(Yesterday at 8:47 pm)UTheWhiteMarten Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:42 pm)Silver Wrote: It's a good thing trans women aren't men.

The overwhelming majority of men who identify as transgendered women are men; hermaphroditism, ovotesticular disorder, hyperandrogenism and similar conditions are extremely rare medical conditions that, without proper diagnosis, cannot be recognized.

*All* bathrooms, at least in the West, are historically and within living lifetime designated by sex rather than gender - for a variety of logical reasons, such as the above mentioned risk of allowing men into women's bathrooms as well as "gender" being a modern construct. 

What one identifies as does not change ones' sex, nor does mutilation of one's body.

Everything in that post is wrong. Everything. Very authoritatively stated, but wrong.

Boru

(Yesterday at 9:20 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:47 pm)UTheWhiteMarten Wrote: The overwhelming majority of men who identify as transgendered women are men; hermaphroditism, ovotesticular disorder, hyperandrogenism and similar conditions are extremely rare medical conditions that, without proper diagnosis, cannot be recognized.

*All* bathrooms, at least in the West, are historically and within living lifetime designated by sex rather than gender - for a variety of logical reasons, such as the above mentioned risk of allowing men into women's bathrooms as well as "gender" being a modern construct. 

What one identifies as does not change ones' sex, nor does mutilation of one's body.

Everything in that post is wrong. Everything. Very authoritatively stated, but wrong.

Boru

Such as?

Intersex - the category I listed above as "rare medical conditions" - are recognized by states like California and Australia as a separate condition from transgenderism, requiring additional legal protections transgendered individuals don't to insure that they are not discriminated against. 

I'm assuming that a fair few transgender individuals are likewise intersex in one way or another, however nothing seems to indicate that anywhere close to the majority of transgender individuals would also fall under the intersex label. The fact that they are two distinct entities should provide another clue of this.

"Gender" as a medical/psychological definition did not exist before the early 1900s, coming into prominence with the works of Robert Stroller, John Money, Isaac Bently, and clinicians at institutions like the John Hopkins Hospital; it is simply a tautological fact that bathrooms before the adoptions of this concept would not be used in a manner according to this concept.

(Yesterday at 8:52 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Could've introduced a bill to deal with price gouging and price fixing in the grocery aisle.  Hell, could have announced his intention to dole out some white reparations.  Could have done anything that might help the people he claims to represent.  It's plain that nothing would be too ludicrous.

Didn't.  Though.  Why would he lift a finger to help the suckers who sent him?  Right?  It's easier to babble about scripture while he picks your pocket and points at some other guy.

A bill to deal with "price gouging and price fixing at the grocery aisle" would crash the economy, or at the very "best" give large corporations an even stronger advantage over smaller competition that cannot match the bulk prices of multinationals.

"White reparations" for what?

You mean he should do things like vote for bills like US HR5342 (Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act?) Sponsoring bills like US HCRes13 (Support for Local Radio Freedom Act, protecting small stations from increased government fees) or HCRes3 which condemns the recent terrorist attacks on churches, pro-life institutions, and protestors? 

Those have all been in the last week, and I can go back much further. 

Look at people's voting records rather than what people at desks tell you about them.

Gender isn't a recent construct. It has existed for at least several hundred years in cognizable form. When medicine gave a definition is rather beside the point.

(Yesterday at 10:32 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Gender isn't a recent construct.  It has existed for at least several hundred years in cognizable form.  When medicine gave a definition is rather beside the point.

I don't see it to be besides the point at all.

Gender was used as a categorical term before the 1950s in an academic sense and the 1970s in a more colloquial manner; that is to say that before 1945, if you see the word "gender" it is going to be used in a context that tells you what exists between someone's legs and bellow their stomach.


Without going into *too* much research, we can take English schoolmaster J. Brinsley's 1612 definition from his, "Posing of Parts" - "What is a Gender? The difference of Nounes according to sex." 

"Gender" as used by the post-modernist is not a statement of biology but of personality, and thus would again find itself utterly incompatible with how the word gender would have been used even 150 years ago. At worst, it's spent the last 20-30 years rewriting medical textbooks on behalf of political interests to redefine "transgender" into multiple smaller categories; the UN/WHO being terrible about this with their recent ICD's published.

Another gender-related word that has changed meaning overtime is "kind" - once used colloquially to differentiate between what we might consider gender today and again intrinsically linked to the biological differences between the individual and other categories.

It's a good thing biological sex is not the same as gender.

(Yesterday at 11:02 pm)Silver Wrote: It's a good thing biological sex is not the same as gender.

Indeed, which is the fundamental point of Mike Johnson's argument.

I think you might be more in agreement with him than you realize.

Then you should understand that gender is not limited to the binary as biological sex is.

(Yesterday at 11:05 pm)Silver Wrote: Then you should understand that gender is not limited to the binary as biological sex is.

That's too scary.  It takes thought.

(Yesterday at 11:07 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(Yesterday at 11:05 pm)Silver Wrote: Then you should understand that gender is not limited to the binary as biological sex is.

That's too scary.  It takes thought.

(my bold)

Something our latest bigot has yet to show themselves capable of...