Sebastian Coe

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Jellybean
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
Been Liked: 155 times
Has Liked: 799 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jellybean » Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:44 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:31 pm
Here we go then, a women's group who is there to protect and support victims of rape do not have a valid opinion on this subject.

What a great advert for Women's rights you turned out to be
Judging by the reaction on social media, the vulnerable women and victims they are set up to support do not support these comments nor the GRR bill. I'm guessing as always there was no consultation with stakeholders and service users before they put their wonderful joint statement out.

Jellybean
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
Been Liked: 155 times
Has Liked: 799 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jellybean » Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:46 pm

Anyway I'm definitely stepping away from this thread now, because there are several men who are making me feel very uncomfortable about my very existence, and as someone who is protected under equalities legislation it would be dreadful to think there was some form of discrimination going on here.



😉

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Devils_Advocate » Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:49 pm

Jellybean wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:44 pm
Judging by the reaction on social media, the vulnerable women and victims they are set up to support do not support these comments nor the GRR bill. I'm guessing as always there was no consultation with stakeholders and service users before they put their wonderful joint statement out.
I'd suggest these groups have a lot more involvement and insight in to this whole topic and the people impacted than what you do browsing your social media platforms.

But you go ahead and continue to dismiss and belittle all the work these groups do for women and the validity of their opinions

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:08 pm

NottsClaret wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:43 pm
Nobody thinks they don’t exist. Some people just believe that they’re men and performing regressive female stereotypes doesn’t make them women. That’s all, they’re just men. Not special, or brave or magical. Just men, now impinging on women in a story as old as time.
That post is the embodiment of 'believing' a trans person out of existence. As in, you're of the 'belief' that a trans person is not capable of performing the gender most authentic to their internal sense of identity. You're arguing for biological essentialism. By necessity, a trans women is not a cis woman, no, but they're not a man either. Biologically male, sure, but that's not the same thing as 'man'.

Once you extricate gender from biological sex, all gender is not much more than a series of performances and rituals. The assumption that gender and biological sex are inextricably linked is nothing more than a social paradigm whose assumed truth is contradicted by other cultures around the world, historically and present.

Biological essentialism provides no scope for liberation or change, especially for cis women, because if a gender is articulated as a set of performances, rituals and roles (be 'ladylike', do 'this' in life, 'this' is your role) and this gender is considered to be essentially linked to sex, it means those aspects of her gender which are oppressive to women can never be overcome because they are assumed to be innate qualities of a woman determined by her sex. But to assert that oppressive roles can be overcome, as second wave feminists began to assert in the 60's and 70's, is to totally rearticulate and redefine womanhood, and this can only be done by challenging the assumptions made by biological essentialism that a gender is innately linked to, and a product of, biological sex. So from this point, it's clear to see that gender is a thing constructed by human beings, subject to change, not bound to biological sex. When feminists redefined 'woman', they changed nothing about her sex. From this vantage point it's obvious that there is a delineation between biological sex and gender.
Last edited by Spiral on Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Lowbankclaret » Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:10 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:32 pm
This might come across as wrong but I wouldn’t let them in unless special provisions to accommodate them was in place, you are asking for trouble putting people together who don’t want to be together.
Not me asking for trouble.
So you would not let them in.

So let me point out every game at the turf people use an under 18 or 22 or OAP and get in as an adult.

£10 an hour employees are not going to get into a serious argument, see it most match days.

But your put yourself out there on £10 an hour to get punched to control this.

NottsClaret
Posts: 3576
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
Been Liked: 2588 times
Has Liked: 1 time

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by NottsClaret » Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:54 pm

Spiral wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:08 pm
That post is the embodiment of 'believing' a trans person out of existence. As in, you're of the 'belief' that a trans person is not capable of performing the gender most authentic to their internal sense of identity. You're arguing for biological essentialism. By necessity, a trans women is not a cis woman, no, but they're not a man either. Biologically male, sure, but that's not the same thing as 'man'.

Once you extricate gender from biological sex, all gender is not much more than a series of performances and rituals. The assumption that gender and biological sex are inextricably linked is nothing more than a social paradigm whose assumed truth is contradicted by other cultures around the world, historically and present.
I think we’re borderline agreeing. Gender is a load of nonsense. Women shouldn’t be defined by how they’re expected to behave, nor should men. A man is still 100% a man if he likes wearing dresses and putting on lipstick. A woman is 100% a woman if she works on a building site and plays rugby.

‘Living as a woman’.. what does that even mean? Try and answer without using regressive old stereotypes. It’s not easy is it. How on earth does a judge decide if someone if ‘genuinely’ trans or not. It’s not real to begin with. The more this is exposed to daylight, the more ludicrous it becomes.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Rileybobs » Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:59 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:03 pm
I will just point you to a story I was told, no idea if it’s correct or real.
Swimming baths has a men’s only swimming.
Lady walks up to go swimming and told its men only.
She reply’s I identify as a man today.

They let her in and she goes swimming topless.

No one is allowed to say a thing or complain.
This definitely happened.
This user liked this post: Taffy on the wing

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Wed Feb 01, 2023 11:48 pm

NottsClaret wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:54 pm
I think we’re borderline agreeing. Gender is a load of nonsense. Women shouldn’t be defined by how they’re expected to behave, nor should men. A man is still 100% a man if he likes wearing dresses and putting on lipstick. A woman is 100% a woman if she works on a building site and plays rugby.

‘Living as a woman’.. what does that even mean? Try and answer without using regressive old stereotypes. It’s not easy is it. How on earth does a judge decide if someone if ‘genuinely’ trans or not. It’s not real to begin with. The more this is exposed to daylight, the more ludicrous it becomes.
Gender might seem silly, but what you appear to be implying — that it could or should be done away with (correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting you) — is incredibly radical and in my opinion more destabilising than allowing for transgender to exist as a concept as distinct from cisgender, expressed under the umbrella terms 'man' and 'woman' wherever that is socially more convenient (for example, a person's being trans in significant and important in a medical context, but not so much when it comes to them sitting in a tea room reading a book, at which point the prefix 'trans' is not needed and assuming the gender 'woman' without the prefix 'trans' might more liberating owing to the social stigma surrounding the 'trans' aspect of their existence).

For a start, there are billions of people for whom the concept of gender has a practical utility in grounding their own identity and sense of self. For example, me, I'm one of those people. I'm a cis man. I don't go around saying that, I just say 'man', though I was born biologically male and therefore I am by definition, cisgender. I'm comfortable and grounded in conceiving of myself as a man. I've no desire to do away with the concept of my gender which is signposted as a set of rituals and performances because I'm very comfortable in that gender experience, it feels authentic to me. In my mind I feel like a 'man' more than anything else. The term is useful to me. I might hypothetically disagree with certain signposts, certain behaviours, certain culturally endowed gender expectations attached to the term, but had I some desire to change that, it would be done by redefining in my mind the conceptual scope of 'man', not by outright rejecting 'man' as a ludicrous invention.

'Man' as a gender is descriptive, bundling together a whole host of ideas not necessarily linked to biological sex, and usefully described by one term, although in the minds of some people it assumes a prescriptive function, and this is where people can begin to feel oppressed by their gender expectations, or where people use this prescription to impose expectations and limitations on other people, for example, as pre-feminist patriarchal values oppressed women and virtually by law confined them to domesticity. Fundamentally, gender is a linguistic concept which signifies something signified, and which is susceptible to change, much like how second wave feminists did just that in redefining the concept of 'woman' and the expectations and associations that are drawn from the idea of 'woman'. We need to be realistic in understanding that in the realm of self identity gender is a very stabilising concept. Were some force to radically do away with gender as a concept, I (and billions of other people) would quickly seek out something stabilising to take its place, and that something would look like gender, making the whole enterprise of annihilating gender in the first place totally redundant. Trans people do not want to abolish gender any more than I do, and for the same reason as I do not: how else would I conceive of myself? The alternative, which you allude to without saying outright — doing away with gender — is nihilistic chaos.

Imposed gender roles are nonsense. Imposed gender expectations are nonsense. Adopting those roles and fulfilling those expectations by consent is not nonsense, it's the essence of authenticity, I think. You either go 'that's me', or you go 'that's not me'. Gender as a concept is invaluable. I'm not sure how civilisation navigates a world without gender.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:16 am

Why do the words "man" and "woman" need redefining? I'm sure even the most fanatical trans activists will accept that the world can (barring extremely rare exceptions" be split into two groups, those with Y chromosomes and penises, and those without. This has been the case since forever, and also forever (or at least since the story of Adam and Eve was first told) every people and every language has had words equivalent to "man" and "woman" to describe them.

And also since time immemorial, there have been essentially two groups of people, those who believe themselves to be essentially male and those who believe themselves to be essentially female, and the world has never felt the need to give them a name. Now, it seems, the world does want to give them a name. So why not invent a new name rather than use an old, established name that everyone understands?

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:11 am

I've sort of pre-emptively answered some of those questions in my previous posts, dsr. The answers are basically there if you read what I've posted without adopting the mindset that I'm wrong before you read a single word I've said. I'd challenge anyone to read critically what I've said, because I think my points are well founded, not rooted in an overt political bias, and aspiring to a kind of logical coherence.

To ignore statistical outliers such as intersex people and to split the world into two categories of people: those with XY chromosomes and those with XX chromosomes, and crucially to this debate, to thus derive a binary gender system from that base is a biblically simple social paradigm not fit for universal human consumption. The lived experience of people around the world is far more complex than that, hence why a lot of people struggle to fit in to it. Gender binaries are not an empirically observable fact of nature in the way sex-binaries for the most part are, because gender is a subject for the humanities, not for empirical science, and even then, in the case of the far more simple and reducible sex-binary, to reject as an outlier any sex that doesn't fit the analytically simple XX/XY binary is a paradigmatic choice which contains political implications whenever the regulation of social behaviour is tethered to that binary. A sex-binary paradigm is grounded in the observation of phenomena whose scope of observation is arbitrary, but the social and political implications that are its consequence require a more considered approach if one's aim is universal human liberation as opposed to the more authoritarian view of regulating behaviour which deviates from such paradigmatic norms.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:19 am

Spiral wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:11 am
I've sort of pre-emptively answered some of those questions in my previous posts, dsr. The answers are basically there if you read what I've posted without adopting the mindset that I'm wrong before you read a single word I've said. I'd challenge anyone to read critically what I've said, because I think my points are well founded, not rooted in an overt political bias, and aspiring to a kind of logical coherence.

To ignore statistical outliers such as intersex people and to split the world into two categories of people: those with XY chromosomes and those with XX chromosomes, and crucially to this debate, to thus derive a binary gender system from that base is a biblically simple social paradigm not fit for universal human consumption. The lived experience of people around the world is far more complex than that, hence why a lot of people struggle to fit in to it. Gender binaries are not an empirically observable fact of nature in the way sex-binaries for the most part are, because gender is a subject for the humanities, not for empirical science, and even then, in the case of the far more simple and reducible sex-binary, to reject as an outlier any sex that doesn't fit the analytically simple XX/XY binary is a paradigmatic choice which contains political implications whenever the regulation of social behaviour is tethered to that binary. A sex-binary paradigm is grounded in the observation of phenomena whose scope of observation is arbitrary, but the social and political implications that are its consequence require a more considered approach if one's aim is universal human liberation as opposed to the more authoritarian view of regulating behaviour which deviates from such paradigmatic norms.
When it comes to women's sport, it is not just relevant - it is crucial. Women's sport was invented so that people born without a Y chromosome or a penis can compete at top level. It may or may not be fit for universal human consumption, but in terms of sport, it fits to perfection. Or as near perfection as we can hope to get.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:24 am

If you've read my posts on here (forgivable if you've not, it's a long thread), you'll see that I'm in favour of trans leagues and divisions wherever that makes sense.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:28 am

Apologies for being presumptuous, but I'd like to pre-emptively assume you (or someone else) will respond to another point I've made above, namely by assuming that you'll put forth the argument that we already regulate a whole host of behaviours in the name of social order, and my response to that would be that in regulating certain behaviours we usually silo them off as criminal or not desirable. And furthermore I would say, for a person to take the view that any deviation from a rigid binary gender paradigm ought to be considered equivalent to criminal behaviour, even if not criminal in law, for it to be viewed as 'deviant' in the more loaded sense of the word, is nought but a political prejudice that invites accusations of bigotry. This is the state of play.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:52 am

Spiral wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:28 am
Apologies for being presumptuous, but I'd like to pre-emptively assume you (or someone else) will respond to another point I've made above, namely by assuming that you'll put forth the argument that we already regulate a whole host of behaviours in the name of social order, and my response to that would be that in regulating certain behaviours we usually silo them off as criminal or not desirable. And furthermore I would say, for a person to take the view that any deviation from a rigid binary gender paradigm ought to be considered equivalent to criminal behaviour, even if not criminal in law, for it to be viewed as 'deviant' in the more loaded sense of the word, is nought but a political prejudice that invites accusations of bigotry. This is the state of play.
Sorry, don't know what you're on about. Can you make it a bit clearer what it is you're imagining I might have argued about if you hadn't argued it first? What exactly do you mean by saying that we regulate a whole host of behaviours? Give examples.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:22 am

dsr wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:52 am
Sorry, don't know what you're on about. Can you make it a bit clearer what it is you're imagining I might have argued about if you hadn't argued it first? What exactly do you mean by saying that we regulate a whole host of behaviours? Give examples.
Sure. To clarify, I said it's authoritarian to regulate individual behaviour according to paradigmatic gender binary norms which are arbitrary. I suppose I was pre-empting the response that we already regulate some behaviours, so someone might ask why that would be any more unacceptable or controversial than what already exists. And by that I'm referring to the regulation of criminal behaviours, and other areas of law which limit a person's freedom and place them in the hands of an authority, such as power of attorney, sectioning, etc; laws that limit the freedoms and tacitly so the behaviours of individual people because the presence of those laws are seen to contribute to social order. In the context of this debate this is important because trans people are frequently assumed to be predators, and it would be tempting to deny trans people rights on the basis of this supposition, and usually the pretext for this is that trans people ought to be siloed off as deviants, their behaviour regulated and certain rights denied on the basis that their gender experience is neither recognised by, nor conforming to, this rigid biologically-derived gender binary.

I'maclaret
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:51 pm
Been Liked: 30 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by I'maclaret » Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:13 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:07 pm
If you're concern is linked the GRR bill then try to educate yourself as you don't seem to understand the facts and seem to have been led into believing a false narrative.

Also if you think that me as a man is no position to tell you as a women what to think on this subject then don't take it from me but take it from the following Women's groups, some who specifically operate on the frontline in protecting women and looking out for their safety

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/n ... vention-o/

Close the Gap
Glasgow Women's Library
Rape Crisis Scotland
Scottish Women's Aid
Scottish Women’s Convention
Scottish Women’s Rights Centre
Young Women’s Movement
Zero Tolerance
The thing is several of those organisation (I don't know them all so can't say how many) are in the thrawl of a certain kind of woman - the kind that has a penis. So saying here's what women think and giving links to what trans women think is where the problem arises.

The head of Rape Crisis Scotland is a man who feels he is woman. Yep the person deciding how women (and some men, but mostly women) should be treated after they have been brutally violated by men (in UK law rape is assault with a penis) is someone who thinks they feel like a woman.

In Sussex that thinking has lead to a woman taking the local Rape crisis center to court to try to get access to support because they run a men's group, a trans group and a woman's group that is defined by gender. The woman in question has not asked for any of those to be closed just for a natal female only women's group to be added so she can be guaranteed there won't be any men in the room.

That's what is movement does to the rights of women.

For what actual women think try
https://sex-matters.org/about/

Sex is real, binary and immutable, gender is a social construction that varies across time and region.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:12 am

Spiral wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:22 am
Sure. To clarify, I said it's authoritarian to regulate individual behaviour according to paradigmatic gender binary norms which are arbitrary. I suppose I was pre-empting the response that we already regulate some behaviours, so someone might ask why that would be any more unacceptable or controversial than what already exists. And by that I'm referring to the regulation of criminal behaviours, and other areas of law which limit a person's freedom and place them in the hands of an authority, such as power of attorney, sectioning, etc; laws that limit the freedoms and tacitly so the behaviours of individual people because the presence of those laws are seen to contribute to social order. In the context of this debate this is important because trans people are frequently assumed to be predators, and it would be tempting to deny trans people rights on the basis of this supposition, and usually the pretext for this is that trans people ought to be siloed off as deviants, their behaviour regulated and certain rights denied on the basis that their gender experience is neither recognised by, nor conforming to, this rigid biologically-derived gender binary.
Who exactly do you think is arguing that because rape and murder have been made illegal in an authoritarian society, this means that anything goes with trans people?

Incidentally, the difference between men and women isn't arbitrary, any more than the difference between children and adults is arbitrary. Less arbitrary, in fact, because the dividing line isn't open to question.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:15 am

I'maclaret wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:13 am
The thing is several of those organisation (I don't know them all so can't say how many) are in the thrawl of a certain kind of woman - the kind that has a penis. So saying here's what women think and giving links to what trans women think is where the problem arises.

The head of Rape Crisis Scotland is a man who feels he is woman. Yep the person deciding how women (and some men, but mostly women) should be treated after they have been brutally violated by men (in UK law rape is assault with a penis) is someone who thinks they feel like a woman.

In Sussex that thinking has lead to a woman taking the local Rape crisis center to court to try to get access to support because they run a men's group, a trans group and a woman's group that is defined by gender. The woman in question has not asked for any of those to be closed just for a natal female only women's group to be added so she can be guaranteed there won't be any men in the room.

That's what is movement does to the rights of women.

For what actual women think try
https://sex-matters.org/about/

Sex is real, binary and immutable, gender is a social construction that varies across time and region.
Great another women who wants us men to listen to women but only the kind of women who share their own views. The women who are part of all these different groups who have made the statement have just as valid opinion as you and any other women.

These groups have spent 7 years involved in the discussions and impact assessments of this bill and they recognise it poses no risk to women as the majority of the different things groups who are opposing this bill cite as an issue are not true and are already provisioned under the Equality Act 2010 and will not be impacted at all by the GRR bill.

I'm accepting when a women tells me they shouldn't tell them how to feel on something that impacts women but when they start telling other women their views dont count then they lose my respect

I'maclaret
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:51 pm
Been Liked: 30 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by I'maclaret » Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:55 am

I'm not saying that only my view counts - I 'm trying to highlight that not all women think the same. That there are opposing views and that the the views you have presented as 'women's' are in at least some cases those of trans women who are obviously going to be pro trans.
Women's sport is for women.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:16 am

I'maclaret wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:55 am
I'm not saying that only my view counts - I 'm trying to highlight that not all women think the same. That there are opposing views and that the the views you have presented as 'women's' are in at least some cases those of trans women who are obviously going to be pro trans.
Women's sport is for women.
You've gone searching for extreme examples to attack a women's group who has spent the last 40 years fighting for women's rights and stated of that group and potentially the other women's groups "That's what this movement does to the rights of women."

You say that all women don't think the same but also stated "For what actual women think" implying that the women in the groups I mentioned dount count as real women

Its just telling how you and others are very quick to attack other women's groups if they dont think the same and more specifically if they show any support of Trans women

I could go and find examples of the women's rights groups who support your view like around the way Sex-Matters have opposed conversion therapy for Trans people and have aligned themselves to extreme groups like Duty.

I could also easily link the video on one of the GC's leading activist Kellie-Jay Keen claiming that Trans women are paedophiles and I could also show that there women's groups who share your view that have men in leading positions.

I don't want to go down this route as I think we are better off listening to all people and challenging the stuff we disagree on based on the core of what they stand for and what they say and not just looking for an extreme case and dismissing a whole group of people on the back of it.

My main argument on this thread has been against the mis-information stated around the GRR bill and some people using this mis-information to weaponise against trans people.

If you have a problem with the protected rights of Trans people under the Equality Act 2010 then thats a true position to take and although I disagree I think there is room for healthy debate. If you think the GRR bill has any impact on women's rights or poses any risk to women then you are mis-informed

I'maclaret
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:51 pm
Been Liked: 30 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by I'maclaret » Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:54 pm

I haven't mentioned the GRR - largely because it is fairly irrelevant when a man facing rape charges doesn't need a GRC in order to be remanded to the female estate. The magic words 'I am a woman' have replaced the need for a certificate.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:08 pm

I'maclaret wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:54 pm
I haven't mentioned the GRR - largely because it is fairly irrelevant when a man facing rape charges doesn't need a GRC in order to be remanded to the female estate. The magic words 'I am a woman' have replaced the need for a certificate.
Thats fine then as I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should feel about the wider issue of Trans people and their access to women only spaces. This is a very complex topic and I wouldn't even try to discuss it on a forum like this.

The post you responded to me was about a list of women's groups signing a statement about their position on the GRR as the person I was in discussion with thinks the GRR will have an impact on trans women's rights and access to women only spaces.

Not sure what you last sentence means as there has never been a need for a certificate so it sounds an odd thing to say but as for your view on trans women then I'll politely disagree with you and we can both have our own views and opinions on the subject

I'maclaret
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:51 pm
Been Liked: 30 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by I'maclaret » Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:36 pm

The GRR is all about people being able to gain a certificate to show that they have legal changed sex so I'm not sure why you find the reference to a certificate so puzzling. I do think that that impacts on women (if only those women who find the legally their husband is now their 'wife'). But there is nothing you can say that will ever convince me that a man can become a woman and I assume that there is nothing I can say that will make you stop holding the view that they can. Fortunately, as I am sure you know, we are both legally allowed to hold those views so all we can do is agree to differ.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:47 pm

I'maclaret wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:36 pm
The GRR is all about people being able to gain a certificate to show that they have legal changed sex so I'm not sure why you find the reference to a certificate so puzzling. I do think that that impacts on women (if only those women who find the legally their husband is now their 'wife'). But there is nothing you can say that will ever convince me that a man can become a woman and I assume that there is nothing I can say that will make you stop holding the view that they can. Fortunately, as I am sure you know, we are both legally allowed to hold those views so all we can do is agree to differ.
The GRR bill is about making the existing process easier to get your details updated so a certificate isn't replacing or being replaced by anything unless you are between 16-18 who can now get their legal documents updated to show a different sex where they couldn't before.

As I said i'm not trying to change yours or anyone's mind so yes you, me and others are free to hold what views we want on this subject

I'maclaret
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:51 pm
Been Liked: 30 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by I'maclaret » Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:01 pm

The bill is about the process to gain a gender recognition certificate.

From www.parliament.scot:

Bills and Laws
Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill
The Bill changes the process to get a gender recognition certificate (GRC). A GRC is a certificate that legally recognises that a person’s gender is not the gender that they were assigned at birth, but is their “acquired gender”.

The current process for obtaining a GRC is set out in the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This Bill amends that Act to make a new process in Scotland.

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by android » Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:02 pm

If DA, Spiral or anyone else is genuinely interested in the areas of concern for women and children with the GRR bill and the reason the UK government said no, Naomi Cunningham (discrimination lawyer) and Michael Foran (constitutional lawyer) explained some of it (although very briefly) in a parliamentary committee the other day. NC covered some of the adult issues and MF referred to the impact on schools by allowing children to change their legal sex.

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by android » Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:30 pm

Spiral wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:14 pm
I've just clipped this down to the relevant part I wish to respond to. Are you aware these sentences are chocked full of contradiction? It would be a contradiction for a person who conceives of themselves as "woman" to the point they identify as a "woman" to disregard the very concept of gender identity. They're adopting a gender identity by calling themselves "woman". In logical terms, this is referred to as necessity. You logically can't have one without the other. I think you're absolutely right about battling stereotypes and such, but 'cisgender' — cis deriving from the latin 'on the side of', with cisgender meaning 'gender on the side of biological sex', where a person's conception of their being a "woman" is aligned with their biological sex from which said gender is derived — it is not a description of gender that can be disregarded while still maintaining one's identity of "woman". If someone wishes do away with the terms that signify gender then so be it (not me, btw), but you can't do away with genders while also maintaining you're a woman, because to maintain you're a woman is to adopt a gender identity. Not necessarily gender roles, which is a whole other topic, but I'm talking about the words used as signifiers.
Just responding to this one, as it refers to my post and what you claim to be contradictions. Also, I do think these sort of compelled speech and thoughts ideas need to be resisted, as you are claiming that I must have a gender identity. I do not have a gender identity. I know that I am a man. This has nothing to do with senses or feelings, which you go on to discuss in the context of gender identity. It is simply knowledge that I am an adult male and there is absolutely nothing I can do about those facts. If we ever get to the point where your gender identity ideology becomes compulsory in this country then - prior to my emigration application gaining approval - I might choose "non-binary" rather than "man" for example. To repeat, yet again, I have no problem with people who follow your beliefs to the extent they do no harm and the resistance is to the imposition of those beliefs on others.

It's interesting that in your other posts you are continuing to address women as "cis women" or "cisgender women" against their wishes. I guess the "I am who I say I am" doctrine only works one way.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:58 pm

I have seen the clipped versions of Naomi Cunningham's evidence and seen some of the additional context and discussions from both sides and I haven't seen anything in what she said that proves the GRR Bill should be a concern for women.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:32 pm

android wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:30 pm
Just responding to this one, as it refers to my post and what you claim to be contradictions. Also, I do think these sort of compelled speech and thoughts ideas need to be resisted, as you are claiming that I must have a gender identity. I do not have a gender identity. I know that I am a man. This has nothing to do with senses or feelings, which you go on to discuss in the context of gender identity. It is simply knowledge that I am an adult male and there is absolutely nothing I can do about those facts. If we ever get to the point where your gender identity ideology becomes compulsory in this country then - prior to my emigration application gaining approval - I might choose "non-binary" rather than "man" for example. To repeat, yet again, I have no problem with people who follow your beliefs to the extent they do no harm and the resistance is to the imposition of those beliefs on others.

It's interesting that in your other posts you are continuing to address women as "cis women" or "cisgender women" against their wishes. I guess the "I am who I say I am" doctrine only works one way.
This is not the first time in this thread that I've referred to a post I've already made, and I do not wish to repeat myself, so if you read my response to NottsClaret above I've wrote a whole paragraph on the distinction between descriptive terms and prescriptive terms. My entire approach to this has a critical theory bent, not a political ideology bent. I'm not imposing anything on anyone, I'm critiquing muddled patterns of thought which superficially look like common sense, but look fractured when viewed critically. This scrutiny of how we conceive of the world is all done in service of a higher understanding of life, not a political bias.

You said, "I do not have a gender identity. I know I am a man".

What?

What is the word "man" if not a way of identifying your gender?

You might respond with something along the lines, '"man" is a sex, not a gender identity'. In response to this I'll point you in the direction of an earlier reply of mine, again to NottsClaret, where I discuss the limitations of biological essentialism, which is what you appear to be supporting, and where I gave some other thoughts on the delineation between gender and sex. To say any more would probably be to repeat myself, or re-state what I've already posted on this thread in different terms, so I think I'll leave it at that.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:38 pm

*BTW, if you hadn't already guessed from what I've already posted in the thread, I'm not too keen on prescription, so I've no idea where you're getting this idea of me imposing terms on you or anyone else.

Jellybean
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
Been Liked: 155 times
Has Liked: 799 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jellybean » Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:40 pm

If there are limitations of biological essentialism then why do these men want to be 'women'? What actually is a woman and what are they aspiring to be exactly? Why does the label bother them so much. Why not have a unique category to represent what they are. They will never be women, they will not have a cervix, they well 5 not bear or feed children, and they will not go through all the things I've gone through that I've already mentioned.

Right I promise this is the last time I will look at this thread because we're just going round in circles, as I'm a claret said we won't change our beliefs.

When does the football start again, feels like a long week and we need to focus on our beloved team 🤣

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:52 pm

Jellybean wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:40 pm
Why not have a unique category to represent what they are.
That's what the prefix trans- is for. It's to differentiate between women who were born female and those people who, in the case of trans women, were born male but whose most authentic gender experience is best expressed as a 'woman', meaning, all the social behaviours and performances and rituals, body language, patterns of speech, intonation, clothing, presentation, lifestyle, all things that are generally coalesced under the term 'woman'. It's not just dress-up, it's that such self expression is the only one that might feel authentic to such a person. Yes, some of these notions about what 'woman' is can be a bit regressive, but the capacity for punching out of regressive ideas and changing them is yet another thing I've already mentioned further back on this thread.

Jellybean
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
Been Liked: 155 times
Has Liked: 799 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jellybean » Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:00 am

Punching out regressive ideas feels like a euphemism for removing my cervix. I have an immutable characteristic in that I'm a biological woman, it can never be copied. The trans woman on question time just now didn't want to be known as trans, she said she was a woman.

Anyway, goodnight i must stop getting drawn back in 🤣

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:13 am

Looking at the state of the debate, no wonder some don't want to be referred to as trans. Some people utterly hate trans people. I suspect trans women would rather be referred to as 'woman' in the appropriate social contexts (another thing I've already touched on further back) simply because it allows them to get through the day without getting grief. Bloody hell, I think if I were trans I wouldn't leave the house without wearing a helmet on my head.

And by the way, trans people are acutely aware that they are not biologically the sex they wish they were.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:55 am

Spiral wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:13 am
And by the way, trans people are acutely aware that they are not biologically the sex they wish they were.
Which leads to another question. What good does a Gender Recognition Certificate do?

I've thought for a while that this idea of people having a body different from what they want, isn't new. Disabled people have had that throughout the ages. And if medical treatment can make disabled people's bodies into what they want them to be - if their condition can be "cured" - then they are obviously happy. But if they were merely given a certificate that says they are now able-bodied, they wouldn't feel any better for it.

Medical treatment, castration, whatever, might make a difference. What does a GRR do?

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:55 am

dsr wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:55 am
Which leads to another question. What good does a Gender Recognition Certificate do?
I think I'm at the point on this thread where I can answer almost any question by self-quoting what I've already posted in this thread, so I'll do that...
Spiral wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:21 am
Why is legal gender recognition important to trans people? The same reason why anyone who is reading this post wouldn't want an incorrect gender to be etched into your own tombstone.
But it's more than that. Marriage certificates, insurance policies, pension statements, tax documents, all require a gender recognition certificate before a person can have their gender identity changed on those records. If every letter you received in the post, or every email you received had the wrong gender on it, you'd probably want to get it corrected. For non-trans people like me that scenario would just be an error that would seem rather trivial, but for trans people who have had the experience of contending with their gender, usually awkwardly at best, it's more than an error, it's a reminder of something almost all people who transition would rather move past in their life — their old gender. The closest analogy I can think of would be for a person to want to change their name if the old one came with loads of baggage (family issues, trauma, shame etc) they'd rather move beyond.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:04 am

*Just to clarify, I can't say with 100% confidence that all insurance and pension providers require a GR certificate to change your gender identity on their records, but some do.

I'maclaret
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:51 pm
Been Liked: 30 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by I'maclaret » Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:37 am

*What is the word "man" if not a way of identifying your gender?*

It identifies*sex* not gender. If you use man/woman to identify gender then we need new words to identify sex - which seems rather pointless as the established words have be doing the job since time immemorial.

Man and woman operate in the same way as cat and dog. My dog remains a dog without any need to identify one (I pretty sure if he identified as anything it's a food waste bin).

If language doesn't have meaning it pointless. I can't eat soup with a fork so I ask for a spoon and we both know what the difference is. If we decide that some soups have tines and some forks are solid it becomes impossible to get the item I need and my soup goes cold.

It might seem prescriptive to you but GPs need a way to sort the people that need a smear test from those that need a prostate exam, and to bring the thread back to where it started, the IOC need a way to categorise events for women. It is not fair (or in the case of contact sports safe) to allow some men into women's sport.

The answer is probably third categories but unfortunately these are rejected by many trans rights activists as failing to be inclusive. If all
*trans people are acutely aware that they are not biologically the sex they wish they were* then why are demanding access to categories they know they don't belong in e.g. women's sport, women's prisons.

The happiness of a few shouldn't get to trump the safety, fairness and dignity of 50% of the population.
This user liked this post: Clovius Boofus

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:12 am

Spiral wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:55 am
I think I'm at the point on this thread where I can answer almost any question by self-quoting what I've already posted in this thread, so I'll do that...



But it's more than that. Marriage certificates, insurance policies, pension statements, tax documents, all require a gender recognition certificate before a person can have their gender identity changed on those records. If every letter you received in the post, or every email you received had the wrong gender on it, you'd probably want to get it corrected. For non-trans people like me that scenario would just be an error that would seem rather trivial, but for trans people who have had the experience of contending with their gender, usually awkwardly at best, it's more than an error, it's a reminder of something almost all people who transition would rather move past in their life — their old gender. The closest analogy I can think of would be for a person to want to change their name if the old one came with loads of baggage (family issues, trauma, shame etc) they'd rather move beyond.
Then why not wait until the medical procedure is complete, or at least irreversible?

CrisyPbacon
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:40 pm
Been Liked: 5 times
Has Liked: 1 time

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by CrisyPbacon » Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:38 am

How does something like this not breach women's rights.
Attachments
lia-thomas-getty-1239328491.jpg
lia-thomas-getty-1239328491.jpg (201.08 KiB) Viewed 686 times

Sproggy
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:41 pm
Been Liked: 662 times
Has Liked: 141 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Sproggy » Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:57 am

download.jpg
download.jpg (122.46 KiB) Viewed 658 times

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by android » Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:38 pm

CrisyPbacon wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:38 am
How does something like this not breach women's rights.
Of course it does and everyone knows it. The 17th placed girl who missed out on Honourable Mention All American status. The 9th place girl who missed out on the final and full All American. The 4th placed girl who missed the podium. The 2nd placed girl who should have been crowned Champion.

But it is not only about the competition. Lia Thomas's own teammates contacted the NCAA to express their distress at having to get changed in front of a naked male. The NCAA wrote back to suggest counselling and resources to help them overcome their transphobia. It is mind numbing stupidity and misogyny.
This user liked this post: Clovius Boofus

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:22 pm

dsr wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:12 am
Then why not wait until the medical procedure is complete, or at least irreversible?
Some people can't medically transition (hormone replacement therapy) for medical reasons, some don't want to medically transition out of a concern for medical complications, for others it's to do with the actual access to medical transition, and even among those who do undergo HRT, not all want to undergo gender reassignment surgery for a host of reasons. While many trans people undergo a medical transition in some form due to it making them more closely resemble their gender, it must be reminded that a gender is a social construct, not a clinical one, and 'gender performance' is as much to do with it, probably even more, in fact, than hormonal balance.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:40 pm

I'maclaret wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:37 am
It identifies*sex* not gender. If you use man/woman to identify gender then we need new words to identify sex - which seems rather pointless as the established words have be doing the job since time immemorial.
Man/woman are gender terms. Male/female are the associated scientific terms referring to sex.
I'maclaret wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:37 am
It might seem prescriptive to you but GPs need a way to sort the people that need a smear test from those that need a prostate exam
Yes, which is why male/female exists, and also the prefixes cis- and trans-, to differentiate between people (like me) whose sex is aligned with their internal sense of gender, and those for whom it is not in the case of trans people. I'm finding myself quote-posting what I've already written on here quite a lot, but here we go again...(this was a response to another poster, not you, I'maclaret, so the first part isn't aimed at you, but the part in bold is what I wish to highlight)
Spiral wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 11:48 pm
Gender might seem silly, but what you appear to be implying — that it could or should be done away with (correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting you) — is incredibly radical and in my opinion more destabilising than allowing for transgender to exist as a concept as distinct from cisgender, expressed under the umbrella terms 'man' and 'woman' wherever that is socially more convenient (for example, a person's being trans in significant and important in a medical context, but not so much when it comes to them sitting in a tea room reading a book, at which point the prefix 'trans' is not needed and assuming the gender 'woman' without the prefix 'trans' might more liberating owing to the social stigma surrounding the 'trans' aspect of their existence)
This distinction is important for the reasons you state. Believe me, the medical field already has this worked out. It's the wider population to whom this all seems new that are still working this out. Even if people don't agree with everything, I hope people might have gained answers to some questions by reading this thread.

Clovius Boofus
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:47 am
Been Liked: 551 times
Has Liked: 161 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Clovius Boofus » Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:44 pm


dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:15 pm

Spiral wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:40 pm
Man/woman are gender terms. Male/female are the associated scientific terms referring to sex.

Yes, which is why male/female exists, and also the prefixes cis- and trans-, to differentiate between people (like me) whose sex is aligned with their internal sense of gender, and those for whom it is not in the case of trans people. I'm finding myself quote-posting what I've already written on here quite a lot, but here we go again...(this was a response to another poster, not you, I'maclaret, so the first part isn't aimed at you, but the part in bold is what I wish to highlight)

This distinction is important for the reasons you state. Believe me, the medical field already has this worked out. It's the wider population to whom this all seems new that are still working this out. Even if people don't agree with everything, I hope people might have gained answers to some questions by reading this thread.
Is there a similar term for people who believe their internal sense of age is different from their actual age, or their internal sense of skin colour, or their internal sense of physical ability?

And is it your contention that the idea of man and woman never had anything to do with sexual organs, or is it just that at some (presumably unspecified) date, the meaning of the words changed? And have you any idea of how the English language works that would make that impossible?

I'maclaret
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:51 pm
Been Liked: 30 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by I'maclaret » Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:27 pm

Male/female denote sex in any creature.

Man/woman denote sex in adult humans.

Boy/girl denote sex in human children.

NRC
Posts: 4288
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:58 pm
Been Liked: 908 times
Has Liked: 107 times
Location: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees, NC

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by NRC » Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:50 pm

I'maclaret wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:27 pm
Male/female denote sex in any creature.

Man/woman denote sex in adult humans.

Boy/girl denote sex in human children.
that is blatantly and ignorantly false

NRC
Posts: 4288
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:58 pm
Been Liked: 908 times
Has Liked: 107 times
Location: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees, NC

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by NRC » Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:54 pm

@Spiral
I'd give up at this point if I were you. I suspect most posters on here have zero experience of gender identity vs birth sex.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:27 pm

dsr wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:15 pm
Is there a similar term for people who believe their internal sense of age is different from their actual age, or their internal sense of skin colour, or their internal sense of physical ability?
I'm not aware of those things. It's worth noting that trans people experience their assigned gender differently to those who are comfortable with the gender assigned to them, but trans people do not experience their birth sex differently to any of us, which is more analogous to your point about physical ability. They're acutely aware of their birth sex. It's gender whose boundaries they traverse, not sex. Trans people are aware there are incremental ceilings, material limits to their ability to 'become' the sex from which the gender is conventionally derived, such that it causes a lot of frustration. I think a lot of trans people wish they were born their experienced gender as much as a disabled person might hypothetically wish they were born able bodies (although this could be a very offensive notion. I mean no offence and I apologise if any is caused).
dsr wrote:
Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:15 pm
And is it your contention that the idea of man and woman never had anything to do with sexual organs, or is it just that at some (presumably unspecified) date, the meaning of the words changed? And have you any idea of how the English language works that would make that impossible?
That's not my contention. I have stated numerous times on this thread that genders are (by convention) derived from biological sex, but the human capacity for reflexivity has enabled us to understand the ontological and philological underpinnings of such patterns of thought. Are you aware of the allegory of the cave? The basic idea is that people are fettered by a limited conception of the world, a higher form of understanding is found, and old patterns of thought are demonstrated to be limited in their scope for understanding the world, conceptually, intellectually, and this cycle can hypothetically repeat ad infinitum. This has happened with our understanding of gender. Gender is conventionally derivative of sex, but people are moving past this idea as it appears to have problems in its assumptions, many of which I've discussed on this thread.

Post Reply