That Trans Thread

[Fake Messiah]

You’ll forgive me for smiling, but the assertion that gender has “nothing” to do with biology is not only historically illiterate

Learn how to read because I said that gender is not a biological concept.

But let’s be honest: what irks you isn’t the terminology—it’s that someone is using your language more clearly than you’d prefer.

LoL, a guy who can't read is using "my" language clearly than me - that's rich 🤣

[Charlie Boy]

You’ll forgive me for smiling, but the assertion that gender has “nothing” to do with biology is not only historically illiterate

Learn how to read because I said that gender is not a biological concept.

But let’s be honest: what irks you isn’t the terminology—it’s that someone is using your language more clearly than you’d prefer.

LoL, a guy who can't read is using "my" language clearly than me - that's rich 🤣

Ah, the laughter emoji—always the hallmark of a well-supported argument. But let’s resist the temptation to mirror tone and instead focus on clarity.

You stated: “gender is not a biological concept.” That’s your assertion, yes. But the distinction you’re gesturing toward—between sex (biological) and gender (social or psychological)—is precisely the modern ideological framing I was referencing. The fact that you’ve internalized it does not, in itself, make it universally accepted or above critique.

And while I appreciate your concern for my reading comprehension, I’d suggest that engaging with what was actually said—rather than reacting emotionally to imagined slights—might be a more fruitful approach.

Now then, shall we continue, or are we done performing for the emoji gallery?

[Fake Messiah]

You stated: “gender is not a biological concept.” That’s your assertion, yes.

It's not my assertion, it's a fact. You are the one pulling tricks by obsessively talking about me instead of admitting that gender is not the same as sex. So you are the one who is making this an engaging conversation impossible by not even knowing the basic stuff.

[Charlie Boy]

You stated: “gender is not a biological concept.” That’s your assertion, yes.

It's not my assertion, it's a fact. You are the one pulling tricks by obsessively talking about me instead of admitting that gender is not the same as sex. So you are the one who is making this an engaging conversation impossible by not even knowing the basic stuff.

I see, the rhetorical sleight of hand where “assertion” is simply rebranded as “fact,” with no supporting citation beyond personal conviction. I do admire the confidence.

Now, to clarify: I never claimed that gender and sex are identical. I said that gender has roots in biology, which is demonstrably true. The two are distinct but interrelated—a point consistently acknowledged by academic literature before ideological oversimplifications took hold.

As for your accusation that I’m “obsessively talking about you”—how curious. You’ve brought in reading comprehension, Wikipedia usage, and emojis, yet object when I respond directly to your tone and claims. That’s not me making the conversation impossible—that’s you shifting goalposts when challenged.

If you’re truly interested in “basic stuff,” I’d be happy to start from first principles. But if the goal is simply to score points for your team, I suggest bringing a sharper blade.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's not my assertion, it's a fact. You are the one pulling tricks by obsessively talking about me instead of admitting that gender is not the same as sex. So you are the one who is making this an engaging conversation impossible by not even knowing the basic stuff.

I see, the rhetorical sleight of hand where “assertion” is simply rebranded as “fact,” with no supporting citation beyond personal conviction. I do admire the confidence.

Now, to clarify: I never claimed that gender and sex are identical. I said that gender has roots in biology, which is demonstrably true. The two are distinct but interrelated—a point consistently acknowledged by academic literature before ideological oversimplifications took hold.

As for your accusation that I’m “obsessively talking about you”—how curious. You’ve brought in reading comprehension, Wikipedia usage, and emojis, yet object when I respond directly to your tone and claims. That’s not me making the conversation impossible—that’s you shifting goalposts when challenged.

If you’re truly interested in “basic stuff,” I’d be happy to start from first principles. But if the goal is simply to score points for your team, I suggest bringing a sharper blade.

Why are you so frightened by trans people? Was your mum jump-scared by one when she was carrying you?

Boru

*waiting oh so patiently for the toilet argument*

[zebo-the-fat]

Why should I care if Jim decides he is now going to called Susan and dress as a woman, how does that affect me?

[h4ym4n]

Says a guy who is throwing around emotional buzzwords like "something as fundamental as gender" and "identity politics".

Your objection is noted, though I fear it rather misses the mark. “Something as fundamental as gender” is not an emotional buzzword, but a recognition of biological reality—a concept that, until very recently, was not remotely controversial outside the seminar room.

Likewise, “identity politics” is a term so widely accepted that it has its own Wikipedia page, academic literature, and enthusiastic champions on your side of the aisle. If its mention causes discomfort, I suspect it has less to do with the phrase itself and more to do with what it implies when held up to scrutiny.

But do proceed—if there’s a more precise, less "emotional" vocabulary you’d prefer, I’m quite happy to oblige. Words, after all, are tools. I merely ask that we use them honestly.

The god you believe in you call it he, him.

What makes a gods gender male @Charlie Boy ?

Your gods pronouns are they, them and us.

[Nay_Sayer]

For a guy who likes to look at Wikipedia, you should also look up gender and learn that it not a biological concept.

I didn't say that gender politics doesn't exist but that you don't know what it is and thus use it wrongly.

How delightful, the Wikipedia Gambit, deployed with such earnestness. You’ll forgive me for smiling, but the assertion that gender has “nothing” to do with biology is not only historically illiterate but also contradicted by most major medical, psychological, and anthropological frameworks until about five minutes ago, relatively speaking.

To your second point: I’m intrigued by your confidence in my alleged ignorance of identity politics. If you believe I’ve misused the term, by all means—enlighten me. Offer a definition, not a declaration. If you can explain it better than its practitioners do, I’ll be the first to applaud.

But let’s be honest: what irks you isn’t the terminology—it’s that someone is using your language more clearly than you’d prefer.

You avoided my question. I hope it's not because I'm on ignore

[Ahriman]

Why should I care if Jim decides he is now going to called Susan and dress as a woman, how does that affect me?

Why are people even talking about it.

[Belacqua]

Why should I care if Jim decides he is now going to called Susan and dress as a woman, how does that affect me?

Why are people even talking about it.

Suppose you have two people in a room, and both of them declare "I am a woman." But one of them is lying.

What objective evidence could we discover in a test that would show which is lying? 

We know that gender is NOT determined by chromosomes, anatomy, hormones, etc. 

Here is a case where we believe only the subjective reporting of the individual. And I think this is fairly unusual, since normally we insist on objective evidence before we believe something. 

(For the record, I am not saying that this thought experiment is a likely scenario, or that anyone is lying about their gender. I'm only pointing out that objective tests seem not to exist for something we believe quite strongly.)