The Gender Unicorn
Discussion
TeamD said:
Surely it's about arguing the toss between biological gender and psychological gender?
If you have the ability to bear children then you are female vs to sire children equals male, how you feel about that accident of birth is another matter, and if you wish to change that situation then good luck to you.
If you have the ability to bear children then you are female vs to sire children equals male, how you feel about that accident of birth is another matter, and if you wish to change that situation then good luck to you.
TeamD said:
WTF is a TERF?
And what the hell does biological (or should that be physiological?) sexual disfunction have to do with your pigeonholing exercise?
Well by your first definition anyone who has had a vasectomy is no longer a man. Well some may feel so emasculated by such a procedure but I don't think anyone nowadays with an ounce of sense would still think thatAnd what the hell does biological (or should that be physiological?) sexual disfunction have to do with your pigeonholing exercise?
TeamD said:
mph1977 said:
ah the flawed logic of the TERFs in callingtranswomen not women but forgetting that there is a significant minority of women who are unable to concieve or carry a pregnancy to term , equally that there is a number of of cisgender men who are infertile ( in absolute or functional terms)
WTF is a TERF? And what the hell does biological (or should that be physiological?) sexual disfunction have to do with your pigeonholing exercise?
some people want to define a 'real woman' as someone who can carry and give birth to a baby - thinking they are excluding transwomen that way - but forgetting it excludes those assigned female at birth ( regardless of gender identity and sexuality) who cannot carry a baby due to one or more 'missing links' in the reproductive system ...
usbooz said:
Well by your first definition anyone who has had a vasectomy is no longer a man. Well some may feel so emasculated by such a procedure but I don't think anyone nowadays with an ounce of sense would still think that
Semantics, I wasn't writing a thesis on the subject, and was not stating what your agenda expected. TeamD said:
mph1977 said:
trans exclusionary radical feminist - the dried up husks of the 2nd wave like that Greer woman
Wow! This whole subject is a complete warzone. Not that I am a fan of radical feminists because their agenda has never been about equality. TeamD said:
mph1977 said:
trans exclusionary radical feminist - the dried up husks of the 2nd wave like that Greer woman
Wow! This whole subject is a complete warzone. Not that I am a fan of radical feminists because their agenda has never been about equality. TeamD said:
mph1977 said:
trans exclusionary radical feminist - the dried up husks of the 2nd wave like that Greer woman
Wow! This whole subject is a complete warzone. Not that I am a fan of radical feminists because their agenda has never been about equality. 
TeamD said:
Wow! This whole subject is a complete warzone. Not that I am a fan of radical feminists because their agenda has never been about equality.
I seem to have started a culture war on PH by accident. Sorry about that.Regarding "transgender", and taking into account my cis-privilege and the fact that I don't have a dog in this particular fight, the term seems to be so broadly defined that it probably includes me (I like to cook at home) and my sister (who is into extreme sports in a big way). Which possibly makes it a bit meaningless. You could have a form with thirty tick boxes under "Gender" and people would still complain that they can't find a box that suits them. Perhaps we should stick to "legally recognised gender", if it is actually necessary to record it at all. That should annoy everyone equally.
And would "normative" work for people who don't like being described as cisgender? It seems a little less judgemental than "normal".
230TE said:
And would "normative" work for people who don't like being described as cisgender? It seems a little less judgemental than "normal".
I prefer to refer to myself as "Me"Anything that doesn't upset or hurt other people is fine in my book. BTW my eldest son identifies himself as Bi at the moment, do I beat him for that? No!
TeamD said:
I prefer to refer to myself as "Me"
Anything that doesn't upset or hurt other people is fine in my book. BTW my eldest son identifies himself as Bi at the moment, do I beat him for that? No!
That's fine, but I think this argument started over how trans people should refer to non-trans people, rather than how individuals refer to themselves. The problem some people have with "cis-" might subconciously have something to do with this:Anything that doesn't upset or hurt other people is fine in my book. BTW my eldest son identifies himself as Bi at the moment, do I beat him for that? No!
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/englis...
230TE said:
TeamD said:
I prefer to refer to myself as "Me"
Anything that doesn't upset or hurt other people is fine in my book. BTW my eldest son identifies himself as Bi at the moment, do I beat him for that? No!
That's fine, but I think this argument started over how trans people should refer to non-trans people, rather than how individuals refer to themselves. The problem some people have with "cis-" might subconciously have something to do with this:Anything that doesn't upset or hurt other people is fine in my book. BTW my eldest son identifies himself as Bi at the moment, do I beat him for that? No!
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/englis...
Got a big titty girly by the name of Chrissy
Talkin' about her 'n my bike 'n me . . .
'N this ride up the Mountain of Mystery, mystery
Name that song
usbooz said:
For some reason though I always feel when people argue the point that they are progressive and then prove it by the suggestion of we're all equal so lets do away with all the labels. It seems to come up a lot in relation to trans people, and I just feel its a way to not accept trans people, nullify their identity and pat themselves on the back for being progressive. After all I don't remember the last time it was suggested Afro Caribbean, Latino's and Asians should just be happy to tick the box "person" or we have a form that says white/back/Other. I don't think its even suggested the LGB should not all accept just being a sexually active person. Peoples identities are important to them, on the one hand many trans people strive to be accepted as the men or woman they are with no prefix, but equally denying anyone of an identity they have a kinship with is also pretty offensive.
Why do you need to tick a box in the first place? You mention ethnicity and that is a good comparison. In several European countries it's illegal to collect statistics on ethnicity. This is very much to do with equality. To be treated equally a persons race / religion / ethnicity / gender / sexuality is irrelevant. plasticpig said:
Why do you need to tick a box in the first place? You mention ethnicity and that is a good comparison. In several European countries it's illegal to collect statistics on ethnicity. This is very much to do with equality. To be treated equally a persons race / religion / ethnicity / gender / sexuality is irrelevant.
Primary identity documents for starters. If you strip out every bit of information that someone somewhere might find offensive, the only bit you'll be left with is your name.230TE said:
Primary identity documents for starters. If you strip out every bit of information that someone somewhere might find offensive, the only bit you'll be left with is your name.
A photo driving licence is a accepted as a primary identity document in the UK and that doesn't have the gender of the person on it. plasticpig said:
Why do you need to tick a box in the first place? You mention ethnicity and that is a good comparison. In several European countries it's illegal to collect statistics on ethnicity. This is very much to do with equality. To be treated equally a persons race / religion / ethnicity / gender / sexuality is irrelevant.
In terms of equality ethnicity is irrelevant. The Indian is just as good for the job as the Caucasian European with the same qualifications and experience. But each of those people will have a very different background, culture and self identity. So do you erase that identify, tell the Indian, your in Paris now, you will eat snails and curries are forbidden, you are no longer Indian as there is no such label, were all just French, but hang on were eliminating labels so we cant be French either. No we respect that a person can be a French Indian European. They can do the job the same as an equally qualified Latino from Germany. Taking away the labels doesn't take away the identity, but it does take away the means to express it in language.
What seems to be being suggested by some that the labels of Trans, Queer, Cis, Demi boy, Demi girl, whatever you like, etc are all meaningless and we should just all be happy with person. This is coming from the majority demographic who are secure in the knowledge that without the extra labels their identity wont really be put at risk. There is nothing inherently wrong with allowing people to have a kinship with others who share a characteristic, interest or identity, to allow them to have a language that identifies that kinship. For the majority to deny the language of the connection and identity is a form of oppression. Erasing the language is an attempt to erasing the identity behind it.
It wouldn't be acceptable for all the White Caucasians to tell all the other ethnicities were all just humans and you cant refer to yourselves as anything other than a human being. So why is there a push to tell trans people their labels are irrelevant.
As far as paper boxes are concerned, its a question of relevance. There is no relevance on the job application for most of the identity information in terms of the hiring decision. But there is a relevance on the equality analysis form provided it is separated from the application and not used in the recruitment decision. But then there is the question of what do you do with the data. It would be wrong to issue an edict that only one legged transmen of colour be hired. But it would be ok to target job ads at pink news and wheelchair monthly, or attend pride events to raise awareness of your company within the LGBTDC community.
mph1977 said:
TeamD said:
mph1977 said:
trans exclusionary radical feminist - the dried up husks of the 2nd wave like that Greer woman
Wow! This whole subject is a complete warzone. Not that I am a fan of radical feminists because their agenda has never been about equality. Mark Benson said:
mph1977 said:
TeamD said:
mph1977 said:
trans exclusionary radical feminist - the dried up husks of the 2nd wave like that Greer woman
Wow! This whole subject is a complete warzone. Not that I am a fan of radical feminists because their agenda has never been about equality. It's a funny kind of feminist who seeks to define a woman by nothing else than whether (they believe) she has a uterus.
FlyingMeeces said:
Mark Benson said:
mph1977 said:
TeamD said:
mph1977 said:
trans exclusionary radical feminist - the dried up husks of the 2nd wave like that Greer woman
Wow! This whole subject is a complete warzone. Not that I am a fan of radical feminists because their agenda has never been about equality. It's a funny kind of feminist who seeks to define a woman by nothing else than whether (they believe) she has a uterus.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff