Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[Shechemite]

While you have contributed fuck all to this debate beyond abuse. You've been a fucking disgrace.

Yeah, remember your comments that those who disliked the Cis label ‘should get a grip’.

Have a word with yourself.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Or maybe it's a just a young child playing dress up, nothing more, nothing less, and talking about 'non-gender conforming kids' in this context is way OTT?

Aye, my son used to be into painting his nails aged 3, he one hundred per cent considers himself male and kids tend to have strong ideas about this as soon as they are able to communicate them IME. I have told a lot of men he likes having his nails painted and a fair number have told me they did when they were kids too-yet you would never know that was common , but his dad was shitty about it.

I have been teaching my son that being a boy or a girl can mean many things as they seem to pick up stereotypes really -scarily- quickly, he has responded to this positively and will now correct his friends when they refer to toys or clothes as being gendered. But I was struck fairly early on by how prevalent this gender shite was, I didn't expect to have to be undoing my son's education on pink and blue cups as soon as he started nursery, fuck sake!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, remember your comments that those who disliked the Cis label ‘should get a grip’.

Have a word with yourself.

You told me to fuck off when I pointed out the internal contradictions of what you were saying on that thread.

As for this thread top cat appears solely to be interested in slagging off other posters while contributing no ideas of his own. He's been a fucking disgrace.

 

[andysays]

...Of course you don't, you aren't trans and are not prepared to accept what trans people tell you about their lives. Things like being harrassed at customs because your gender presentation doesn't match your passport or being humiliated and interrogated about your sex when trying to open a bank account will never affect you. So why should you care?

It's a great shame that you are consistently unable to post without descending into dishonest misrepresentation, personalised attacks and accusations of transphobia.

I haven't said anything to suggest I don't believe or accept what trans people say about being harassed or that I don't care about it because it doesn't affect me directly. I do believe and accept that trans people are frequently harassed etc, and (even though it doesn't affect me directly) I think they should be able to live their lives free of such harassment.

But I'm also willing to listen to, to believe and to accept what people other than trans people say about being harassed, oppressed and be regularly stereotyped according to gender as to what they should and shouldn't wear, do, think or say, and to give those concerns just as much attention as those from trans people, something which you have consistantly refused to do as you dismiss other people's concerns and recounting of experiences as being the result of being in thrall to TERF ideology.

And most of the people who are being harassed, oppressed and regularly stereotyped according to gender as to what they should and shouldn't wear, do, think or say are, still, women in the traditional sense who were born with a female anatomy and assigned their gender at birth.

As I said previously, I would like to see all people able to live their lives free of gender-based harassment, oppression and stereotyping, but while this GRA may make life easier for some trans people in significant and worthwhile ways, I don't see how it will benefit the vast majority of people, and I'm concerned that it may contribute to further embedding gender-based assumptions about men and (particularly) women in law, which I can't view as a positive development.

Do you actually have any meaningful response to any of that, or are you just going to continue to misrepresent and accuse of transphobia anyone who doesn't agree 100% with what you want?

 

[smokedout]

It's a great shame that you are consistently unable to post without descending into dishonest misrepresentation, personalised attacks and accusations of transphobia.

I haven't said anything to suggest I don't believe or accept what trans people say about being harassed or that I don't care about it because it doesn't affect me directly. I do believe and accept that trans people are frequently harassed etc, and (even though it doesn't affect me directly) I think they should be able to live their lives free of such harassment.

But I'm also willing to listen to, to believe and to accept what people other than trans people say about being harassed, oppressed and be regularly stereotyped according to gender as to what they should and shouldn't wear, do, think or say, and to give those concerns just as much attention as those from trans people, something which you have consistantly refused to do as you dismiss other people's concerns and recounting of experiences as being the result of being in thrall to TERF ideology.

And most of the people who are being harassed, oppressed and regularly stereotyped according to gender as to what they should and shouldn't wear, do, think or say are, still, women in the traditional sense who were born with a female anatomy and assigned their gender at birth.

As I said previously, I would like to see all people able to live their lives free of gender-based harassment, oppression and stereotyping, but while this GRA may make life easier for some trans people in significant and worthwhile ways, I don't see how it will benefit the vast majority of people, and I'm concerned that it may contribute to further embedding gender-based assumptions about men and (particularly) women in law, which I can't view as a positive development.

Do you actually have any meaningful response to any of that, or are you just going to continue to misrepresent and accuse of transphobia anyone who doesn't agree 100% with what you want?

Are laws designed to protect marginalised and minority groups intended to benefit the vast majority of people, beyond of course those protections being available to them and those they care about? When did this become a test of whether new legislation is worthwhile? Is the entire notion of solidarity dead now?

As you acknowledge this may make life easier for some people in significant and worthwhile ways. So the only question should be is that to the detriment of other people. And beyond some vague claim about embedding gender-based assumptions, as if a millenia old gender binary system is being propped up by the few thousand people changing their legal gender, the answer is no, it will not be to the detriment of anyone. And given the way the current system treats non-binary people I'd suggest it's those opposed to reform who are the gender reactionaries.

I didn't call you transphobic. I said you didn't care about this beecause it doesn't affect you. And like many non trans people (not necessarily you of course), who reproduce the gender binary constantly and do not feel enduring distress about that, or even notice it for the most part, you appear to hold trans people to a higher standard of gender radicalism than non trans people. You expect trans-people to muddle through life with a vague, incomplete legal gender identity, with all the administrative problems that brings, despite being compelled to live under a gender binary and arguably being one of the groups that suffers most from that. Why the fuck should they have to live like that when a simple bureacratic change could make things a lot easier?

And all in the name of smashing the gender binary, as if this too is the responsibility of trans people and not gender typical people, and in particular men, who are actually the ones reproducing that binary.

 

[co-op]

I haven't really got time to do this post justice but fwiw here goes

No, can you point to any organised (political) group made up of transwomen who are promoting patriarchal gender roles? If you are talking about individuals and tumblr cliques then I guess the question would be does someone challenge transwomen more than ciswomen, or cismen? Because to do so - to treat a group differently, and more harshly, simply because they are trans - would of course be transphobia. I do not see the same energy poured into deconstructing Katie Price or any number of high profile macho men by trans critical feminists.

I'm glad you agree that criticising transpeople who push stereotyped gender binaries is not transphobic. No I don't know organised groups who openly do this (I'm not in the know on the whole scene) but it's really clear that many transpeople do as individuals and so do their allies.

I totally disagree that anyone criticising transpeople who push reactionary gender ideals is transphobic just because you aren't critiquing non-trans people as much/more/whatever. This is the 'you can't criticise Israel until you've criticised Turkmanistan' argument. It's bullshit, not least because it demands an agreed hierarchy of attack-worthiness. I have only ever seen it used to defend the indefensible in other spheres, it's interesting seeing it come up here.

No, not to question it. But to insist that anyone who does not meet a purely subjective definition of woman, which is not shared by everyone, has no right to ever organise politically as a woman, or enter a women only space, despite what other women might think, is trans exclusionary and that would make someone a terf.

As has been pointed out, once you take out biology and socialisation, what you are left with and what you are defending here is the "purely subjective" idea of what it is to be a woman; it's literally just a feeling. You are saying that anyone who magically has that feeling is entitled to make demands of women who have both biological and socialised claims to 'being a woman' and any woman who disagrees is a "terf"

No, but to refuse to accept a linguistic need for a pragmatic antonym for trans, especially on the basis that there is no such thing as trangenderism - there are normal women and men who sometimes have 'pretend feels' - would be a characteristic of terf ideology.

For sure - but who's said this? (ie that there is no such thing as transgenderism); Literally no one ever as far as I know. Explain to me how "cis" does not embody an assumption of binary normativity and the assumption that most people are 'naturally' happier in their binary.

No, as I pointed out several trans people have done this themselves. But to reject the meaningfulness of gender dysphoria, or the meaningfulness of how some trans people report experiencing their bodies - to claim these things are delusions at best, or lies for some sinister rapey intent at worst - would also be a hallmark of terf ideology.

Again you've set up an argument ("rejecting the meaningfulness of gender dysphoria") that literally no one has ever said (that I am aware of). When a side in an argument continually sets up ridiculous straw men, I think we're entitled to allege bad faith. I've argued this point on another post but I'll say it again; re-read the Goldsmith's thread on this - the 'wrong body' argument was continually used and was never challenged by the self-styled defenders of the transcommunity and anyone (like me) who did was instantly denounced as transphobic. Suddenly now, it's all cool to deny the wrong body theory - as I pointed out Nigel I has gone so far as to allege that only a transphobe would put it forward it's so daft.

If you are so all over the place on such a key central tenet of what you think you are defending, why should anyone listen to what you're saying now? Who knows what you're going to ditch in the next 2 years?

I don't think throwing terf around is particularly helpful because it is a highly ideological position which I'd suggest shares some common factors:-

Hasn't stopped you doing it one hell of a lot on this thread repeatedly. Don't you worry about your credibility when you contradict yourself so openly?

I'd suggest anyone who appears to agree with all or most of this could be rightly described as a terf, and sadly that includes most of the women curently leading the fight against the GRA amendments.

Yes I'd agree with a lot of that too - but since it's at least 90% strawman arguments that no one on this thread has made I'm not sure what the relevance of this long section is here? I know there are out-there radfems who do think & say some of those things but why this continual conflation of those with people like myself and others on this thread?

My guess is that we are not actually that far apart on a lot of this.

 

[co-op]

Anyone who is happy with this development wants to take a look at who they're lining up alongside, ie the gutter press and the tory right. And then maybe ask themselves if dashing the hopes of transgender people is likely to actually resolve any of the issues involved to anyone's satsifaction, or restore society to an imaginary past time of comfortingly rigid dichotomies.

If we're going to look at who's lining up with who, you might want to check that the GRA was brought forward by Theresa May. What is she? A funky progressive?

Challenging and undermining rigid gender dichotomies is exactly what radical feminism has always been about. The point is radicals should support radical transgender people, not right wing ones who often love rigid gender dichotomies. This is what this thread has been about.

 

[smokedout]

I haven't really got time to do this post justice but fwiw here goes



I'm glad you agree that criticising transpeople who push stereotyped gender binaries is not transphobic. No I don't know organised groups who openly do this (I'm not in the know on the whole scene) but it's really clear that many transpeople do as individuals and so do their allies.

I totally disagree that anyone criticising transpeople who push reactionary gender ideals is transphobic just because you aren't critiquing non-trans people as much/more/whatever. This is the 'you can't criticise Israel until you've criticised Turkmanistan' argument. It's bullshit, not least because it demands an agreed hierarchy of attack-worthiness. I have only ever seen it used to defend the indefensible in other spheres, it's interesting seeing it come up here.




As has been pointed out, once you take out biology and socialisation, what you are left with and what you are defending here is the "purely subjective" idea of what it is to be a woman; it's literally just a feeling. You are saying that anyone who magically has that feeling is entitled to make demands of women who have both biological and socialised claims to 'being a woman' and any woman who disagrees is a "terf"




For sure - but who's said this? (ie that there is no such thing as transgenderism); Literally no one ever as far as I know. Explain to me how "cis" does not embody an assumption of binary normativity and the assumption that most people are 'naturally' happier in their binary.




Again you've set up an argument ("rejecting the meaningfulness of gender dysphoria") that literally no one has ever said (that I am aware of). When a side in an argument continually sets up ridiculous straw men, I think we're entitled to allege bad faith. I've argued this point on another post but I'll say it again; re-read the Goldsmith's thread on this - the 'wrong body' argument was continually used and was never challenged by the self-styled defenders of the transcommunity and anyone (like me) who did was instantly denounced as transphobic. Suddenly now, it's all cool to deny the wrong body theory - as I pointed out Nigel I has gone so far as to allege that only a transphobe would put it forward it's so daft.

If you are so all over the place on such a key central tenet of what you think you are defending, why should anyone listen to what you're saying now? Who knows what you're going to ditch in the next 2 years?




Hasn't stopped you doing it one hell of a lot on this thread repeatedly. Don't you worry about your credibility when you contradict yourself so openly?



Yes I'd agree with a lot of that too - but since it's at least 90% strawman arguments that no one on this thread has made I'm not sure what the relevance of this long section is here? I know there are out-there radfems who do think & say some of those things but why this continual conflation of those with people like myself and others on this thread?

My guess is that we are not actually that far apart on a lot of this.

I'm on my phone so will reply to this properly later but you seem to have missed the point. You asked what makes someone a terf and I answered, I didn't call you a terf, or anyone in this thread that I remember. I have pointed out people using dishonest terf propaganda, possibly unwittingly, but that doesn't necessarily make someone a terf.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Just for reference there's info on how to apply for a gender recongition certificate at: Obtaining Your Gender Recognition Certificate – Gender Identity Research & Education Society

It is hugely bureacratic, especially given all the other things that need to happen like changing your name and then details with banks, tax, benefits etc. It is also potentially quite expensive. Would it really have been such a disaster to make this a bit easier?

Nobody benefits from delaying or scrapping the gender recognition act. There are no provisions in it which don't already exist in many other places. The GRA is just a vicarious target for people who are aware that they might come across as arseholes if they came out and attacked trans folk directly. None of the arguments from team TERF seem to have any bearing on anything that's actually in the proposed legislation.

Keeping a needlessly unpleasant gender recognition process will not make trans people go away, nor will it protect anyone from abuse. Another thing it won't do is make the bitter, ignorant axe-grinders at the daily mail and/or TERF HQ feel any better, because people who get that riled up about shit that doesn't really affect them will always find something new to be upset about.

 

[bimble]

The current system, where you have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the panel and doctors that you are 'living as' the gender you want to be recognised as, that process massively reinforces the rules of acting / dressing "like a woman".

 

[co-op]

I'm on my phone so will reply to this properly later but you seem to have missed the point. You asked what makes someone a terf and I answered, I didn't call you a terf, or anyone in this thread that I remember. I have pointed out people using dishonest terf propaganda, possibly unwittingly, but that doesn't necessarily make someone a terf.

Sorry got you now. I wondered why you were on that.

 

[co-op]

The current system, where you have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the panel and doctors that you are 'living as' the gender you want to be recognised as, that process massively reinforces the rules of acting / dressing "like a woman".

Yep, performing the patriarchy is part of the medical process.

 

[bimble]

Yep, performing the patriarchy is part of the medical process.

Yep, so it's inconsistent (and a bit stupid) for people who say they want to get rid of the whole idea of gender to support the medicalised beaurocratic system that exists now, where if you showed up dressed in say baggy jeans a checked shirt and no makeup and sat with your legs apart instead of demurely crossed your chances of being recognised as a woman would be reduced.

 

[andysays]

Yep, so it's inconsistent (and a bit stupid) for people who say they want to get rid of the whole idea of gender to support the medicalised beaurocratic system that exists now, where if you showed up dressed in say baggy jeans a checked shirt and no makeup and sat with your legs apart instead of demurely crossed your chances of being recognised as a woman would be reduced.

It's almost like some of these people don't want to get rid of the whole idea of gender at all, but actually want to create for themselves a position where they can choose all the individual and individualist bits of "being a woman" they like without having to deal with all the generalised social oppression which anyone with half a brain recognises that women have had to deal with for millenia, and they're not in the least concerned if their incoherent arguments actually further entrench gender stereotypes, not only socially but now legally too

 

[bimble]

It's almost like some of these people don't want to get rid of the whole idea of gender at all, but actually want to create for themselves a position where they can choose all the individual and individualist bits of "being a woman" they like without having to deal with all the generalised social oppression which anyone with half a brain recognises that women have had to deal with for millenia, and they're not in the least concerned if their incoherent arguments actually further entrench gender stereotypes, not only socially but now legally too

At first reading I was honestly not sure who you're describing there andysays - trans rights activists or 'terfs' , which kind of goes to show how messy this whole thing is, when you try to think about it head on.

Which reminds me .. You said this earlier:

And most of the people who are being harassed, oppressed and regularly stereotyped according to gender as to what they should and shouldn't wear, do, think or say are, still, women in the traditional sense who were born with a female anatomy and assigned their gender at birth.

I think the 'stereotyped' bit at least is not true, reckon that the past couple of generations of feminist work has had an effect on loosening the strictures of gender for women around here at least, whilst men are left behind, encased in the rule book of masculinity. Which maybe (just an idea) explains why there's up till now been so many more MtF trans people. I watched a video on youtube of Miranda Yardley in conversation where she described herself not as a woman but as a 'refugee from masculinity', which I liked.

 

[Cloo]

The current system, where you have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the panel and doctors that you are 'living as' the gender you want to be recognised as, that process massively reinforces the rules of acting / dressing "like a woman".

I'd never thought about that. Yes, I guess it's problematic in that for those purposes you can't be a short-haired woman wearing jeans and shirt.

I don't think many people want to 'get rid of the whole idea of gender' - more they want people to have the choice of gender, or indeed the choice not to have a gender.

 

[Combustible]

The point is radicals should support radical transgender people, not right wing ones who often love rigid gender dichotomies. This is what this thread has been about.

Do you apply the same standards to non-trans women？ Are they only deserving of support if they reject gender binaries altogether (a miniscule fraction of the worldwide female population)? Are they all right-wing if they don't agree? Or is it only transgender people who's support is qualified in this way.

 

[smokedout]

I haven't really got time to do this post justice but fwiw here goes

I'm glad you agree that criticising transpeople who push stereotyped gender binaries is not transphobic. No I don't know organised groups who openly do this (I'm not in the know on the whole scene) but it's really clear that many transpeople do as individuals and so do their allies.

I totally disagree that anyone criticising transpeople who push reactionary gender ideals is transphobic just because you aren't critiquing non-trans people as much/more/whatever. This is the 'you can't criticise Israel until you've criticised Turkmanistan' argument. It's bullshit, not least because it demands an agreed hierarchy of attack-worthiness. I have only ever seen it used to defend the indefensible in other spheres, it's interesting seeing it come up here.

I do not think that is a valid comparison. Gender critical feminists claim to be opposed to all gender yet are obsessed with attacking trans people and seem to give everyone else a free pass, including working closley with staunch supporters of the gender binary like the Republican Party and right wing press. A valid comparison would be a human rrights movement that claimed to be against all human rights abuses but only ever went on about Israel whilst cosying up to the Saudis. I would be suspicious of the motives of such a movement for obvious reasons.

As has been pointed out, once you take out biology and socialisation, what you are left with and what you are defending here is the "purely subjective" idea of what it is to be a woman; it's literally just a feeling. You are saying that anyone who magically has that feeling is entitled to make demands of women who have both biological and socialised claims to 'being a woman' and any woman who disagrees is a "terf"

I haven't taken out biology and socialisation. They are both contested grounds, especially as some people are now socially transitioning as very young children. Other people have had decades of socialiation in their aquired gender. Is socialisation from birth the only thing that counts? Obviously there is a huge amount of disagreement here. The same applies to biology. Transgenderism may have some biological root for a start. But even discounting that, which bits of biology? Hormones, chromosones, genitals, reproductive capacity - does the biology have to be authentic, as in biology someone was born with? Again this is highly contested ground. And even beyond this then there is the question of the female gender, which we may not like, but which exists? Does gender trump physical sex, or should it, in some areas at least such as provision of services for those attacked or abused because of their gender? 'Woman' is a biological, social, legal and political category. Where trans people stand within all these categories again highly contested ground.

For sure - but who's said this? (ie that there is no such thing as transgenderism); Literally no one ever as far as I know. Explain to me how "cis" does not embody an assumption of binary normativity and the assumption that most people are 'naturally' happier in their binary.

Binary normativity is the system we live under and most people perform their gendered roles according to their biological sex. This is due to coercion perhaps, and not entirely happily in many cases, but they do and are cis and trans pople don't and are trans. And to be able to discuss this in all kinds of circumstances requires words to describe both states of being.

And lots of trans critical rad fems have said transsexuality doesn't exist.

Again you've set up an argument ("rejecting the meaningfulness of gender dysphoria") that literally no one has ever said (that I am aware of). When a side in an argument continually sets up ridiculous straw men, I think we're entitled to allege bad faith. I've argued this point on another post but I'll say it again; re-read the Goldsmith's thread on this - the 'wrong body' argument was continually used and was never challenged by the self-styled defenders of the transcommunity and anyone (like me) who did was instantly denounced as transphobic. Suddenly now, it's all cool to deny the wrong body theory - as I pointed out Nigel I has gone so far as to allege that only a transphobe would put it forward it's so daft.

It's not at all suddenly all cool to deny the wrong body theory, what some trans people have been saying for decades is that this is not the totality of the trans experience, that being 'trapped in the wrong body' is too simplistic a way to describe gender gysphoria and that nothing is universal to everybody who is trans. Without doubt many trans people do feel discomfort with their body, and a sense it isn't how it should be. In fact discomfort with genitalia is one of the diagnostic criteria for childhood gender dysphoria. But that is not all there is to being trans, and the idea of an inner woman/man trapped in the wrong body does not really describe how gender dysphoria feels for many people. I really don't think you should use the Goldsmith's thread as a basis for all trans thought and then use this one as an example of how all trans people have changed their positions.

 

[bimble]

MochaSoul This story in the news today reminded me of what you'd written about your friend.
The female NHS nurse I asked for came with stubble

 

[TopCat]

You told me to fuck off when I pointed out the internal contradictions of what you were saying on that thread.

As for this thread top cat appears solely to be interested in slagging off other posters while contributing no ideas of his own. He's been a fucking disgrace.

You are a sanctimonious hypocrite and whine when it's pointed out.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Hampstead ladies say swimming pond is not gender fluid | Daily Mail Online

 

[Cacadores]

Spanglechick: That's a pretty reprehensible comment. No one 'deserves' a slap for holding a camera, nor for disagreeing.

 

[Shechemite]

Spanglechick: That's a pretty reprehensible comment. No one 'deserves' a slap for holding a camera, nor for disagreeing.

What drew you to this board/this thread/that particular comment?

 

[smokedout]

Hampstead ladies say swimming pond is not gender fluid | Daily Mail Online

How convenient that the UKs most well known anti-trans feminist Julie Bindel turns out to be a regular user and was available to give a quote.

 

[Red Cat]

I do not think that is a valid comparison. Gender critical feminists claim to be opposed to all gender yet are obsessed with attacking trans people and seem to give everyone else a free pass, including working closley with staunch supporters of the gender binary like the Republican Party and right wing press. A valid comparison would be a human rrights movement that claimed to be against all human rights abuses but only ever went on about Israel whilst cosying up to the Saudis. I would be suspicious of the motives of such a movement for obvious reasons.



I haven't taken out biology and socialisation. They are both contested grounds, especially as some people are now socially transitioning as very young children. Other people have had decades of socialiation in their aquired gender. Is socialisation from birth the only thing that counts? Obviously there is a huge amount of disagreement here. The same applies to biology. Transgenderism may have some biological root for a start. But even discounting that, which bits of biology? Hormones, chromosones, genitals, reproductive capacity - does the biology have to be authentic, as in biology someone was born with? Again this is highly contested ground. And even beyond this then there is the question of the female gender, which we may not like, but which exists? Does gender trump physical sex, or should it, in some areas at least such as provision of services for those attacked or abused because of their gender? 'Woman' is a biological, social, legal and political category. Where trans people stand within all these categories again highly contested ground.


Binary normativity is the system we live under and most people perform their gendered roles according to their biological sex. This is due to coercion perhaps, and not entirely happily in many cases, but they do and are cis and trans pople don't and are trans. And to be able to discuss this in all kinds of circumstances requires words to describe both states of being.

And lots of trans critical rad fems have said transsexuality doesn't exist.



It's not at all suddenly all cool to deny the wrong body theory, what some trans people have been saying for decades is that this is not the totality of the trans experience, that being 'trapped in the wrong body' is too simplistic a way to describe gender gysphoria and that nothing is universal to everybody who is trans. Without doubt many trans people do feel discomfort with their body, and a sense it isn't how it should be. In fact discomfort with genitalia is one of the diagnostic criteria for childhood gender dysphoria. But that is not all there is to being trans, and the idea of an inner woman/man trapped in the wrong body does not really describe how gender dysphoria feels for many people. I really don't think you should use the Goldsmith's thread as a basis for all trans thought and then use this one as an example of how all trans people have changed their positions.

I should think any way of being human is too complex to sum up in a one liner. But the argument on that thread was presented in quite a categorical way - mine and others experience of wanting to be boys when we were younger was dismissed as not the same thing. Now I don't think that one thread on urban is representative of anything, but I think you're minimising how hard it was then to have a discussion, and how hard it continues to be.

As for categories and classifications being contested, I made that point several times on this thread, in fact most of my posts have been about this in one way or another, and yet there's been very little response to that as though it's of no interest whatsoever.

 

[Cacadores]

Aye, my son used to be into painting his nails aged 3, he one hundred per cent considers himself male and kids tend to have strong ideas about this as soon as they are able to communicate them IME. I have told a lot of men he likes having his nails painted and a fair number have told me they did when they were kids too-yet you would never know that was common , but his dad was shitty about it.

I have been teaching my son that being a boy or a girl can mean many things as they seem to pick up stereotypes really -scarily- quickly, he has responded to this positively and will now correct his friends when they refer to toys or clothes as being gendered. But I was struck fairly early on by how prevalent this gender shite was, I didn't expect to have to be undoing my son's education on pink and blue cups as soon as he started nursery, fuck sake!

The pink and blue cups issue was a myth used by the Swedish government to promote their 'gender tolerant' nursery programme in the early 2000s. If you've ever been a teacher, you'd know what a fag it would be to have to divide up cups by colour - why bother? not to mention that when you order picnic cups, they either come in one colour or in a host of colours. The gender stereo-typing was made up.

Girls and boys experiment with dressing up but that doesn't mean they want to change gender. Imagining what it's like to be the other sex is how a child tries to work out the characteristics of the other children they meet or how adults behave. After all, if some activist reckons that a boy really wants to be a girl because he paints his nails then they have a very narrow and naive view about boys' behavioural traits. Seems to me it's these activists with the intolerant and prejudiced attitudes about what a girl or boy can be.

Moreover, putting a child on a gender reassessment programme, as they're doing at the Tavistock Institute in London, is plain evil. We have no idea of the long term damage this can do to children.

Transgender people have huge suicide rates. And their rate of suicide is unrelated to where they live: in a tolerant city or a backward country, it makes no difference. More damningly, the rate post-op and pre-op is the same. And when you put a little girl on hormone therapy or pubity blockers, you're destroying their chance of their overies ever producing eggs and therefore preventing them from ever having children. We're sitting on a time bomb.

 

[Cacadores]

What drew you to this board/this thread/that particular comment?

Er, the OP perhaps?

 

[Shechemite]

most people perform their gendered roles according to their biological sex.... and are cis and trans pople don't and are trans. And to be able to discuss this in all kinds of circumstances requires words to describe both states of being.

Ok so now the definition has changed from a gender identity to a gender role. Unless you’re conflating a (conceptual) gender identity with gender roles/expectations.

By this definition those who defy gendered expectations are - by definition - trans. Which isn’t true is it?

 

[smmudge]

Ok so now the definition has changed from a gender identity to a gender role. Unless you’re conflating a (conceptual) gender identity with gender roles/expectations.

By this definition those who defy gendered expectations are - by definition - trans. Which isn’t true is it?

No, you're trying to deny the antecedent. If you perform the gendered role according to your biological sex then you are cis. It does NOT logically follow from that, that if you DON'T perform the gendered role according to your biological sex you are therefore trans, or even not cis. Like I said, denying the antecedent, common but logical fallacy.

 

[Shechemite]

No, you're trying to deny the antecedent. If you perform the gendered role according to your biological sex then you are cis. It does NOT logically follow from that, that if you DON'T perform the gendered role according to your biological sex you are therefore trans, or even not cis. Like I said, denying the antecedent, common but logical fallacy.

Er where did you get that I’m ‘trying to deny he antecedent’? If could kindly not make stuff up

Anyway, you’re missing the point.

Gendered roles for men and women - and the compliance with these roles - isn’t the same as a gender identity.

And given that Cis simply means ‘not trans’, what’s your point anyway?

ETA you’re also ignoring the post I quoted, and the claim it made