My current best understanding is as follows: Sex is a biological concept relating to genotype and phenotype. It generally breaks down as male/female, but it is a bit more complicated than that because there exist genotypical and phenotypical variances from these norms. Gender is a psycho-social concept relating to one's personal identity in relation to the culture and society in which such gender norms are defined. It is related to sex, and most gender norms key strongly off of sex, but they're are not strictly the same thing.
It's funny. My wife and I were basically having this discussion with her parents last Sunday. Well, I say discussion. Moreso her father drunkenly screaming how trans people were wrong and are forcing him to use pronouns he doesn't want to use. It probably didn't help that we (well, me) were egging him on a bit by (sarcastically) asking how many trans people he was going to run into in Wheaton Illinois. If you're unfamiliar with that town, imagine the town in Footloose. That's Wheaton. Super Conservative and super Christian. Not exactly a magnet for the LGBTQIA+ crowd. When I did (or tried anyway) get serious about it, I raised your point by just asking "How does this affect you?" I'll be honest, I don't understand this stuff very well at all. But it doesn't affect me and likely never really will at all and I live in a super liberal dystopian hellscape. My mind reels at how people can get so bent out of shape over something that they will rarely, if ever, be confronted with in their daily life.
Fundamentally, your understanding is at odds with what is broadly accepted by much of the medical and scientific community. Sex is biological - though not, as Aetius pointed out, completely black-and-white. After all, how would you like to define people who biologically deviate from XX or XY, or with some mixture of sex organs that does not follow the norms? Would you find it okay if someone with both external sex organs did not identify wholly as male or female? What if someone was born with a penis and a uterus? Is that person entitled to feel like they don't fall into one specific category? Gender is a social/mental construct and may or may not match your sex, assuming you have a clearly defined sex. Being inclusive of the latter does not imply a violation of science - very much the opposite, in fact. It's a progression of our understanding of how gender and sex are related, and how much gender is personal to the individual's mind and experience, to recognize that they don't always match. Gender dysphoria is included in the DSM as a medical diagnosis so it's not like this is some hand-waving, crystal-and-incense theory. Use of gender-neutral pronouns is simply part of a broader acceptance that someone's sex does not have to match their gender.
it has affected me exactly once. My first grader's teacher, a resource teacher, arrived the first day of school presenting as a male. Looked, dressed, everything. The next day he arrived wearing a dress, makeup, and explained to the children that he's also a woman, and when he dresses like that, he would like to be called "Ms." instead. Needless to say, like you said it's not something we really encounter a lot of, so my son had questions and I would have rather explained this at home at an appropriate time, rather than him first encountering it at school. Children have so much do deal with at that age, they don't need to be wondering why their teacher is trying to explain gender identity to them. That's something for the parents, in my opinion. Long story short, the person, for reasons I understand have nothing to do with that incident, no longer works there anymore, and my son hasn't really asked me more about it. I don't care one way or the other personally, as long as the person in question is happy. There is so much craziness going on in the world, I don't give a rip if you want to be called he, she, they, it, lizard person, whatever. Just be nice and respectful and I'll be the same to you. Only time I have an issue is if it's regarding my children in an inappropriate (in this case, way too early of an age) manner.
So once, in what I assume is roughly 30-ish year life? So..............rarely has it come up? Don't misunderstand. I agree about what children are exposed to, but then what? Are these individuals not allowed to work in certain jobs? Or not when they are transitioning since that would be too much for kids? Cycle teachers around during transition period to try to avoid uncomfortable situations?
yeah, I was pointing out how rare of an occurrence it is. As far as when to bring it up in the classroom, I don't have a clear answer on that. My gut is to treat it on a case by case basis, because again, it is so rare. But I think that on the first day of school -- an already nervous time -- for first graders is an inappropriate time, yes. I just wanted to give that specific example not only to show how rare it actually was, but that on the very rare occasion it might be inappropriate. Might. The way we handled it, we explained to my son that some boys decide to be girls and visa versa, and that's okay, and we treat everyone the same. It was a longer conversation than that of course, and he had questions, but that was the general idea.
Personally, I don't know that any concessions have to be made. Particularly with kids, who just accept most things as normal and don't get too worked up over it. I think the vast majority of people who transition just want to live their lives comfortable in their own skin, and that shouldn't be too confusing to most. The only areas I could see as being potentially problematic are when you get an individual who decides they want to pick fights. There was a "transwoman" in Canada (I put that in quotations for a reason) who kept going to Asian-owned aestheticians to get Brazilian waxes, but this person was not transitioning at all...essentially a dude in wig wearing lipstick. When they dropped their pants in front of the little owner-operators who catered only to women, and those aestheticians refused, the transgendered customer had a blow-up in their salons and then proceeded to sue them, along with filing claims to the Human Rights Tribunals. So many cases were submitted by this individual that the courts had to intervene and issue a cease and desist. Ultimately the cases were all thrown out, but not before all the sued aetheticians went bankrupt or closed their businesses just from the trauma of it all. Obviously a super rare thing, but an illustration of how the system could be abused.
I want to address this, as I understand it from what I’ve learned re: biology. Sex is biological, and distinguished between male and female, based on chromosomes present. If the Y chromosome is present, the sex is male. Klinefelter syndrome, aka XXY, aka “that picture in your seventh grade biology textbook that made you all go ‘tee-hee that’s a picture of a naked guy with boobs’” is something that affects the male sex. XXYY syndrome affects the male sex. XXX syndrome affects the female sex. Now - your question of “how would you like to define these people who biologically deviate” is now going into the realm of gender (like in the earlier post from @Aetius ) Now - for me - when it gets to the gender aspect of it, then it falls into the “how does this affect me” area, and it doesn’t. Because the aspect of sex is biological, i think that should only matter for pure biological reasons, which would really only come up in that person’s life for medical reasons. Which have nothing to do with me.
I really can't wait until we're living in an Altered Carbon world and the human soul can fit on a interchangeable SD card. Then you can just have whatever body you identify as and nobody has to give a fuck anymore.
My big problem with a lot of this discussion is this rush to normalize every far off event. Like someone on a safari once observed same-sex animals canoodling and took it to mean "See? Wild animals are gay too!" Like no, it's just a rare one-off thing, animals can't think so they can't have a sexual preference. Along those same lines is the idea that any super-rare deviation from the hormonal/sex norm is automatically evidence of "See? This proves that there are X number of sexes, not just two!" and I don't think it works that way. GENDERS, sure; frankly our understanding of the human brain is like the mechanic that can fix a car engine, but doesn't know the first fucking thing about forging metal or refining fuel. So I'm cool with people being born "wired different". But SEX, our physical characteristics? I think that binary is pretty set in stone, despite the outliers. And I strongly disagree with obscuring that in the pursuit of social acceptance.
Conversely, we could acknowledge that all of our definitions (in language generally, not just in this area) are to a degree arbitrary, and they're classifications and groupings that we come up with because we find them useful. They're not in any way divinely ordained, and there is no moral imperative to ensure that the classifications are "correct" by some outside standard. If the classifications are clear and internally consistent, they are by definition "correct". We should use the language that most effectively communicates what we're trying to communicate, not because we think things have to fit into some classification system that often wasn't designed for the questions we're presently asking. Do chromosomal arrangements outside of the common XX or XY pairings constitute a new sex? Well that depends on what we mean by sex, and what we mean by sex depends on what we're tying to communicate. If we define sex to be binary, then sex will be binary, although it may not be as useful when discussing certain aspects of biology as a more granular definition.
I don't have a lot to add that @Dcc001 hasn't already said. But reading all this I kept thinking was, I'll do my best to call a person by whatever pronoun or name they want. Mike wants to be called Michelle now? Ok, whatever, out of respect for the person, that's what they are to me now. Charlene wants to take testosterone, lop off her tits and be called Charlie now? Well cool with me Chuck. But when Charlie and Michelle there decide to have a kid, only one of them has the equipment to do it. And again, whatever. But to the over all point of this thread's title, the man didn't get pregnant. Just because I agree to call you Superman doesn't mean your ass can fly.
There are only two genders, the rest are mental illnesses. Now that we got the jokes out of the way, I don't have a problem with trans people, unless they are trying to make society conform to them. Because let's be real here: that's not "normal," and not everyone needs to be catered to. South Park had a great episode about this (the one where Mr. Garrison comes out of the closet). Trans people will always be looked at differently for this reason*: biologically speaking, MOST humans are wired for binary male/ female sexes. But when you see someone, and you can't tell what they are, or something is obviously not "normal" (ex: a "woman" with a deep voice and big hands, or a "man" with a woman's voice) it causes an error message in the brain. Biology/ evolution WANTS us to reproduce, but it doesn't want us to waste our reproductive efforts on what might be the wrong sex, or an infertile member of the opposite sex. Let me give you a personal example: The movie "Labyrinth." My mom rented that for me when I was about 5, and I saw the cover and thought David Bowie was a woman (I figured "she" must be some kind of witch). Then I played the movie, and found out it was a man, and it freaked me the fuck out; I didn't even want to keep watching it. Trans people don't "bother" me any more than some pants-sagging White kid talking like he grew up in South-Central "bothers" me: you've got a right to do your own thing, but I'm going to pass my own judgements. And so are a bunch of other people. Deal with it. *This is my own personal theory, I could be wrong. EDIT: What are y'alls' opinion on transformative surgery for minors? Notorious douche-bag Greg Abbott signed into law a bill that bans such procedures in Texas, and I kind of agree with him on this one.
I think we're in a weird spot in history that has some context to this. A healthy chunk of the country looks at sex/gender in traditional roles, primed for reproduction, family values, etc. Within that swath, a persistent minority of men look at the female of the species in purely sexual terms. For example, the defense against gay marriage that "if you let them marry, you could then marry your dog!" speaks to a mindset of "marriage=whatever I am legally entitled to fuck without consequences." Also, within that swath are people who disregard the science of sexuality, and think in purely black and white terms. From what I can tell, religion seems to be the largest influence. So, there's an entrenched and vocal minority that seems to want to define what a "woman" is, and to some extent what an "ideal woman" is. If that definition sticks, nothing has to change. There are people very heavily invested in these defintions. I suspect a lot of them are in gender-segregated environments like all-boys schools, or fields dominated by one gender or the other, and I can understand how they'd like to stay in those environments. In other parts of history, gender roles were never so concrete. In the age of mass media, we were fed a diet of what "manly men" are, and as a culture, we bought into that shit. As the mass media evolved, women were fed a similar diet. So, until very recently, there wasn't a lot of alternatives. Literally, within my short lifetime has some of the gender role discussion evolved to things like "it's ok to be homosexual", and "you can change your gender". If you can agree that gender is fluid as a universal truth, but sex is biological for 98% of the population, then there's room for a discussion. If you think gender is binary and sex is 100% biological, read "Middlesex" for a start, and see if you still agree. The issue with this, as is for a lot of "woke" bullshit, is there's no authority beyond the individual, and there's room for manipulation within that (albeit exceedingly rare). Like, if I want to go into a women's restroom as a biological male, all I have to do is claim I'm trans? This absurd fantasy is so unacceptable, NC made a law about it. If I wanted to completely dominate a sport, I can claim to be a female, and compete against women who likely aren't 6'1 and 230 lbs. Again, unacceptable, and incredibly rare. I love the book "Black and White Thinking" on this, because it speaks to a way to achieve a balance that isn't 100% this or that. It allows for some 98-99% thinking. Can LeBron James switch genders and compete? No, that's unacceptable, because it feels manipulative. Coudl Eddie Izzard compete as a woman? I think someone who's described themselves as a male lesbian would make a strong case for yes. Do we need laws to reinforce a binary decision? No, it's cruel and we're talking about a tiny sliver of the population, having relatively few incidents that are unresolvable by reasonable people as they go through life. Given our delightful healthcare system, the public sector and the military have to confront this sort of thing more directly, because for many young people, it provides the best healthcare, and most support for transitioning. I work with a LOT of trans veterans. I think this puts these debates a bit more front and center. The girl I'm seeing has a nephew that was born with sexual abnormalities. His parents basically had to choose which gender he was, secure surgeries, and hormones, etc. It's kind of a nightmare to think an otherwise healthy child is caught in a maelstrom of fuck, because of some quirk in their DNA. The child is a toddler, this has nothing to do with sexuality, or reproduction. I can't imagine the choice of raising a kid, understanding the possibility you could have made the wrong decision and the kid grows up to want to be the opposite.
I agree with most of what was said here. Socially, I'm happy to address whoever how they would like to be addressed. Abuse against anyone for their gender (or gender identity) is completely intolerable. There shouldn't be any prejudicial policies in place that make excluding them legal. People are people, and whether you see yourself as a man or a woman is virtually no concern at all to anyone. The problem is re-writing science to absorb this concept. Men and women are biologically very different, and the notion that how you feel about who you are alters your biology is, simply, incorrect. Sure, there are hormone treatments and surgery that can vastly alter one's appearance, but that doesn't mean that the transitioned person is now the opposite sex. It means they're the same sex, but presenting differently. A quick google search would suggest that roughly 0.4% of the United States (where stats were available) identify as transgender. I don't think it's valid to adjust the science when it's accurate for 99.5% of the population. And, yes, biologically there are people born intersexed. The percentage of that seems to be about 0.018% (just from Wikipedia). One could say that males grow up to be men and females grow up to be women 99.5% of the time, and that in less than 0.02% of all human cases are the chromosomes ambiguous, and you would be accurate. So, by all means, meet people where they are and treat them how they ask to be treated. But I refuse to buy "Men can have babies too!" because no, they cannot. Only if you're comfortable sharing, but is there a reason the doctors are recommending intervention at such a young age? Can they let him grow up a bit and get a sense of how he'd like to address this, or is it an issue that can only really be successfully treated while he's still growing?
No, they are not very different. They are mildly different, and with 7 billion examples, that line should be blurry at the fringe. Biology is pretty broad, a sliver of a percentage sets us apart from apes. Between the two genders, biologically, it's not much. Also, given how much behavior can influence our biology, it stands to reason this gets fuzzier over time. Example: female body builders. That is behavior driving the genes to present a change in the individual: she wasn't going to get that big and strong without the behavior, no matter what her genes did. We prescribe that behavior to a particular gender, but it's really arbitrary and changes over time. You need a uterus to get pregnant, and that belongs to 99.999% of women. If that tiny percent don't want to sign up for the rest of the baggage that comes with "womanhood" as we largely prescribe it, so....fucking...what? I put this in the other thread, but I think part of this language comes from men feeling excluded as parents. "They are pregnant/we are pregnant" is more inclusive language, which is something the government is now keen on. I don't think it's referring to the few cases of trans folks with uteruses getting knocked up, I think it's trying to make partners=parents. FWIW, I have a pretty strong distaste for parents pushing a "gender" decision onto kids, and with my niece discussing being a member of the LGBT community, this board gave some great advice on the folks who leap to "support" and encourage kids to enter a world they don't understand and have no business making decisions in. Most of the situations I've seen feel like virtue signaling ("Look at how woke/feminist I am, I'm making my boy wear a pinke dress to school!" kind of shit). There isn't an easy path for someone who doesn't fit into the 99.999% of humanity, and while I want to make it easier as an individual, expecting society to participate in one's idenity is a bit much. Re, the gf's nephew: He had deformities that needed to be addressed within a few months after being born. I'm not sure on the specifics, but this wasn't a choice. He had to have serious intervention to survive threats to some organ systems (urinary, for one that I know of), and to have a shot at a normal life. From what I can piece together, he was born with both kits, and one had to be removed. His parents opted for the kit that was the most developed, and doctors estimatted would have the best chance of normal development. This little fuck is going to be a case study for a long time, and I can't imagine the agony his parents went through. My buddy had a hot take on this one time that stuck with me: "If you think men and women are so different, you haven't watched enough freaky porn. Skip to page 33 on the search and see what cock, clits, tits and ass look like. It'll broaden your horizons." Timely, but Dave Chappelle is getting skewered again for trans jokes on Netflix: https://news.google.com/articles/CB...MDIzMjI3NzgxLmh0bWw?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en