Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[Gethelred]

Where it can get confusing is that (as I understand it) the same terms are used for someone's sex and gender. So someone can be of male sex and identify as male, but they are referring to two different things. Maybe if there was a different term for someone's gender it would be more clear cut.

Dude, you've been in this thread. You're now - quite knowingly - perpetuating language you know is wrong. The above is fixed with a simple followup question; if said followup question is greeted with hostility, you know who you're talking to.

There's no confusion here a very short conversation couldn't solve.

 

[the_interloper]

Dude, you've been in this thread. You're now - quite knowingly - perpetuating language you know is wrong. The above is fixed with a simple followup question; if said followup question is greeted with hostility, you know who you're talking to.

There's no confusion here a very short conversation couldn't solve.

Woah, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here

 

[ElectricG]

Woah, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here

Ignore him.

 

[the_interloper]

Ignore him.

He's actually a reasonable poster a lot of the time. I guess saying why you find this issue confusing is "perpetuating language I know to be wrong", I'm not sure why that is.

 

[faible]

He's actually a reasonable poster a lot of the time. I guess saying why you find this issue confusing is "perpetuating language I know to be wrong", I'm not sure why that is.

I actually thought your description was fine; sex and gender are different things but often identified using the same terms e.g. male / man or female / woman is a descriptor for both sex and gender. I know some of the more learned souls say that male and man or female and woman are different, but it's very vague as to which is which if you're not discussing the topic daily.

So someone can be male sex, and identify as male gender (e.g. cisgender) whereas if the gender descriptive and sex descriptive terms were more obviously totally different then it would clear up some of the arguments used against trans-people is that I took your post as saying.

 

[the_interloper]

I actually thought your description was fine; sex and gender are different things but often identified using the same terms e.g. male / man or female / woman is a descriptor for both sex and gender. I know some of the more learned souls say that male and man or female and woman are different, but it's very vague as to which is which if you're not discussing the topic daily.

So someone can be male sex, and identify as male gender (e.g. cisgender) whereas if the gender descriptive and sex descriptive terms were more obviously totally different then it would clear up some of the arguments used against trans-people is that I took your post as saying.

100%, that's a much more detailed description of the situation but yes that was my point. I don't think it's a bad conversation to have, all I was trying to do was relate a confusing aspect of the debate for me (and maybe others).

I know it's a volatile topic though of course as this thread certainly has been at times.

 

[Chief]

So someone can be male sex, and identify as male gender (e.g. cisgender) whereas if the gender descriptive and sex descriptive terms were more obviously totally different then it would clear up some of the arguments used against trans-people is that I took your post as saying.

I just think the haters would hate on the different term, as they do with "lololol dere r 1 bajizzilion genders lol"

 

[faible]

I just think the haters would hate on the different term, as they do with "lololol dere r 1 bajizzilion genders lol"

Well yes, I think it's a no-win situation with that group whatever is done.

 

[Bloods86]

Where it can get confusing is that (as I understand it) the same terms are used for someone's sex and gender. So someone can be of male sex and identify as male, but they are referring to two different things. Maybe if there was a different term for someone's gender it would be more clear cut.

Yeah, I didn't read this as having poor intent. You're right, plenty of people still use "male" or "female" across both sex and gender, even I do at times, because that's been the predominant way of speaking for many people. However, we learn things over time, it's widely enough known now, and there's readily available information if people care to find it, that sex and gender are two different things, there's some connections sure (and majority overlap), but they aren't interchangeable. I'm with others that just coming up with a different term than "gender" wouldn't really change the opposition to anything related to trans people, so "gender" is what we've got (and it's been discussed separately to sex for a long time now). We're slowly progressing as a society on understanding the differences, and adapting our language in a way that I think has more utility.

For me what that looks like is to use "male", "female" to refer to sex, and "man", "woman" for gender. I default into the language I learned as a kid at times (grew up conservative, no hope for me learning nuanced language back then). It happens. Intent matters, and the ability to learn/adapt.

 

[Gethelred]

Ignore him.

If we're going to have a crack, might I suggest actually doing it?

 

[the_interloper]

Yeah, I didn't read this as having poor intent. You're right, plenty of people still use "male" or "female" across both sex and gender, even I do at times, because that's been the predominant way of speaking for many people. However, we learn things over time, it's widely enough known now, and there's readily available information if people care to find it, that sex and gender are two different things, there's some connections sure (and majority overlap), but they aren't interchangeable. I'm with others that just coming up with a different term than "gender" wouldn't really change the opposition to anything related to trans people, so "gender" is what we've got (and it's been discussed separately to sex for a long time now). We're slowly progressing as a society on understanding the differences, and adapting our language in a way that I think has more utility.

For me what that looks like is to use "male", "female" to refer to sex, and "man", "woman" for gender. I default into the language I learned as a kid at times (grew up conservative, no hope for me learning nuanced language back then). It happens. Intent matters, and the ability to learn/adapt.

That seems reasonable to be honest. And I should say I don't know if I've ever met a transgender person, I would want to know how to refer to them though in a way which doesn't upset them of course. Though more likely I'd just call them "Bob" or "Karen" i guess.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Where it can get confusing is that (as I understand it) the same terms are used for someone's sex and gender. So someone can be of male sex and identify as male, but they are referring to two different things. Maybe if there was a different term for someone's gender it would be more clear cut.

Bloods86 has it right;

BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION

Male, Female

GENDER IDENTITY

Man, Woman

Dude, you've been in this thread. You're now - quite knowingly - perpetuating language you know is wrong. The above is fixed with a simple followup question; if said followup question is greeted with hostility, you know who you're talking to.

There's no confusion here a very short conversation couldn't solve.

I like you, Red, but I feel you've misinterpreted what the_interloper was trying to get at. The same terms ARE being used interchangably for biological function and gender identity, and this may confuse some people especially newcomers to our language.

I don't see a problem with differentiating between the two terms for the purpose of clarity.

 

[Seeds]

Bloods86 has it right;

BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION

Male, Female

GENDER IDENTITY

Man, Woman



I like you, Red, but I feel you've misinterpreted what the_interloper was trying to get at. The same terms ARE being used interchangably for biological function and gender identity, and this may confuse some people especially newcomers to our language.

I don't see a problem with differentiating between the two terms for the purpose of clarity.

how would you define man and women? They are seperate from biological function. They are something people can identify as. but what are they exactly?

 

[Gethelred]

I like you, Red, but I feel you've misinterpreted what the_interloper was trying to get at. The same terms ARE being used interchangably for biological function and gender identity, and this may confuse some people especially newcomers to our language.

I don't see a problem with differentiating between the two terms for the purpose of clarity.

I deal with people who have low english skills on a fairly regular basis, so when I tell you that social skills and etiquette exist in a space beyond language I know what I'm talking about. You might not know quite what you said, but social disapproval is a language everyone speaks rather clearly sometimes.

I advocate use of the separate terms myself, which is why I objected to the interloper's post; even in making an example, he's muddying the waters. He's been in this thread plenty, the difference is pretty clear. There were other ways to say what he was saying that didn't involve phrasing things the way he did.

Yes I'm policing language. That's what this whole thing is about.

 

[TheBigHorne]

how would you define man and women? They are seperate from biological function. They are something people can identify as. but what are they exactly?

Genders.

 

[Bloods86]

how would you define man and women? They are seperate from biological function. They are something people can identify as. but what are they exactly?

That is literally the point. They aren't anything exactly.

Biological sex is at least bi-modal, you can fit most people into two categories, based on several specific factors.

But you ask people across time and cultures what a man is like or a woman is like, and you'll get a million answers around traits, preferences, temperament, roles. There's stereotypes within time and culture, which is what roughly people are trying to identify with/as, but it's not an exact thing to classify.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I deal with people who have low english skills on a fairly regular basis, so when I tell you that social skills and etiquette exist in a space beyond language I know what I'm talking about. You might not know quite what you said, but social disapproval is a language everyone speaks rather clearly sometimes.

I advocate use of the separate terms myself, which is why I objected to the interloper's post; even in making an example, he's muddying the waters. He's been in this thread plenty, the difference is pretty clear. There were other ways to say what he was saying that didn't involve phrasing things the way he did.

Yes I'm policing language. That's what this whole thing is about.

Oh I agree on the bolded. Social skills and etiquette as they apply in the written word can be bent into many shapes. Positive. Negative. Neutral. Language, especially that of classification and/or separation based on grouping or distinction, can be loaded and used as a weapon.

I just don't see it in this case.

But in fairness moderating a chat forum can't be easy, especially a society/politics/religion one in this day and age. Policing language to maintain harmony is something I also get. I don't envy you your position in the least.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

how would you define man and women? They are seperate from biological function. They are something people can identify as. but what are they exactly?

In the beginning there would have been nothing but hunter/gatherer necessity to dictate what each person wore for the task at hand. Hunters came to wear clothing that best fit the task. Gatherers another. Nurturers and childrearers another still. Masculine and feminine styles emerged.

Strength might favour the male in various forms of hunting but needn't exclude women where guile and wit can counter it. Only the will of the strongest in each tribe came to order who did what though.

Our need as a species to name and to classify every little thing formed certain societal expectations. Gender norms grew from these expectations as well as from religious beliefs as they formed and expanded alongside.

But there is nothing in nature that dictates male and female individuals MUST present a certain character or 'face' to the world. Besides some very few biological needs of absolute necessity in clothing (dressing to allow easy access for breastfeeding infants for example) the dictates of gender are PURELY societal construction.

And in that we say the style of men follows the masculine while those of women follow the feminine as they have developed through the world's societies.

 

[BattlerGM]

Talking in terms of gender, how does one determine what men and women are? What's the criteria?

Which gender is considered when it comes to sporting teams and why? Do some argue that it is about sex but it should be about gender?

So I understand correctly, is it possibly for somebody to be a male (sex) and a woman (gender)?

 

[the_interloper]

Talking in terms of gender, how does one determine what men and women are? What's the criteria?

Which gender is considered when it comes to sporting teams and why? Do some argue that it is about sex but it should be about gender?

So I understand correctly, is it possibly for somebody to be a male (sex) and a woman (gender)?

I feel like you're being genuine mate but I feel like you're about to get in trouble for asking this, just be prepared..

 

[Seeds]

In the beginning there would have been nothing but hunter/gatherer necessity to dictate what each person wore for the task at hand. Hunters came to wear clothing that best fit the task. Gatherers another. Nurturers and childrearers another still. Masculine and feminine styles emerged.

Strength might favour the male in various forms of hunting but needn't exclude women where guile and wit can counter it. Only the will of the strongest in each tribe came to order who did what though.

Our need as a species to name and to classify every little thing formed certain societal expectations. Gender norms grew from these expectations as well as from religious beliefs as they formed and expanded alongside.

But there is nothing in nature that dictates male and female individuals MUST present a certain character or 'face' to the world. Besides some very few biological needs of absolute necessity in clothing (dressing to allow easy access for breastfeeding infants for example) the dictates of gender are PURELY societal construction.

And in that we say the style of men follows the masculine while those of women follow the feminine as they have developed through the world's societies.

Thats not easy to follow but i gather you are claiming man and women are a set of grouped social behaviours that are loosely linked to biological male and female stereotypes. Is this correct or have I misinterpreted?

 

[Gethelred]

Talking in terms of gender, how does one determine what men and women are? What's the criteria?

They do. You do. I do.

The problem with gender is that it is socially created; as in, it has more to do with how you are treated by your society when you interact with it than what you actually do. The reason transgendered people feel dysphoria is because that person is being treated differently than how they see themselves, and over time that produces anxiety, depression, etc.

Encouraging society into treating trans people by their chosen gender then ceases to be a task of personal choice, and becomes the only way we can help these people feel as though they belong and prevent that dysphoria.

I'm also not going to get into 'passing', or other genders than wholly one or the other; they are just as valid as the basic male/female divide, because they are about how you feel compared to how you are treated. For the purposes of the following though, let's consider solely the binary.

Which gender is considered when it comes to sporting teams and why? Do some argue that it is about sex but it should be about gender?

This one's made unnecessarily unclear.

In sporting contests, one needs consider biology to ensure fairness, but there's a range of achievement within a biological gender. The process of transitioning removes certain biological advantages one obtains via hormones and body mass, but some still remain; the argument then becomes, how do you determine where the biological advantage sits outside standard biological frameworks for athletes?

... and this is where things get tricky, because at this point in time we're operating with two issues, mainly:

• we simply do not have enough data to demonstrate transgender athletes possess an advantage over cisgendered athletes within their gender. This is changing, but as of right now there just aren't the weight of trans athletes to really test for it.
• this entire space is the centre for a culture war determined on opinion rather than fact.

Trying to seek any independant information around transgender participation in a sporting environ is more than fraught.

Where that leaves us is with sports including trans women and men alongside their genders unless there's a scientific reason not to. Some sports have decided that an advantage exists, and those results are being tested and reviewed.

We'll see.

So I understand correctly, is it possibly for somebody to be a male (sex) and a woman (gender)?

... did you read some of the links provided?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Thats not easy to follow but i gather you are claiming man and women are a set of grouped social behaviours that are loosely linked to biological male and female stereotypes. Is this correct or have I misinterpreted?

Yeah. That's how I see it anyway. Gender roles initially developed from biological necessity, but as human societal structure developed gender became a different thing altogether, less to do with actual need and more to do with expectation of certain behaviour.

 

[Seeds]

Yeah. That's how I see it anyway. Gender roles initially developed from biological necessity, but as human societal structure developed gender became a different thing altogether, less to do with actual need and more to do with expectation of certain behaviour.

If thats the case why do we need gender at all? It seems like its an outdated set of grouped behaviours that in many ways is a bit demeaning to both males and females in a progressive modern society and can do actual harm by implying males and females that they should act a certain way. Shouldnt we be encouraging males and females that they can behave however they want to behave and the best way to do that is to send the grouped behaviours known as man and woman to historys dustbin rather then giving it seperate labels and reinforcing those behaviours?

 

[BattlerGM]

Have their been any studies into how/why a person comes to identify themselves as trans? Given the strong link between being trans and mental illness, should we look into preventative measures?