TIL transrace is possible.
-
It's not necessarily a completely separate thing for everyone ;).
I'm guessing the people having surgery to change their biological sex to match their gender identity aren't just doing it for the hell of it.
But I don't know anything, I'm just making an observation.
-
I'm not even sure what the politically correct consensus is these days. Is it that gays and transgenders have their brains wired up differently? Is it that they don't, and you should be able to pick a gender and orientation you like anytime you want? Is it that there's totally no diference between men and women and being transgender is completely moot?
-
Would people be as disgusted if someone was pretending to be white for white privileges?
Yeah, like Michael Jackson, nobody dared to make fun of him... Oh wait.
-
Well, it changed from a choice, to "they're just being themselves, it's not a choice".
Which ventures into the, it is a disorder, territory.
But of course, what IS a disorder or a mental disease, is just subjective consensus.
I think they've evaluated it as
- It doesn't harm another person.
- It doesn't hinder the self.
Therefore it is not a disorder.
And that's the current conclusion.
Compare that to people calling smoking/binge-drinking a disease, and you'll see the only difference is whether a person "believes" there is obvious harm to the user or people around them.
If for some reason smoking/drunkness turned out to be beneficial, I guarantee you that a decade or so later, we'd be hearing that they are just being themselves. Oh he drinks so much. No, he's being himself, it is not a choice, when he sees liquor, he has to drink. Why make him deny who he is?
I'm sure I'm going to get shot down for this, but the parallels are too obvious to me, from an objective standpoint, and having made small ventures into areas in sexuality that produced consequences I don't want to have to deal with, and having made small ventures into drinking and determining the same. Both produced the same convictions.
And that's true for a lot of my life.
I don't have my beliefs and convictions because someone told me to, I have them because of personal experiences that lined up with the what I was told.
-
it is not a choice, when he sees liquor, he has to drink
This is claimed by those who view alcoholism as some sort of disease; it's usually followed by some bullcrap about 'giving yourself to a higher power'
-
It's not necessarily a completely separate thing for everyone ;).
You're just trying to get yourself in trouble, aren't you.
-
-
Sake is alcoholic!
-
Biological sex <> gender identity
Good. You know that. I know that. Most of us here know that, I assume.
Where it gets fucked up is when a statement like "on average, men have more upper body strength than women" (Shock, horror, differences in a sexually dimorphic species? Say it isn't so!) gets picked up by people who do "gender studies" to try and prove that somehow means I regard women as less capable than men...
-
upper body strength
That's still tame stuff compared to this sort of nonsense:
Ain't Nothing But a Vagina Thing
A feminist debate erupts on Twitter over whether women unifying over their shared body parts excludes trans people.
Shortly after the group kicked off its campaign to raise money for four Texas abortion funds, a debate erupted on Twitter accusing the organizers of a concert benefiting several Texas abortion funds for being cissexist and bioessentialist in their advertising campaign.
-
Wait... but... only people who are fully biologically female have an uterus... if you're trans and identify as a female, you still can't have an abortion...
How would... ABORTION IS NOT SOMETHING TRANS WOMEN NEED! And they, as well as I, can either support or be against the cause, but I can no more say that me not being able to have an abortion is wrong than them! I CAN'T GET PREGNANT AND NEITHER CAN THEY!
Fuck me. Logic has left the building.
-
They might not be able to have one, but they should have the right to have one anyway
-
Cool. Why is there no problem with males being excluded, then? I feel excluded, too!
Yes, I know you're joking, but that elephant is looking at me funny and I'd like it to leave my room. Lawn, too, if possible.
-
If abortion is made illegal, then (probably) everyone except women can have an abortion type procedure without breaking the law.
-
-
-
By ... what definition?
That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? It's the whole problem with pronouns all over again. The language doesn't reflect neither reality nor beliefs of many people a lot of the time.
Within the context of the movement, I would go by the purely biological definition in this case. If we have to categorize people in this case, both ransgender women and men are in the same group as biological men - none of them is affected by the issue on the pure biological level. This does not stop us from either agreeing or opposing the cause of the movement.
There's also a question of "exclusion". I mean, as soon as you have a specific issue that can affect only a part of the population, you "exclude" people. Sun protection lotion commercials and tanning salons mostly exclude black people, don't they? Does that make them racist?
-
-
This is claimed by those who view alcoholism as some sort of disease; it's usually followed by some bullcrap about 'giving yourself to a higher power'
That's backwards compared to my experiences.
Usually it's the seculars claiming disease, and the religious claiming its a choice that a higher power can help you overcome.
-
sexually dimorphic
conveys different, equally important to society, advantages to each sex.
These advantages wouldn't exist if they didn't benefit society.somehow means I regard women as less capable than men
projection.
They regard the advantages female sex receives as inferior.
I regard the advantages female sex receives as making them better at a different set of roles.That doesn't mean there can't be crossovers.
That you can't have a motherly man.
Or a strong woman.
-
If abortion is made illegal, then (probably) everyone except pregnant women can have an abortion type procedure without breaking the law.
FTFYShortly after the group kicked off its campaign to raise money for four Texas abortion funds, a debate erupted on Twitter accusing the organizers of a concert benefiting several Texas abortion funds for being cissexist and bioessentialist in their advertising campaign.
I'm just loving watching them eat each other alive. This intersectionality thing is a huge benefit for people who find them to be idiot.
-
-
BLACK SUNBURNS MATTER.
Not sure I'm doing this right.
-
You're missing the hash
tagOtherwise, you're fine. If I had a tenth of a penny for every stupid hashtag, I could buy twitter.
-
If for some reason [...] drunkness turned out to be beneficial
Google("alcohol j curve");
-
These advantages wouldn't exist if they didn't benefit society.
I think you might be putting a bit too much weight on societal influence on sexual selection.
projection.
I don't know if you mean me or them. In any case, I'm just talking about my experience. Also, you totally missed the point where I said the problem is that people claim that statement falls under gender studies while its factuality is completely tied into the biological sex.
black people get sunburnt too.And I even bothered to put stuff into the
<abbr>tag... I don't mind getting corrected, I welcome it. But I prefer if you could answer that respectfully and with facts instead of an emojicon.To be clear, I could've used other examples, but then I'd have to put in even more disclaimers. And since even the small one here got missed and/or ignored I don't want to risk something that requires one that's 3 paragraphs long.
-
Usually it's the seculars claiming disease, and the religious claiming its a choice that a higher power can help you overcome.
The AA refers to alcoholism as something you're powerless against, and that a higher power is required to help you
-
I think you might be putting a bit too much weight on societal influence on sexual selection.
Explain animals having dimorphic sexes, also having dimorphic roles.
If you take a bird, where the male is the attractive one, and he is born outside society along with females that are all born in different areas outside society, then notices that more of these females like him because he looks better than another male, at some point the gender role is tied to the sex advantage.
I can't breastfeed a child. That influences the preferred social gender role of which sex takes care of kids. Only does the creation of the breast pump and formulas help alleviate the obvious advantage. Only in our cushiness can we start to question gender roles.
Take away our technology, and the people that are transgender will end up dead or unable to pass on their DNA, because they are actively making choices that they don't receive advantages for, and putting themselves at a disadvantage.
-
Explain animals having dimorphic sexes, also having dimorphic roles.
You changed the direction of your argument now.
These advantages wouldn't exist if they didn't benefit society.
Or maybe societal roles wouldn't exist if there wasn't a biological precedent that enables them?
Of course, this is all very simplified. It's a feedback loop - but society is a consequence of biology, first and foremost. The fact that societal roles reinforce these biological roles is not surprising. What I'm saying is that you can't claim that the statement "I like big butts and I cannot lie" is completely a societal construct - it's not, it's primarily biological, which is societally reinforced, yes, but "society" didn't dictate that, biology did, society just goes along with it.
-
Does that make transgender wrong?
No, it doesn't. It simply says that the pre-existing roles aren't necessarily wrong either.
-
-
Classic troll technique.
Indeed. But I'm having a good time having at least a semblance of a rational argument here. It's no infinite hotels, but I'll take what I can get.
-
conveys different, equally important to society, advantages to each sex.
These advantages wouldn't exist if they didn't benefit society.I think you might be putting a bit too much weight on societal influence on sexual selection.
I can't breastfeed a child. That influences the preferred social gender role of which sex takes care of kids.
You changed the direction of your argument now.
No, I didn't.
Gender roles are preceded by biology.
I'm not certain that feeds back into biology though. That would be CITATION NEEDED.
Gender roles that develop from biology benefit society by building society in an efficient manner.
If there was another society that had opposite gender roles, they'd be at a disadvantage because their women would not be available to breastfeed.
-
But I'm having a good time having at least a semblance of a rational argument here.
I don't think that's what he was doing, but ICNR.
I'm not certain that feeds back into biology though. That would be CITATION NEEDED.
Evolution, BITCH!
I mean, there's not really a way to prove or disprove it, but basically stuff that works gets selected for. If you have a successful society, and some biological factor makes some compete better at that, it's certainly plausible that some phenotype becomes more dominant as a result of the stimuli of society or culture or whatever.
-
-
Yep.
-
No, I didn't.
Then you phrased it poorly.
I'm not certain that feeds back into biology though. That would be CITATION NEEDED.
Indirectly, yes. If you choose a partner based on societal status, for example. Also,
'dIf there was another society that had opposite gender roles, they'd be at a disadvantage because their women would not be available to breastfeed.
It would probably be a much different society as a whole in that case, most likely. The "stay at home mom" concept is a leftover from the times when leaving the house might mean getting eaten by a lion, for example. In a society where women still give birth (I'm assuming that's what you're aiming for), they would probably be expected to stay at home while pregnant and then go out hunting once they give birth, and the father would take care of the infant. I'd wager a guess that in that kind of species the physical strength gap would be even smaller than it is in humans, since stronger females would be preferred since they can equal men when it comes to being a hunter.
NOTE: Above assumes that the species would be a near-analogue of humans - meaning omnivores and hunters / gatherers. Also, it is deliberately set into a technologically non-advanced society because developing technology takes time, so you have to survive first before you can put it all in a modern context.
-
But that just means that the biological advantages are selected because society worked better with those advantages. And society worked better when it built itself to those advantages.
Making EVOLUTION! a tautology here.
The social gender roles is removable from the equation.
Otherwise, you'll have to say that moths change color with different tree colors, because they choose to land on the tree that matches their color. Which is absurd. Only the moths that land on the trees that match their color, don't get eaten.
Only the cultures that take advantage of their biological roles, don't die. It doesn't mean the roles feed back into EVOLUTION! It means that they are the only ones that ended up selected.
Ugh, head spinning.
Now I don't know whether to say that social role reinforcement is true, or whether it is pointless to discuss.
-
I'd wager a guess that in that kind of species the physical strength gap would be even smaller than it is in humans,
Lions. Argument subverted.
The male still ends up stronger, even if they take a passive defensive role.
The only thing that determines the dimorphism is if it is used, and it will be used if it provides an advantage. If it provides an advantage and isn't used, the society will be replaced by one that does.
Now that we've eliminated advantages of traditional households, we still have sex dimorphism. Which means that biology moves slowly. Maybe it's still social roles holding it up. Like women preferring a well built man, and men preferring a well endowed woman.
-
Only the cultures that take advantage of their biological roles, don't die. It doesn't mean the roles feed back into EVOLUTION! It means that they are the only ones that ended up selected.
You're trying to compare humans to other species who all have one very big difference to humans - tool use. Some of us here might not survive until our teens only a few thousand years ago, let alone get a chance to mate, even with best intentions of people around us. We have heating in our shelters, we have food production, and we have modern medicine. Other species don't get such luxuries. Also, this means that someone might be desirable due to their intelligence, in spite of all other disadvantages, if that intelligence resulted in them getting filthy rich, for example. And being rich is a purely social construct.
Lions. Argument subverted.
The male still ends up stronger, even if they take a passive defensive role.
I was just speculating. And even then, male lions don't breast feed their young, do they? So your argument is invalid.
-
But that just means that the biological advantages are selected because society worked better with those advantages. And society worked better when it built itself to those advantages.
Making EVOLUTION! a tautology here.
Not at all. I could imagine various different societies that could cause different things to be selected.
Otherwise, you'll have to say that moths change color with different tree colors
No I don't. Evolution is just saying that stuff that works keeps working and stuff that doesn't doesn't. It's a mistake to anthropomorphize it. It has nothing to say about whether alternative (or better) solutions exist. And its results are very dependent on circumstances.
-
And even then, male lions don't breast feed their young, do they? So your argument is invalid.
You just said there could be a scenario where mothers stayed with young until they no longer need that support, then leave to hunt and males stayed at home.
That's lions.
And yet, the male lion still has the physical advantage, even though you suggested that the strength difference should be less.
And it still isn't. Males are stronger.
Other species don't get such luxuries
Exactly, which is why we now have the diversity in gender roles that we have. If we lost these luxuries, we'd fall back to traditional roles.
That has nothing to say which is better, but only says that it isn't wrong to have gender roles. It is only wrong to have roles, because, borrowing a phrase of speech from @RaceProUK, raisins.
-
It is only wrong to have roles, because as @RaceProUK says, raisins.
When did I say that?
-
I'll fix it.
-
You just said there could be a scenario where mothers stayed with young until they no longer need that support, then leave to hunt and males stayed at home.
That's lions.
And yet, the male lion still has the physical advantage, even though you suggested that the strength difference should be less.
And it still isn't. Males are stronger.
Fine. Whatever. You're still missing a lot of factors here, but that's only because you set up a strawman without really thinking about it by shifting one of the roles to the opposite sex than common in nature and then completely disregard it later. But I have no will to argue about a non-existing hypothetical species. Let alone put more effort into it than the person who invented it.
Exactly, which is why we now have the diversity in gender roles that we have. If we lost these luxuries, we'd fall back to traditional roles.
That has nothing to say which is better, but only says that it isn't wrong to have gender roles. It is only wrong to have roles, because, borrowing a phrase of speech from @RaceProUK, raisins.
And I contested that... where? Try to keep up, the bit that you quoted was directed at your rambling about moths liking to climb certain trees because they are pretty or whatever, which you tried to use as proof that societal constructs don't feed back into evolutionary development.
-
which you tried to use as proof that societal constructs don't feed back into evolutionary development.
Actually, I'm saying that I don't know if they do.
But that I think it's kind of redundant to say that they do because those social roles wouldn't exist without the selection process choosing biological benefits.
And that any society that chooses against its biological benefits should perform worse than one that does.
Now, I'm looking around for human matriarchal societies that have performed better, and..... I'm only finding ones that perform worse.
-
And that any society that chooses against its biological benefits should perform worse than one that does.
This is a ginormous oversimplification. We choose against biological stuff all the time (viz, modern medicine) and do all the better for it. What works, works. It's that simple.
-
Choosing partners based on wealth and / or other social status parameters? Remember arranged marriages (which still happen in some part of the world)?
Also, sperm banks and in-vitro pregnancies? These are less of a social thing directly, but they are still something that is outside of scope of regular biology enabled by our technology and something our society approves of, up to a point.
We're far beyond regular natural and sexual selection parameters as a species now. We can argue about semantics of what is considered "societal" here, but you can't say those don't have an effect.
-
Ugh, it's pointless.
Let me say this.
Without all these technologies, and luxuries, we would not be able to choose against what is obvious advantages provided by biology.
That's what I've wanted to say this whole time.
Whether I did or not, or you agree or not. Sorry for wasting your time.
And choosing to utilize the advantages having a feedback affect is redundant to me, because without technology, we wouldn't be able to choose. We'd either succeed or fail. So to say social constructs have a feedback effect is to say that what works works is a feedback effect, which is the whole definition of evolution. To choose against those advantages, would mean being at a disadvantage, which wouldn't work. (except in cases of isolation).
But of course, having technology as an equalizer force, means that the whole discussion is pointless, because none of this is valid anymore.
And none of this says whether gender roles or wrong or not.
Any deviation from traditional gender roles is just a side-effect of the fact that our society is stable enough to absorb the disadvantages.
Before, if you deviated, you were the untamable shrew, and would die without children.
Now, you just grow your children, basically.
Maybe you can't propagate your genes, but you can propagate your ideas. And that's how gender-role-deviation is transferred. Because no one would come out of the closet, unless they were told it was ok.
-
I guess this answers my previous question (CBA to find it an link):
http://dailysurge.com/2015/06/71-percent-of-msnbc-viewers-think-rachel-dolezal-is-black/
