That Trans Thread

[Paleophyte]

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?

Suppose you have two people in a room, and both of them declare, "I am not a thief!" but one of them is lying.

So, in much the same way as any other statement.

[Rev. Rye]

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

I think I found a key to why a few months back. Around the same time Trump decided to legislate gender into one of his Executive Orders, I discovered John Wyndham’s book The Chrysalids. It’s about a post-apocalyptic colony near what we know as Labrador. They have codified a strict definition of what counts as a person, and any deviation from that definition is considered an Offence against God. If you’re lucky, they only sterilize you. If your deviation is severe enough, you’re considered a Blasphemy and either banished to the Fringes or killed outright.





I see something very similar going on with today’s vocal transphobes. Except that, while in the Chrysalids, you could potentially argue that something like this may be necessary for human survival, in this case, it’s just so they can reinforce the gender hierarchies of old.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.)

Given that gender is primarily a social construct, I think the subjective reporting of the individual is sufficient.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

I was considered, and called, a tomboy when I was a kid.

Is that an issue? Seems to me that others were assigning my gender traits because of the things I did...like fish, play baseball with the neighbor kids, etc.

At no point was my biology questioned but my actions were definitely defined by others based on a set of "rules".

[Rev. Rye]

I guess that's just a variation on a theme of gender being a social construct and not a strictly biological one. You didn't perform femininity as consistently as many of the other girls in your neighbourhood, so they put you in a category that's not quite the same as most other girls.

[Charlie Boy]

I was considered, and called, a tomboy when I was a kid.

Is that an issue?  Seems to me that others were assigning my gender traits because of the things I did...like fish, play baseball with the neighbor kids, etc.

At no point was my biology questioned but my actions were definitely defined by others based on a set of "rules".

Oh dear, he dreaded tomboy label. I wonder—was the offense truly in the labeling, or in the retrospective interpretation of it?

After all, the term tomboy never denied biology; quite the opposite—it acknowledged a girl acting outside expected norms without claiming she wasn’t a girl. Contrast that with today’s curious fashion of insisting that certain behaviors must mean something about one’s identity, or even one’s sex.

Ironically, the very “rules” you found restrictive are now enforced with far greater zeal by ideologues who believe a preference for trucks over tiaras indicates an ontological mismatch. One might ask: is the modern view truly more liberating—or simply more dogmatic in different clothing?

Of course, I welcome your thoughts—assuming they haven’t been pre-approved by the Gender Compliance Committee.

[Rev. Rye]

Ironically, the very “rules” you found restrictive are now enforced with far greater zeal by ideologues who believe a preference for trucks over tiaras indicates an ontological mismatch. One might ask: is the modern view truly more liberating—or simply more dogmatic in different clothing?

Who in the fuck are these doctrinaire ideologues and do they even exist outside of Matt Walsh’s Tusk-inspired fever dreams? Because, in the real world, when people claim an “ontological mismatch,” it tends to be over matters deeper than just an interest in trucks over tiaras. That’d just be mere gender nonconformity, which most people who support gender transition tend to be okay with.

[Charlie Boy]

Ironically, the very “rules” you found restrictive are now enforced with far greater zeal by ideologues who believe a preference for trucks over tiaras indicates an ontological mismatch. One might ask: is the modern view truly more liberating—or simply more dogmatic in different clothing?

Who in the fuck are these doctrinaire ideologues and do they even exist outside of Matt Walsh’s Tusk-inspired fever dreams? Because, in the real world, when people claim an “ontological mismatch,” it tends to be over matters deeper than just an interest in trucks over tiaras. That’d just be mere gender nonconformity, which most people who support gender transition tend to be okay with.

Splendid—rhetorical histrionics wrapped in expletives. Always a reassuring sign that reasoned discourse is about to take a sabbatical. You ask who these “doctrinaire ideologues” are, as though the notion were a myth conjured in the depths of Matt Walsh’s "Tusk-inspired fever dreams" (an oddly cinematic reference, by the way—one presumes it was meant to impress rather than clarify).

But to your question: do they exist? Well, yes—manifestly so. They write op-eds, draft school curricula, sit on diversity panels, and craft TikToks with the solemnity of theologians. They are the ones who tell us that a child’s fleeting discomfort warrants puberty blockers, that gender is simultaneously a social construct and immutable, and that questioning any of this is literal violence.

As for the distinction you attempt—between “gender nonconformity” and “ontological mismatch”—it is noted. Yet I would gently observe that, in practice, this distinction is frequently elided by the very activists you insist don’t exist. A boy who likes dolls is often met not with celebration for his nonconformity, but with solemn suggestion that he may in fact be a girl—affirmed, of course, lest anyone be accused of transphobia.

So no, dear interlocutor, this isn’t a straw man. It’s the movement’s own language, codified in policy, echoed in classrooms, and enforced—ironically—with doctrinaire zeal.

But do feel free to keep insisting it’s all a fever dream. Denial, after all, is the most persistent form of ideological hygiene.

[Rev. Rye]

As for the distinction you attempt—between “gender nonconformity” and “ontological mismatch”—it is noted. Yet I would gently observe that, in practice, this distinction is frequently elided by the very activists you insist don’t exist. A boy who likes dolls is often met not with celebration for his nonconformity, but with solemn suggestion that he may in fact be a girl—affirmed, of course, lest anyone be accused of transphobia.

Can you show any evidence of this happening? Like, people specifically insisting that something as trivial as liking dolls over trucks is enough of a reason to throw a kid’s gender into question?

Because it seems like you read Johnny The Walrus and spent enough time hitting your head on the toilet that you actually thought “Yeah, that’s totally a reasonable reflection of reality.”

And, seriously, if I wanted to make a cinematic reference just to impress, is your cultural database so bereft that you think one of Kevin Smith’s worse films would count as impressive?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Who in the fuck are these doctrinaire ideologues and do they even exist outside of Matt Walsh’s Tusk-inspired fever dreams? Because, in the real world, when people claim an “ontological mismatch,” it tends to be over matters deeper than just an interest in trucks over tiaras. That’d just be mere gender nonconformity, which most people who support gender transition tend to be okay with.

Splendid—rhetorical histrionics wrapped in expletives. Always a reassuring sign that reasoned discourse is about to take a sabbatical. You ask who these “doctrinaire ideologues” are, as though the notion were a myth conjured in the depths of Matt Walsh’s "Tusk-inspired fever dreams" (an oddly cinematic reference, by the way—one presumes it was meant to impress rather than clarify).

But to your question: do they exist? Well, yes—manifestly so. They write op-eds, draft school curricula, sit on diversity panels, and craft TikToks with the solemnity of theologians. They are the ones who tell us that a child’s fleeting discomfort warrants puberty blockers, that gender is simultaneously a social construct and immutable, and that questioning any of this is literal violence.

As for the distinction you attempt—between “gender nonconformity” and “ontological mismatch”—it is noted. Yet I would gently observe that, in practice, this distinction is frequently elided by the very activists you insist don’t exist. A boy who likes dolls is often met not with celebration for his nonconformity, but with solemn suggestion that he may in fact be a girl—affirmed, of course, lest anyone be accused of transphobia.

So no, dear interlocutor, this isn’t a straw man. It’s the movement’s own language, codified in policy, echoed in classrooms, and enforced—ironically—with doctrinaire zeal.

But do feel free to keep insisting it’s all a fever dream. Denial, after all, is the most persistent form of ideological hygiene.

Oh, go play with your dolly.

Boru