Is Hillary Clinton a woman?

[TheBigOhMan]

Quantum Mechanics is easier to understand than Transgenderism. No exaggeration.

I understand that it's difficult for you to understand it. That doesn't mean that it's difficult to understand.

Care to explain then? Because it is confusing. First we are told gender roles are a social construct and not real. Okey fone so that means you can have a male doing female stuff and viceversa so there is no behaviour linked to gender.

But then we are told gender is a subjetive thing. But then when a person with a dick says he feels like a female what the hell does he means? He cant say he feels like doing female stuff since there is no such thing as female stuff, and i'm not a female so i dont know what does it means to be a female. The word is empty to me. In fact how would a female know another person is a female if thet cant say what the other feels through behaviour?

Who says social constructs aren't real? And who said there's no behaviour linked to a specific gender?

If social constructs define gender roles and being from a gender means you do things that society says are from that gender then you dont get to tell what gender you are,  society does.

[Moot]

Quantum Mechanics is easier to understand than Transgenderism. No exaggeration.

I understand that it's difficult for you to understand it. That doesn't mean that it's difficult to understand.

Care to explain then? Because it is confusing. First we are told gender roles are a social construct and not real. Okey fone so that means you can have a male doing female stuff and viceversa so there is no behaviour linked to gender.

But then we are told gender is a subjetive thing. But then when a person with a dick says he feels like a female what the hell does he means? He cant say he feels like doing female stuff since there is no such thing as female stuff, and i'm not a female so i dont know what does it means to be a female. The word is empty to me. In fact how would a female know another person is a female if thet cant say what the other feels through behaviour?

Who says social constructs aren't real? And who said there's no behaviour linked to a specific gender?

If social constructs define gender roles and being from a gender means you do things that society says are from that gender then you dont get to tell what gender you are,  society does.

Mmm... no. You get to say which construct you identify with, if any. Also, saying that these are social constructs doesn't mean that they have no basis in biology.

[TheBigOhMan]

Quantum Mechanics is easier to understand than Transgenderism. No exaggeration.

I understand that it's difficult for you to understand it. That doesn't mean that it's difficult to understand.

Care to explain then? Because it is confusing. First we are told gender roles are a social construct and not real. Okey fone so that means you can have a male doing female stuff and viceversa so there is no behaviour linked to gender.

But then we are told gender is a subjetive thing. But then when a person with a dick says he feels like a female what the hell does he means? He cant say he feels like doing female stuff since there is no such thing as female stuff, and i'm not a female so i dont know what does it means to be a female. The word is empty to me. In fact how would a female know another person is a female if thet cant say what the other feels through behaviour?

Who says social constructs aren't real? And who said there's no behaviour linked to a specific gender?

If social constructs define gender roles and being from a gender means you do things that society says are from that gender then you dont get to tell what gender you are,  society does.

Mmm... no. You get to say which construct you identify with, if any. Also, saying that these are social constructs doesn't mean that they have no basis in biology.

So there are no behavioural or biological traits that can make us identify a male or a female. The Word then is meaningless, there is no way anyone can relate to it besides yourself. Its like the problem of other minds but you dont get to use biological facts nor behavioural facts to solve it.

[DT1213]

Interesting stuff, I must admit I know nothing much about this issue. Just thought I would throw in a question.

In a few thousand years if scientists were to dig up the bones of some transgender people - what would the scientists conclude? Male or Female? Would they look at bone structure/genitalia to determine sex? DNA ? Just a thought.

[Moot]

Quantum Mechanics is easier to understand than Transgenderism. No exaggeration.

I understand that it's difficult for you to understand it. That doesn't mean that it's difficult to understand.

Care to explain then? Because it is confusing. First we are told gender roles are a social construct and not real. Okey fone so that means you can have a male doing female stuff and viceversa so there is no behaviour linked to gender.

But then we are told gender is a subjetive thing. But then when a person with a dick says he feels like a female what the hell does he means? He cant say he feels like doing female stuff since there is no such thing as female stuff, and i'm not a female so i dont know what does it means to be a female. The word is empty to me. In fact how would a female know another person is a female if thet cant say what the other feels through behaviour?

Who says social constructs aren't real? And who said there's no behaviour linked to a specific gender?

If social constructs define gender roles and being from a gender means you do things that society says are from that gender then you dont get to tell what gender you are,  society does.

Mmm... no. You get to say which construct you identify with, if any. Also, saying that these are social constructs doesn't mean that they have no basis in biology.

So there are no behavioural or biological traits that can make us identify a male or a female. The Word then is meaningless, there is no way anyone can relate to it besides yourself. Its like the problem of other minds but you dont get to use biological facts nor behavioural facts to solve it.

None of that follows. You can identify what sex a person belongs to. You can also make an educated guess about which gender they identify with based on knowing their sex. And again, who said there's no behaviour linked to a specific gender? With a basic understanding of the gender constructs you can certainly identify gender based on behaviour, but perhaps not with certainty.

Let me repeat, saying that gender is a social constructs doesn't mean that it has no basis in biology.

[Moot]

Interesting stuff, I must admit I know nothing much about this issue. Just thought I would throw in a question.

In a few thousand years if scientists were to dig up the bones of some transgender people - what would the scientists conclude? Male or Female? Would they look at bone structure/genitalia to determine sex? DNA ? Just a thought.

They would determine the sex of the person by looking at genitalia, DNA, etc. I doubt they'd make any attempts at deciding what gender the person identified with.

[TheBigOhMan]

None of that follows. You can identify what sex a person belongs to. You can also make an educated guess about which gender they identify with based on knowing their sex.

That just only works with big numbers. On a case to case scenario someone with any sex can have any gender so you cannot make a rule out of it.

And again, who said there's no behaviour linked to a specific gender? With a basic understanding of the gender constructs you can certainly identify gender based on behaviour, but perhaps not with certainty.

No you can't, since a male can declare himself "feeling" like a male while doing female stuff, and a male can declare himself "feeling" like a male while doing male stuff (according to societies standards). It follows from that fact alone that a gender can have any behaviour while still being from said gender.

Would be like two persons saying they feel pain, while one is screaming upon touching fire and the other is smiling and geting more near the fire.

[Trinity]

Interesting stuff, I must admit I know nothing much about this issue. Just thought I would throw in a question.

In a few thousand years if scientists were to dig up the bones of some transgender people - what would the scientists conclude? Male or Female? Would they look at bone structure/genitalia to determine sex? DNA ? Just a thought.

They would determine the sex of the person by looking at genitalia, DNA, etc. I doubt they'd make any attempts at deciding what gender the person identified with.

If persons can identify with different genders, then can persons also identify with different races or species?

[Mae]

Can you explain Transgenderism to me? I would forever be in your debt.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/trans-people-gender-essentialism/Here is a relevant article from the same source you used.

[Moot]

None of that follows. You can identify what sex a person belongs to. You can also make an educated guess about which gender they identify with based on knowing their sex.

That just only works with big numbers. On a case to case scenario someone with any sex can have any gender so you cannot make a rule out of it.

The rule is that most people identify with the gender associated with their genitals. That's why I said you could make an educated guess. If you want to be certain, ask the person.

And again, who said there's no behaviour linked to a specific gender? With a basic understanding of the gender constructs you can certainly identify gender based on behaviour, but perhaps not with certainty.

No you can't, since a male can declare himself "feeling" like a male while doing female stuff, and a male can declare himself "feeling" like a male while doing male stuff (according to societies standards). It follows from that fact alone that a gender can have any behaviour while still being from said gender.

Which is why I said "perhaps not with certainty". Certain behaviours can be typical of one gender but not the other. There's no problem here.

You seem to be assuming that these people have just stubbornly "declared" that they're one gender or the other because they felt like it. You should seriously read up on some of the testimony's of these people.

Would be like two persons saying they feel pain, while one is screaming upon touching fire and the other is smiling and geting more near the fire.

No. It's literally nothing like that. Do you even know what gender is?

[DT1213]

Interesting stuff, I must admit I know nothing much about this issue. Just thought I would throw in a question.

In a few thousand years if scientists were to dig up the bones of some transgender people - what would the scientists conclude? Male or Female? Would they look at bone structure/genitalia to determine sex? DNA ? Just a thought.

They would determine the sex of the person by looking at genitalia, DNA, etc. I doubt they'd make any attempts at deciding what gender the person identified with.

What about transabled people? if we dug up their remains we would conclude they were not disabled although they identified themselves as disabled. Couldn't the same be said of transgender? All the scientific evidence would show that they are a certain sex.
(I don't hold an opinion on this subject as I do not know nearly enough about it just trying to input some thoughts)

[Logos]

Yes, I'm back.

Firstly, as long as we are having discussions about gender and sex (and whether they are the same thing or not), let me remind the community that discussion of genitalia is not a licence to devolve into vulgarity.

Secondly, this is a serious issue of identity for many people around the world and so, regardless of how little basis in fact you believe the issue to be, speak in love and not with cheap shots at people experiencing gender dysphoria. Yes, the transgender lobby have pushed for things that are questionable. Yes, the transgender lobby have pushed for things that can be considered unethical. "Father forgive them, they know not what they do".

Thirdly, many people have researched the subject of gender dysphoria, and still disagree with the notion of gender as a social construct, separate and apart from biological sex. Disagreement does not automatically mean ignorance. If you do wish to challenge someone's education on the matter, be prepared to "educate them" when called on it. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself.

Finally, "gender" comes from the Latin "genus", itself a translation of the Greek "genos". Other words similarly derived are "genetics", "genome", and let us not forget "genesis". It has been known almost universally throughout history as a biological term, the attempted redefinition of the word only surfacing in the last century. There are certainly good reasons to see "gender" as being a numerically identical identifier to "biological sex", and it is not "transphobic" to point this out.

As you were, keep this thread out of my work queue, please.

[neopolitan]

Perhaps some high-level, broad-stroke education would be useful.  I may use "gender" and "sex" interchangeably although I do realise that there may be some utility in distinguishing the terms into what could be called "internally experienced gender" and "morphological gender".  I'm not trying to politically correct or incorrect, it's just that it's not a big issue for me and understanding seems more important than petty conformance with rules that appear to be in flux.

There are at least four contributors to a person's gender, possibly more, but I think these four pretty much cover it:

• genetics
• epigenetics (warning, this might not be 100% use of the term, but I will explain below)
• morphology
• socialisation

Genetics: As a mammal, if you have two X chromosomes and only two X chromosomes, then you are genetically female, by definition.  As a mammal, if you have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome and only one X chromosome and one Y chromosome , then you are genetically male, by definition.  This is not the full range of genetic possibilities, there are XXY people (most of whom are morphologically male, but a small proportion of whom are either female or intersex, meaning pseudohermaphroditistic) as well as the significantly more rare XXXY and XXXXY people.  The intersex people here may manifest externally morphologically as male or female but feel differently internally due to epigenetics.

Epigenetics: [By epigenetics here I mean the processes by which the cytoblast/foetus/embryo and the womb interact to generate a new human (or whatever species is in question).  I'm deliberately sweeping in other factors that might not be strictly related to gene expression.]  The "operating code" for standard male behaviour and standard female behaviour will exist in all of us and if "everything goes right" standard male behaviour operating code will be turned on for genetically male embryos who have already begun the morphological development of male anatomy (7 weeks as a foetus).  Problems with testosterone, however, can lead to this not happening (it can also affect the completion of male anatomy development, resulting in undescended organs).

Morphology: This is pretty simple.  If you have a penis you are morphologically male and if you have a vagina, you are morphologically female.  There are other things associated with being male and female, of course (testes, ova, breast development, body fat distribution, fat-muscle ratio, bone density, hip structure, testosterone/oestrogen ratios and so on), but these two are key signals for anyone looking at the newborn child.  Sometimes, it's not so easy.  There are boys born with their genitalia "retracted" and girls born with larger than average clitoral extrusion (sometimes looking like a little penis sans sac).  Then there are the pseudohermaphrodites some of whom have developed a bit of both due to a genetic abnormality (see above) and some of whom are actually chimera - the fusion of two fertilised ova into one person, one person with both XX genetics and XY genetics - a mono-twin, if you like.  What operating code gets laid down in such people would be a bit of a lucky dip, so it would always be risky to decide what gender such an infant should be assigned at birth.  But once you have assigned a gender, you can move on into socialisation.

Socialisation: This would be the point at which gender roles and all the rest that identity politicians like talk about would come into play.  It's possible to forceably raise a child against its morphological gender - this happened as a tradition in Polynesian nations such as Samoa although it seems to be dying out now.  It seems that it doesn't necessarily cause huge distress if the practice is socially accepted, so that the person subjected to anti-genderal socialisation isn't outcast or discriminated against.  But it does seem that socialisation can be overcome.  Samoan men raised as women can later marry and become fathers without too much trouble (although it does seem more common that they end up in gay relationships).  Current practices appear to be to let children who have a proclivity that way develop into "fa'afafine", indicating that it's not just socialisation that matters.  On the flip side, it seems possible to force a child to align with its morphological gender (and traditional sexuality) despite what appears to be an innate alignment with a different internal gender.

Socialisation is complicated by the fact that some of it is somewhat, if not entirely arbitrary.  Colours for example.  At one point in history, pink was the strong manly colour for male infants.  Now it's either "gay" or the predominant colour in the girl's aisle in Toys'R'Us.  There are arbitrary declarations regarding what is lady-like and what men can and cannot eat (some men can't even spell qwitchy) or drink, or the cars they can drive.  Females can be encouraged to do less well in mathematics by being reminded that they are female.  I suspect, however, that if we eliminated the stereotype, this effect would be eliminated (although any male benefits associated with superior, testosterone-related spatial processing would remain).

----

So ... "Transgenderism".  If this means the move to be more forgiving of people who challenge the notions of people who think that boys are boys and girls are girls, full stop, then I'd say it's a good thing and I'm all for it.  If it means a total disconnect from reality with regard to the influences on what make us male and female (which might well be more extensive than I've listed above), then no, thank you.  I'll put that in the same category as many other ideologies which should be firmly rejected.

[TheBigOhMan]

The rule is that most people identify with the gender associated with their genitals. That's why I said you could make an educated guess. If you want to be certain, ask the person.

That would be just an accidental property, not a real part of the definition of words like "male" or "female".

Which is why I said "perhaps not with certainty". Certain behaviours can be typical of one gender but not the other. There's no problem here.

There is a problem, you just keep mentioning accidental properties of males or females, but we need something more if the terms are going to make any sort of sense.

You seem to be assuming that these people have just stubbornly "declared" that they're one gender or the other because they felt like it. You should seriously read up on some of the testimony's of these people.

That's not my point. My point is that gender wouldn't have any definition. Gender would be a "feeling" the person has, but this feeling cannot be expressed in words, since there is no necessary property of male or female that you could name.

No. It's literally nothing like that. Do you even know what gender is?

No. But you seem to know. ¿can you tell me what a male is without mentioning any accidental property like behaviour or biological features? For example, a person with a dick that acts as a female, but defines itself as a male. ¿can you define male?, ¿when he says he feels like a male what is he trying to say?

[Trinity]

Can you explain Transgenderism to me? I would forever be in your debt.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/trans-people-gender-essentialism/Here is a relevant article from the same source you used.

That is helpful. Does non-essentialism also apply to race and species?