormative by design, isn’t it? We are not designed like seahorses. That does not mean society should be heteronormative, though, and I believe it’s hypocritical for those of us who have been called freaks for being gay to turn that animosity onto trans folk. And vice versa - I’m not a fan of SJWs who demonize gay white men.

Iran is the only country officially ”transing” people in the name of heteronormativity. There are plenty of gay, straight and bisexual T people in the U.S. and all over the world.

^^That’s for R143

If you have a penis, you should be put in prison with the other people who have penises. If you have a vagina, you should be in prison with the other people who have vaginas.

Same with restrooms, no matter how you're dressed.

Simple as that.

If you cut your penis off, you still go into the male prison.

And, R149, we're not paying for male prisoners to cut their penises off.

There's a long queue of men, women, and children waiting for medical care and limited funds.

R145 So how do keep T people who “pass” out of the “wrong” restrooms - any suggestions?

Few pass irl

^^ How do you know? If they pass, you wouldn’t know they were trans to begin with ^^

People who pass will continue to pass.

If they get caught, they're welcome to touch up their mascara in the men's room. Or, help themselves to a single-use restroom.

The Earth's billions of women don't need to bend to the will of a tiny fraction of a percentage of men who want to disrupt their spaces.

If women’s’ bathrooms are such sacred spaces, please stop flushing your tampons, peeing on the seats and throwing your paper towels on the ground. There's a nifty little device known as a “waste basket.” Use it. Thank you,

Not sacred, R155, just exclusive.

Exceptions are made for men with mops and buckets who make sure all of the females have finished and left.

[quote]please stop flushing your tampons, peeing on the seats and throwing your paper towels on the ground. There's a nifty little device known as a “waste basket.” Use it. Thank you,

And urinals are not meant for solid waste. So stop taking a shit in them.

R157 I admit I’ve seen the most horrific things in men’s rooms - a log on the seat, an unidentifiable sludge in the sink, piss on the wall, but those incidents were few and far between compared to the ladies rooms, which were consistently nasty and bloody during my stint doing cleanup in the restaurant biz.

Seriously, guys who want to use the women’s room: think twice. It looks like a scene from The Shining.

The entire argument that “sex is socially constructed” hinges on Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome: because these fetuses have vaginas, they are “assigned” female at birth despite having XY chromosomes. TRAs use this to state that this makes the category “female” unrelated to chromosomes, despite the fact individuals with AIH belong to the category “intersex” whether they even know about their condition or not. Doctors saying “it’s a boy/girl” is more an assignation gender than sex.

Sex =/= Gender

R159 - Dang - that must be a mindfuck for the kid and the parents if they find out about it years after giving their child a female name and identity. (Unless ultrasounds can detect that condition nowadays.)

Wow once you block that tiresome troll half of this tread disappears. Trans loon will probably go cry to Muriel and get this thread shut down. "Muriel, they are saying awful things abut me! The truth doesn't just hurt Muriel, its literally murder!"

Well, if it's Jacob T, he'll go to Muriel only after calling the suicide hotline.

But before his nap, right? Gotta make sure to miss that dastardly IKEA delivery van again.

[R162]

I hope the Suicide Hotline hangs up on him.

Why do the trans community have to be so cloying? At least us gays had style dammit!

I actually don't have a stance. I really couldn't care less if you want to chop it or keep it. But no bio male should be with bio women. We ALL know how men are.

I will be sure to let the paleontologists know theirs is a social science.

I will be sure to let WHO know their genome study isn't science.

Paleontologists use sexual dimorphism every day in their field. When Caitlyn Jenner is put in the ground and dug up 1000 years from now, his remains will be classified as male by an anthropologist. Forensic anthropologists solve cases with osteology and other means of identifying sex, age and other characteristics. When they perform analysis, they don't go "this person was male identified on the transmasculine spectrum." It says nothing of gender identity, and no imaginary sex spectrum.

The curriculum does not teach that sex is a "spectrum" because it simply isn't. Linking to student papers and sociologists with a gender studies background does not change this fact.

This is where the "sex and gender are a spectrum" folks are getting their info from. Oh and Bill Nye the science guy, who only holds a B.S.. and thinks clownfishes can tell us more about sexual dimorphism in mammals.

Sex is not socially constructed. It existed before humans were socialized. Sex is for procreation, simple and plain. The fact that humans can enjoy it in many other ways is a plus for us. But sex is for this world, to form more human beings. Gender is another theory altogether. Gender is a social construct to make the sex part easier. Now that we are able to separate ourselves a bit from the biological and focus on gender, the push should be that some Men (Cis or otherwise) are born with penises and some with vaginas, while some Women (cis or otherwise) are born with vaginas and some penises. If that is truly someone's interest, to level the playing field, we should accept that your sexual procreative organs to not equal your gender. So some Men and Women can physically carry babies. And some Men and Women have XY chromosomes.

Personally I find it fascinating that people who are pushing for gender equality still push for gender reassignment, which actually enforces the societal norms of what's excepted as to what a man or woman should be. I feel like a woman, therefore I should have breasts and a vagina or you're not whole. Or I feel like a man, so I should take hormones to grow a penis. You can be a woman and still enjoy your cock. You can be a man and still have a vagina.

The brazenness of trying to convince a bunch of gay men "some men have vaginas and some women have penises." There are over 6,500 distinct genetic expressions between men and women.

The words "man" and "woman" have NEVER referred to "gender" as separate from biological sex. The very definition of man and woman is adult human male (sex) and adult human female (sex,) respectively. No woman has a penis, or any of those thousands of genetic markers making "her" a man.

Stop trying to push this madness.

"You can be a man and still have a vagina."

Put the crack pipe down, Sally.

R142 I take it you’re not from the U.S. - female drivers actually are charged higher auto insurance rates than male drivers in most of the big cities here.

Harrop is all over this thread. Poor boy has been taken apart. Lovely.

Bye bye, male privilege!

This thread is fantastic. No one has addressed the science.

People have attacked the scientists and doctors who study human anatomy and body structure ("The author doesn't suit my needs" tantrum.)

Strangely no one has mentioned the WHOs work on genomes.

There aren't enough W&Ws to give out for R62.

And if Dr. Harrop is on this thread and is reading this, just realize that you're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are.

R175 Sociologists do not study the body.

Nothing in WHO's Genomic resource center says anything about sex existing on a 'spectrum,' as has been claimed, in fact it repeatedly emphasizes that it does not. There's nothing to address. The science is clear. Sex is binary. Some abnormalities exist within the two sex classes. Men are not women.

And to be clear, transgender is not that abnormality. It's honestly sickening that people with disorders of sexual development are used in this way.

Claims the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism, that biological sex isn't real, that women have dicks... Asks why no one is "addressing the science."

Weeping for future generations.

Welcome to the reality of “womanhood” Faith Frances.

R166, be sure to tell future archeologists that XX can be male

Interested ideas here - it sounds like, since most of the problem women have with MTFs is them wanting to be in female spaces, while trabsgender people are caught up in the senantics of being a “real” male or female based on how they identify, and that their bio sex is “wrong.” FTM don’t figure much into this because they are not in the spotlight and blend in better.

I think our culture should allow some middle ground for the gender-nonconforming (big umbrella here) in by providing gender neutral facilities, sports organizations, etc. and stop disrespecting people who don’t socially conform to a binary, whether they I.D. as trans or not.

The MTF trans-activists who are bullying people to consider them exactly as bio women need to stop. Most of them were raised early on with male privilege and it will always be part of their psyche - that’s why it seems like 90 percent of the time they bully women while FTMs rarely, if ever, bully men into accepting them.

Future archeologists are going to have fun analyzing this period when they dig up all of those male skeletons with a pair of silicon bags sitting in the chest cavity.

^^ And female skeletons too! They’re going to realize what the male gaze did to women in general.

Love this thread, good common sens e