Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[Pickman's model]

Please define 'gender identity' and explain how this may be verified objectively.

pls explain the benefit you anticipate from any answer you receive

 

[SpookyFrank]

Please define 'gender identity' and explain how this may be verified objectively.

It can't be verified objectively. That being the case, the only fair thing to do is support people's right to define it for themselves. The alternative is allowing arbitrary external forces decide who is what, and what that means.

 

[bimble]

My comment about MY's liminal status being seen as not a 'real' trans person wasn't supposed to be an accusation aimed at any posters here on this thread, I should've been clearer (or not said it that way at all) but its not for nothing that her twitter byline is 'blocked by millions, between a rock and a hard place' - like Kristina Harrison the hate comes at MY from both 'sides', being seen as traitors to the cause and disavowed by many who see 'trans women are women' as the bedrock of the movement for trans right now.

 

[elbows]

It seems like because you don't lay claim to being a woman Miranda Yardley some people see you as not authentically trans.

Who are these people? Not me for a start, I do not question the authenticity of Miranda Yardley on any front. I question many of their opinions and the way those beliefs influence the way they interact with others.

Nor would I engage with any related phenomenon such as some people considering Yardley a traitor to the cause. For multiple reasons, including me not believing that aspects of a persons identity must automatically wed them to a particular cause, cause them to take a particular stance, etc.

Nor do I question the sincerity of Miranda Yardley.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

So do the class of people who have the biological potential, (potential not meaning ability or willingness) to reproduce through large gametes, observed as such by basically anyone with eyes, and born with the bodies in accordance with that potential *get* a name then?

JFC. I'm so sick of the Liberal bullshit on this passing as left wing analysis. And crappy "gotchas".

"Women are female, so while men are free to perform femininity they can't really be part of the reproductive class born female"

"Yeah but not *all* females have the ability to reproduce"?

"Well HOLY SHIT! YOU ARE RIGHT! You just made me understand Marx a bit better too!

Not all the working classes work or have the ability to work. I guess that means they're not working class at all. Right?

In fact, because not all the working classes work what's the point of having a working class at all? Surely a labourer is someone who labours, so those who don't labour aren't working class. Some labourers don't even want to be working class, they hate it! They *must* be able to opt out!

I know! Let's get them to *aspire* their way out of being working class! All people assigned working class at birth should be free to live the life of the bourgeoisie! And if Little Owen and Laurie really don't feel like they are born into the class they were and want to be working class, then, who are we to question them?

Non-bourgoise people must be included everywhere - including those who identify as non-bourgoise but weren't assigned that way! It must be up the individual because as Marx said "all individuals exist in a vaccum".

I mean, if I can just make it so you can aspire your way into or out out of class, buy all the shit associated with that class, then class will just disappear altogether guys! Right? Right?

Hey guys, I think I just worked out what Marx really said about class! It's all a figment in our brains and all we need to do is imagine our way out of it all! And if YOU feel comfortable being working class, then I guess we were just born to be that way! So YOU carry on labouring! We'll call you people! Labour doesn't even exist! It's just a social construct with no meaning and totally performed!

I've solved it guys, We can all go home.

/snarky post ends here.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Well I am not in the camp that instantly dismisses the idea of any rights conflict. There are some complex issues that could be made worse by oversimplifying things, and I certainly dont want womens rights or safety to be endangered.

However I still find the focus on conflict and competing rights to be alarming, and often conducted in a manner that seems quite far away from the spirit of human rights, safety and dignity in general. And certainly not conducive to gaining or preserving rights for any particular group or the whole.

Thanks again for replying with some more substantive points. I appreciate your doing this.

I think it's difficult to analyse the concept of 'transgender rights', whatever these may be, without recognising there is a competing right between females and males who wish to claim rights as females. Potentially, this is not a zero-sum game, both groups can co-exists and work together to support and further the rights of the other group, and I think this potential is often overlooked because what we are being presented with is a zero-sum game: the mantra is 'trans women are women no debate' which as a statement is the worst kind of dogma. I wrote about this and how it's an obstacle to making any progress here:

Finding Middle Ground Between Women’s Rights and Transgender Rights

I dont think its an obligation, but I do think it involves issues of basic decency and respect, and without it there is no foundation to actually discuss things sensibly. Especially with people like you that often give the impression that this aspect is a crude tool used to ram your politics down their throats, gain points with your favoured group, and never mind the feelings of those who get caught up in this. Or worse, contrast their likely feelings in the wake of this stuff with all the other shit they will have to go through such as surgery, and make simply awful suggestions about their ability to cope with these other things if they cant put up with you being a shit troll. This is beyond rude, its pathetic and despicable.

I think you completely misunderstand my motivations. How is it respectful to women to demand that they accept and treat males as females, and share their language, culture and spaces? I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone, rather I am trying to explain to people like you and others why it is that I say the things I do. I think there is a way for trans people to avoid much of the existing, escalating conflict with women's rights and I think this can be done fairly for both groups.

Identity and a sense of group belonging is complicated, I get that. I can see why this poses issues for people who have a strong sense of belonging to a particular group, and a strong sense of what qualifies someone to be considered a member of that group. I also get that it isnt trans or feminists fault that this stuff exists or that humans get caught up in these areas. That doesnt mean I am going to cheer those who exploit this territory, or sit quietly whilst they dig trenches and fantasise about their role on the frontier.

Debate is important, the lack of public debate around trans issues means we have a public who largely have not got the first idea about what it is, or means, to be trans. I see myths being propagated and exploited, and the groups which suffer this are both women and trans people. The lack of meaningful public debate is largely the fault of the trans movement, which actively dissuades trans people from participating in public debate.

 

[elbows]

My comment about MY's liminal status being seen as not a 'real' trans person wasn't supposed to be an accusation aimed at any posters here on this thread, I should've been clearer (or not said it that way at all) but its not for nothing that her twitter byline is 'blocked by millions, between a rock and a hard place' - like Kristina Harrison the hate comes at MY from both 'sides', being seen as traitors to the cause and disavowed by many who see 'trans women are women' as the bedrock of the movement for trans right now.

Sometimes people learn to embrace being 'between a rock and a hard place' just as some people come to enjoy taking contrarian stances or feeling like its them vs the world.

Being positioned in such a space can offer the opportunity to touch on subjects that are almost taboo elsewhere. But there are downsides too, especially when it comes to combative tones and any mutual trust and respect flowing between different groups.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Hey guys, I think I just worked out what Marx really said about class! It's all a figment in our brains and all we need to do is imagine our way out of it all! And if we feel comfortable being working class, then I guess you were just born to be that way! So you carry on labouring! We'll call you people! Labour doesn't even exist! It's just a social construct with no meaning and totally performed!

from:@terrorizermir marx and engels - Twitter Search

 

[Miranda Yardley]

the dodgy nature of the sources

Eh what?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Has anyone actually said that they don't take MY seriously because of their chosen pronouns/not laying claim to womanhood? Have I missed this? If not that accusation is all levels of shit-stirring bullshit.

Actually, this happens all the time. Sometimes I wonder if changing pronouns is sincerely held to be the most fundamental aspect to being trans, because people seem to focus on this more than anything else.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

It can't be verified objectively. That being the case, the only fair thing to do is support people's right to define it for themselves. The alternative is allowing arbitrary external forces decide who is what, and what that means.

Please define it?

 

[8ball]

Actually, this happens all the time. Sometimes I wonder if changing pronouns is sincerely held to be the most fundamental aspect to being trans, because people seem to focus on this more than anything else.

That's just because most people don't discuss trans issues very much, they just run into a trans person on the odd occasion and want to know the rules around avoiding offence.

 

[SpookyFrank]

*World record attempt at trotskyist virtue signalling by saying the word class as many times as possible*

Yes, fascinating. Is it helpful to conflate gender with economic class to the point where you forget about the former entirely and just bleat on about the latter? And is this really the time or place for a dig at Owen Jones or are we discussing something else?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

That's just because most people don't discuss trans issues very much, they just run into a trans person on the odd occasion and want to know the rules around avoiding offence.

That's not my experience, unsurprising really because I'm not the type that has people walking on eggshells...

 

[SpookyFrank]

Please define it?

Please learn to read what has already been posted.

 

[8ball]

That's not my experience, unsurprising really because I'm not the type that has people walking on eggshells...

Well, you also get the people who are affronted at the suggestion they use particular pronouns out of courtesy...

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Yes, fascinating. Is it helpful to conflate gender with economic class to the point where you forget about the former entirely and just bleat on about the latter? And is this really the time or place for a dig at Owen Jones or are we discussing something else?

Gender, as cultural behavioural stereotypes, creates a class system where men have power over women, and heterosexuals power over homosexuals.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Yes, fascinating. Is it helpful to conflate gender with economic class to the point where you forget about the former entirely and just bleat on about the latter? And is this really the time or place for a dig at Owen Jones or are we discussing something else?

Lol. I'm conflating SEX with economic class.

Not gender.

Because females do the reproductive labour as the working class do the economic one (apart from the ones who don't or refuse to Labour. They are not part of the labouring classes OBVIOUSLY. Or are they? What is labour anyway?).

And yes, it is always adequate to bring OJ into things because the guy is such a shit show.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Please learn to read what has already been posted.

You haven't defined 'gender identity'. What you said was:

It can't be verified objectively. That being the case, the only fair thing to do is support people's right to define it for themselves.​

Which appears to be meaningless?

 

[weepiper]

Yes, fascinating. Is it helpful to conflate gender with economic class to the point where you forget about the former entirely and just bleat on about the latter? And is this really the time or place for a dig at Owen Jones or are we discussing something else?

Sex, not gender. Way to miss the whole entire point.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Gender, as cultural behavioural stereotypes, creates a class system where men have power over women, and heterosexuals power over homosexuals.

Yes. That does not however mean that economic class and gender identity are equivalent to the point where all arguments about one can be applied seamlessly the other.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Or just your shower?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Eh what?

Blanchard's a dodgy source. Fucking bigot, whose theories should be consigned to the dustbin.

And the claim regarding 'male-pattern criminality' was not so much a dodgy source as a dodgy use of a source by you. I share smokedout's problem with the way you used that source, which repeated the way it has been misused elsewhere in an attempt to show that trans women are really men because they commit crime like men do, something that isn't borne out by the evidence in the way it is claimed.

And that's pretty important, imo. In reality, 'male-pattern criminality' is probably mostly explained by the simple answer 'more testosterone', so if you take that away, the pattern disappears, and if you add it, it perhaps starts to appear. That is a theory that is supported by the evidence of the study, but it doesn't quite fit with the idea that this is an example of maleness as something almost mystically essential to an unchangeable male identity, rather than something that can be altered rather simply.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Sex, not gender. Way to miss the whole entire point.

Ok so sex and economic class are entirely equivalent then?

 

[8ball]

In reality, 'male-pattern criminality' is probably mostly explained by the simple answer 'more testosterone'...

 

[Athos]

Like what?

Like those trans inclusive trends which de-emphasise biology, even at a class level.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

And that's pretty important, imo. In reality, 'male-pattern criminality' is probably mostly explained by the simple answer 'more testosterone',

You should read Testosterone Rex. It is good. And the Royal Society's book of the year.

Testosterone Rex triumphs as Royal Society science book of the year

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's my hunch, yes, looking at how the pattern can appear or disappear. I might be wrong, but it doesn't matter either way regarding the point, which is that such things are being looked for in order to point the finger and shout 'look, they're still men!'.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Yes. That does not however mean that economic class and gender identity are equivalent to the point where all arguments about one can be applied seamlessly the other.

What is 'gender identity'?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You should read Testosterone Rex. It is good. And the Royal Society's book of the year.

Testosterone Rex triumphs as Royal Society science book of the year

I've read the excellent Gender Delusion by Fine, which demolishes a lot of the nonsense about male brains and female brains. Will also put that on the list.