Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My first exposure to transgenderism was in the mid-1970's when Dr. Renee Richards, who was born male, tried to play as a woman as the U.S. Open tennis tournament. Back then being transgender (or transexual, as it was known at the time) was a very rare thing.
I think the idea that many, many people today are transgender, is a social construct. What I mean is, you have clusters of (mostly girls) in the same schools who suddenly come out en masse as boys. To me, this is faddish and not unlike the clusters of teen suicides we sometimes see. I don't think the percentage of people who are actually transgender is higher today than it was in the mid-1970's, no matter how much we affirm the people who come out. It has not been "a thing" long enough to speak with 35 year old women who came out as transgender in high school 20 years ago and then realized it was just a phase, but I suspect that some day we'll hear from such women (or not, if they decide it's too much of a hassle to go public).
There might be some of that going on, but we can also think of it like left-handedness. When people stopped being punished for being left-handed, and having it trained out of them, the numbers of left-handed people spiked. It wasn't a sudden fad to be left-handed, it was that people were allowed to be who they were naturally.
There might be some of that going on, but we can also think of it like left-handedness. When people stopped being punished for being left-handed, and having it trained out of them, the numbers of left-handed people spiked. It wasn't a sudden fad to be left-handed, it was that people were allowed to be who they were naturally.
No offense but I'd like to see stats on the bolded part (I like to see stats on everything). I'm only 62 so too young to remember the 1950's and earlier when children were punished for writing left-handed. Then again, my wife's brother is left-handed and 71 years old, and has no stories of being punished in his Appalachian schools, that I know of. Gerald Ford, Reagan, Bush 43, Clinton, and Obama all seem to have turned out OK. My younger son is a lefty, and I notice these things. Are stories of left-handed suppression overblown? IDK.
Historically, all kinds of conformity "used to be" forced on people, especially children, but I have not seen the militancy surrounding other formerly suppressed groups that I've seen with the trans community.
Hello, all. Just interested in a calm and civil discourse around this topic, if that's possible these days. I haven't decided my own opinion on this, so I'm just looking to be convinced by rational arguments.
Is gender a social concept, distinct from the biological concept of sex? Or is it just a synonym for biological sex?
Meaning, if this framework is accepted as valid, then sex would be referring to the concept that's assigned and binary and biological and physical- in terms of male/female. So, you can't identify as the opposite sex.
And gender, within that framework, would be the more social-realm type of concept of being a man/woman/boy/girl, in terms of identity/behavior/roles in society, etc.
I don't know my opinion on this, so I'd like to hear some arguments. Let's be respectful and descriptive in our arguments and avoid snarky one-liners and such. (You have plenty of threads for that in the Politics forum.)
Thanks!
This OP has sat open on my screen for a few days while I thought through this issue.
My answer is not a simple one, but it is calm and civil. Richard Raskind, who became Renee Richards, as described in Second Serve by Renee Richards and John Ames happens to have been a close friend of my father-in-law, and is still my wife's and two sons' ophthalmologist. I read her book, and am absolutely convinced that as Richard Raskind he had serious gender dysphoria. As well he arranged and paid for the surgery to transition to being Renee Richards. She attributes her problems to her father mostly, with whom, as Richard Raskind he had a complicated relationship.
On the other hand, I think the current blossoming of "transitioning" is more of a social fashion than a medical or deeply psychological one, at least in its personal genesis. In other words, I think that people are following examples rather than deep personal need, trying, in the lingo of my generation, to be "cool" or "hip." Others have different psychological problems and believe that they can solve those by, as far as possible, assuming a new identity. I think it is dangerous and foolish for society to encourage the breakdown of barriers which, since before humanity existed, served a purpose.
In short, I do not think people should ever be bullied, ridiculed, marginalized, hazed or scapegoated over gender or for that matter almost any non-criminal issue. Neither should a lot of time or energy be wated on the subject.
I came across an interesting argument not so long ago. Forgot the name of the young man, he's very popular in media now, constantly arguing with all kinds of non standard people. He said to a TG female person: in several hundred years, when archeologists will find your skeleton, they WILL determine, that that was a man buried and, should they take a DNA sample from it, it will confirm that indeed, that was a man.
True.
Right, after testing especially, it would be identified as a male, because sex is a fact of biology. People who are saying that you can identify as one or the other sex, are plain crazy, in my opinion. We can't identify as physically being things that we are physically not...
I think there's no doubt that male/female is a physiological fact. But, the question is, can a male be a woman? Could it be possible that this male skeleton lived as a woman in their society, and was considered to be a woman, because gender-ness in their conception of the idea, would be social construct not unlike "race".
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Race as a construct is much more clearer. We are all just people and discrimination based on skin color and culture is simply wrong.
Yeah. We are all individual human beings of the same species, with various attributes. One attribute may be that our genetic lineage comes mostly from a specific continent and not another continent, and so we have lighter skin, or darker skin, or different eyes or hair, or whatever the other differentiators commonly used of 'race'- which is a non-scientific term, that we still use in our vocabulary and understanding nonetheless.
Most of us are various degrees of mutts, who are mixed between different groups in our genetic history, and so if there is a such thing as being 'white' or being 'black' or belonging to a 'race', then one should be able to choose to identify in society as the one they choose to identify as. It's completely just a social construct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east
I think one day science will tell us why same sex attraction occurs in about one in twenty persons, but until then we all need to live and let live and hope science frees us from the hatefulness that has stained human existence for centuries.
And even if there is no real scientific or whatever identifiable reason for why some people are gay, it doesn't really matter, since we know simply that, clearly, some people are gay. I don't see any reason for why gay people should get any less acceptance or respect or rights in society than anyone else.
Sexual orientation seems to clearly be an attribute of a person, just like any other attribute.
Quote:
Until then I do not want gender reassignment surgery on minors who IMO are too young to really comprehend what's going on.
I most definitely agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnazzyB
Lately, I've been having thoughts along the same lines. I wonder HOW big a deal the concept will be in 15 or 20 years.
I'd like to think that it will probably be less novel and less hot-button of a topic than it is right now. I don't know if 'fad' is an accurate description, but it definitely does seem like a fad, to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
The OP posits that gender is a social concept. I re-termed it a social construct. From Mike's post perhaps neither is not necessarily accurate.
A social construct or social concept might be thought of as society putting a role or identity onto a person or a people.
Perhaps gender is an individual expressing their identity. It comes from within, not from without.
Well, I always thought of gender as meaning the same thing as sex, but I also did always think of 'sex' as the more factual, biological, scientific type term, and 'gender' as the more socially 'polite' term, if that makes any sense.
Now, with the recent rise in acceptance of trans-gender people, what I'm wondering (and not claiming to know the answer), is if it is possible or logical or makes sense, that a male could be anything but a man, or that a female could be anything but a woman, and that maybe this means that we should no longer consider these two concepts as necessarily equivalent or synonyms.
And I haven't really decided my opinion on it. I definitely agree with kindness and open-mindedness first in all things, and I'm more than happy to call someone whatever pronouns they identify as, as that costs me nothing. But in my mind I can't say that I'm ready to accept that "trans women are women".
I find it a little easier to accept that a trans woman does not necessarily have to be considered a man. It could be that man, woman, trans man, and trans woman are 4 different things altogether. A trans man would be considered a female living as a man, and a trans woman would be considered a male living as a woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
On the other hand, I think the current blossoming of "transitioning" is more of a social fashion than a medical or deeply psychological one, at least in its personal genesis. In other words, I think that people are following examples rather than deep personal need, trying, in the lingo of my generation, to be "cool" or "hip."
I definitely tend to agree that this is the case, lately.
I'll give you one example. Friend of mine from work that I've known for over 10 years now, and when I originally met and knew them, they were a man and went by a man's name. Then around about 10 years ago or so, they came out as a trans woman (when this was still pretty novel and rare, before it became quite this trend now), I believe started up on whatever hormonal therapy (not sure about surgery), and started going by a woman's name, dressing as one, etc.
And I had no issues with this, or with respecting their pronouns and all that. They were still the nice and friendly person, and good and respected coworker that I knew before. And maybe even a seemingly happier version of themselves. And they were not a very masculine looking person beforehand, almost seemed kind of androgynous. So I had no objection to their being a trans woman (whether that makes them a woman, or not). And now, after a decade of transitioning, I think she is actually one of the best looking and most woman-looking trans woman that I know of, and could probably even fool some people, if they didn't know. Very respectable and likeable trans women.
But...
She's been dating this man, for almost as long. And it's a guy that I've known for a long time. And he was not so androgynous. Beard, and all that. But he was obviously very progressive, dating a trans woman.
And now, that man, is now identifying as a woman, as of recently. So, she, is now going by a woman's name, presumably getting the hormone therapy, dressing as a woman, etc. (I don't ask about surgery, as that is none of my biz.) And so now, they are lesbian lovers. 2 trans women, who I originally both met when they were men.
If I'm a true left wing politically correct, one-true-opinion, progressive person, then I'm supposed to accept that this person (who I think is around 40 years old) has always been a woman, and was just trapped in a male body for all of their life, and has finally now come out as their true self.
But I just can't reconcile that, in my head. I don't know why, exactly. But to me she seems much less genuine than her girlfriend, who I always considered as legit an example of a trans person as you can find.
Quote:
In short, I do not think people should ever be bullied, ridiculed, marginalized, hazed or scapegoated over gender or for that matter almost any non-criminal issue. Neither should a lot of time or energy be wasted on the subject.
Yeah, tell this to the Politics forum, with like 10 threads a day on this topic, and most of the posts are various degrees of "anything related to trans is conceptually totally invalid/they're all sickos/they're all perverts who are trying to groom children", etc. And people freaking out because a trans woman was in a women's space, even though they were allowed to be by law, and were minding their own business.
Acceptance of trans people in society is creating a conflict of interests right now, mainly because of questions of women's sports, and questions of women's comfort and safety in bathrooms/locker rooms/etc. And whatever other hot-button culture war things going on right now.
I feel, no one can really find answer to this question, until he finds out, what exactly the human being is.
Surely, the physical body is male, female, or some statistically insignificant deviations.
But what about its mental declaration, the psyche, the ID, the mind?
If one believes that the body determines the mind via brain, then sure, body is male or female, mind should be male or female.
But there are other opinions on what mind is.....
And, in their turn, they will determine, what is the mental/psychic side of a human. Male? Female? Both? None?
Yeah, tell this to the Politics forum, with like 10 threads a day on this topic, and most of the posts are various degrees of "anything related to trans is conceptually totally invalid/they're all sickos/they're all perverts who are trying to groom children", etc. And people freaking out because a trans woman was in a women's space, even though they were allowed to be by law, and were minding their own business.
Acceptance of trans people in society is creating a conflict of interests right now, mainly because of questions of women's sports, and questions of women's comfort and safety in bathrooms/locker rooms/etc. And whatever other hot-button culture war things going on right now.
I don't think I fit in well with the people who are intolerant. However, I think that any widespread use of surgery or hormones implies a governmental or insurance based subsidy since very few people can or will bear the full cost themselves and, except in very rare cases of gender dysphoria in the Richard Raskind sense, we have a right as a society to say: no. We're not paying. To quote Mamas and Papa's I say "go where you want to go, do what you want to do", but "I ain't paying or going.
Yeah, tell this to the Politics forum, with like 10 threads a day on this topic, and most of the posts are various degrees of "anything related to trans is conceptually totally invalid/they're all sickos/they're all perverts who are trying to groom children", etc. And people freaking out because a trans woman was in a women's space, even though they were allowed to be by law, and were minding their own business.
Acceptance of trans people in society is creating a conflict of interests right now, mainly because of questions of women's sports, and questions of women's comfort and safety in bathrooms/locker rooms/etc. And whatever other hot-button culture war things going on right now.
I disagree with the discussions on the politics forum and mostly see the "grooming our children" posts when children are involved and/or being exposed to trans issues. When people are living their lives and minding their own business people rarely make a fuss. And the whole idea of being allowed to by law is really the problem. Why is it being allowed by law, and should law/politics be advocates for something that wasn't even part of the public discussion a decade ago? We as a society didn't make that decision, a couple politicians and the money/power brokers behind them did and now it's casuing all sorts of problems. That's what happens when people in power are allowed to overstep.
I think there would be fewer problems and fewer questions about women's spaces, sports, etc. if we had accepted biology as the guiding factor rather than feelings. The struggle now is to make that switch before we go totally off the rails because while we can consider feelings they aren't something we can count on to make legal sense.
It is probable that about 8% to 10% of the population has
been left-handed for at least the past 200 000 years or so.
Detailed data only began to become available for those born
in the nineteenth century, and there is growing evidence that
the rate of left-handedness fell precipitously during the
Victorian period, reaching a nadir of about 3% in about 1895
or so, and then rising quite quickly until an asymptote is
reached for those born after about 1945 to 1950, with 11% to
12% of men and 9% to 10% of women typically being
left-handed in Western countries
I think there would be fewer problems and fewer questions about women's spaces, sports, etc. if we had accepted biology as the guiding factor rather than feelings. The struggle now is to make that switch before we go totally off the rails because while we can consider feelings they aren't something we can count on to make legal sense.
The focusing on emotions rather than "what works" is at the heart of a lot of debates. We can frame that also as a "Great Debate" topic if there is a way to keep it away from degenerating. Many well-intentioned plans go awry because they simply don't work very well, or run up against constitutional limits.
Many Northern states, for example, generously increased welfare benefits during the 1960's to accommodate migrants from impoverished Southern states that were reliving the Civil War in their treatment of minorities. The concomitant increase in the need for revenues drove away higher income people. Early environmental laws have given us a swimmable Hudson River, but with far fewer factories that provided employment on its banks. Campaign finance reform restricted direct contributions to campaigns, but constitutional limits created a pernicious work-around, Political Action Committees.
That's interesting, thanks for the info. But again, I have to wonder how the suppression of left-handedness gradually ended among children born "after about 1945 to 1950" without the militancy and lack of conciliation we see from the trans community and their so-called allies.
Militancy makes things happen fast, but is it the most effective way to make things happen?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
