No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by spartacus on Oct 29, 2020 10:52:13 PM
Transgender Issues Are Finally Being Discussed

This isn't going away, is it. I copy in the mods' contribution to the previous thread header:

This subject is not taboo; we just ask that you maintain a civil and constructive tone. A diverse range of views and opinions are welcome, provided they adhere to the T&Cs.

Part 3.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
ReverendBlueJeans - 29 Oct 2020 23:30:18 (#1 of 886)

Ooh, the thread has, er, transitioned.

SinnerBoy - 29 Oct 2020 23:42:23 (#2 of 886)

Yes, I see you in your red frock. It clashes with your ginger beard!

angelico - 30 Oct 2020 07:54:23 (#3 of 886)

Good morning new thread!

Er, carry on.

Tricyrtis - 30 Oct 2020 08:29:15 (#4 of 886)

Morning, threadsters!

mountebank - 30 Oct 2020 08:47:47 (#5 of 886)

For anyone newly reading this series of threads, the focus is on questions like these:

What does "trans" mean now that it is widely argued that the trans umbrella includes people without gender dysphoria?

To what extent do the current demands of trans activists conflict with women's rights, for example to single-sex spaces?

From 2009-10 to 2017-18 the number of girls seeking treatment related to gender reassignment increased by over 4400%. Is there a safeguarding issue here?

Tricyrtis - 30 Oct 2020 08:54:20 (#6 of 886)

There is also the issue of fairness in sport

https://fairplayforwomen.com/sports/

Tricyrtis - 30 Oct 2020 08:57:16 (#7 of 886)

This shows the differences in sports performance between women and teenage boys.

http://boysvswomen.com/#/

supadjg - 30 Oct 2020 09:55:07 (#8 of 886)

Thanks for setting up the new thread

Another important aspect is the use of language to describe women. Recently, some organisations have been unwilling to use words like "mother". See this post:

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/we-are-not-gestators-birthers-breeders

Catspyjamas17 - 30 Oct 2020 10:08:14 (#9 of 886)

Sounds like a compendium of misogynistic insults.

FrankieTeardrop - 30 Oct 2020 10:11:14 (#10 of 886)

Another important aspect is the use of language to describe women. Recently, some organisations have been unwilling to use words like "mother". See this post:


Everyone involved in this debate should read Brave New World. Huxley was an absolute genius

bignosebignose - 30 Oct 2020 10:27:32 (#11 of 886)

Sounds like a compendium of misogynistic insults.

It really does. In other circumstances we hear complaints about TERFs being biological essentialists for objecting to male genitals in their single-sex spaces, but it's all lovely and inclusive and progressive to describe women entirely by individual biological functions.

ReverendBlueJeans - 30 Oct 2020 10:32:26 (#12 of 886)

Everyone involved in this debate should read Brave New World. Huxley was an absolute genius.

I'd love to be in, say, a local cooncil 'branding' meeting and suggest 'Community; Identity; Stability'. The marketing drones would be all over it like a virulent rash.

FrankieTeardrop - 30 Oct 2020 10:56:52 (#13 of 886)

I was thinking of the way "mother" and "father" had become taboo swear words

mountebank - 30 Oct 2020 11:10:02 (#14 of 886)

If you look at how things are going, transwomen are justified in having the label "mother" and transmen who have given birth are justified in having the label "father". Men are justified in having the label "father".

But there's growing discomfort in institutions, companies, etc over women having the label "mother". For some reason, this is the labelling that's seen as problematic because it's "exclusionary". The other labelling types seem to be fine.

FrankieTeardrop - 30 Oct 2020 11:11:16 (#15 of 886)

Exactly. Pure Huxley. Interestingly, the main premise of the book (as I'm sure we all know, I'm just thinking out loud) was the idea that one could take pain and discomfort out of life completely, and replace it with "feeling good"

JennyRad - 30 Oct 2020 11:29:58 (#16 of 886)

In other circumstances we hear complaints about TERFs being biological essentialists for objecting to male genitals in their single-sex spaces, but it's all lovely and inclusive and progressive to describe women entirely by individual biological functions.



But isn't the point that it's not describing (only) women? That is, that when you're talking about people who have given birth, you should include transmen? That, at any rate, is where I worry about language.

(In a similar vein, ideally we'd all be a bit careful in talking about breast cancer - because men as well as women can suffer from it and we shouldn't just assume it's all about women. Similar sort of thing.)

Ginmonkey - 30 Oct 2020 11:40:11 (#17 of 886)

See this is what I don't understand about this whole issue. It is simply not true to say that men can give birth.

At the risk of restarting the whole feminism thread row again no biological man ever has given birth, it is something only biological women can do.

There may be biological women whose gender identity and presentation is male and I see no reason not to be polite and use the language they prefer when talking directly to them. However if they conceive, gestate and give birth to a baby they are unequivically a biological woman. How is it kind to lie about biological facts?

Agaliarept - 30 Oct 2020 11:48:19 (#18 of 886)

However if they conceive, gestate and give birth to a baby they are unequivically a biological woman.

That will get you a few responses on Twitter I'll bet.

supadjg - 30 Oct 2020 11:50:31 (#19 of 886)

#16 Trans men are women. That's why they have the potential to give birth. It's human biology.

Taking hormones and having surgery does not change a person's DNA

bignosebignose - 30 Oct 2020 11:51:26 (#20 of 886)

That, at any rate, is where I worry about language.

Worry in what way?

(In a similar vein, ideally we'd all be a bit careful in talking about breast cancer - because men as well as women can suffer from it and we shouldn't just assume it's all about women. Similar sort of thing.)

In another similar vein, isn't it legitimate to be concerned that e.g. women (biological females) whose first language isn't English may suffer when health messages are directed at cervix-havers rather than women? Surely a transman will understand health messaging that is targeted at "women", no?

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Issues