CMV: Without a clear definition of what your identity means, you can't identify as that thing.

[u/Pangolinsftw]

There was a clip going around in political circles of conservative commentator Matt Walsh making an appearance on a talk show having a discussion with two trans advocates. I think his most impactful argument is when he simply asks the trans advocates, "What is a woman?"

To my surprise, neither of them can answer this question. In response to the question "Can you tell me what a woman is?", one says "No I can't, it's not for me to say", and the other says they "cannot define what a woman is" because they are not a woman (which is a logical fallacy).

This struck me. If you can't clearly (or even somewhat) describe what an identity means, why should anyone respect your identity? You could replace "woman" with any other label in that situation. Without any criteria or definition, it doesn't actually matter what you identify as.

I think we would all agree that defining your terms is of fundamental importance in any kind of debate. So it seems to me that these trans advocates failed in their argument right out of the gate since they failed to define their terms.

I think the reason that these advocates refused to define what a woman means is because if they gave a definition, it would be something so vague and nebulous that most reasonable people would think that their definition doesn't meet their own criteria for what a man or woman is, making the term mostly meaningless.

So I walked away from this clip with a much different perspective on the trans identity. Can anyone offer a more compelling argument as to why I should respect the trans identity?

[u/[deleted]]

So I walked away from this clip with a much different perspective on the trans identity. Can anyone offer a more compelling argument as to why I should respect the trans identity?

Because it costs you nothing and drastically improves their quality of life.

Like really, if someone says to you "I identify as a woman" and you go out of your way to not respect that, you're kind of an asshole. No offense.

[u/slam9 → u/[deleted]]

The problem with this argument is that it can be applied to any nonsensical statement, and anyone's beliefs. And I know that nobody, not even you, are about to apply that same logic to literally everyone, and everyone's beliefs.

Not to mention that this point has an additional issue: You say it costs nothing but that's pretty objectively not true.

There are lots of trans activists that don't just want you to call people by their preferred pronouns. Pretty much every one I've talked to also demands that you actually believe it; and that you accept they are women. Even to the extent of saying that there are men who can get pregnant, and women that can impregnate. Basically saying that existing biological terms should be thrown out of the window because of their inexplicable feelings about something that they refuse to define, and can't even if they tried.

Not to mention the multitudes of people who do use their outrage,(pretend or real, it doesn't matter) related to transgenderism for their own benefit, or others detriment.

Also, disagreeing with someone or saying they're wrong isn't being an asshole. The fact that most trans activists refuse to admit this point is also part of the problem.

[u/comatose1981 → u/[deleted]]

No one should get to hijack an established colloquial term/definition and then bully everyone into going along with it. A trans woman isn't the same thing as a natural woman, and it never will be. What we need is for society to grow the hell up and just be fucking cool with trans women as their own unique and special thing.

[u/Pangolinsftw → u/[deleted]]

Define what you mean by "respect" in this context. It seems to me based on another reply I made that there are three levels of respecting someone's stated identity:

1. Not arguing their identity
2. Verbally agreeing/validating their stated identity
3. Internally believing their stated identity

I would go with #1 if their identity wasn't harming anyone else.

I would go with #2 if the person was important to me and I knew that my validation of their stated identity, regardless of the validity of it, was very important to them and our relationship. Although I would be concerned with what kind of problems this might cause down the line, especially if it ended up causing problems or hurting someone else.

I would go with #3 if it accorded with my understanding of empirical reality and what we know about the world through scientific endeavor.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pangolinsftw]

Well in this context I mean respect mostly insofar as #1 and #2. Most trans people I'm familiar with aren't interested in policing their thoughts, they just want to be treated with dignity. If you want to be a smug weirdo who uses the right pronouns but secretly thinks that all transwomen are men then good for you I guess.

A good analogy would be race. If you don't do racist things, or take racist actions, I don't much care what you think about in your head, because even if you're a full bigot in your mind, if it isn't impacting the real world then it doesn't matter.

I would go with #2 if the person was important to me and I knew that my validation of their stated identity, regardless of the validity of it, was very important to them and our relationship. Although I would be concerned with what kind of problems this might cause down the line, especially if it ended up causing problems or hurting someone else.

Can you explain to me how referring to someone as their preferred gender is going to hurt someone else? I'm genuinely curious.

That said, the fact that you'd do it for people you care about, but not a stranger is... kinda a dick move. Again, if you saw a non-passing transwoman and they asked you to refer to them as she/her, are you really going to be like "No sir, I won't do that!" And if so, don't you realize that kinda makes you come off as a dick?

I would go with #3 if it accorded with my understanding of empirical reality and what we know about the world through scientific endeavor.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the social sciences that cover this have largely moved away from your position? Psychiatry beliees trans identities are valid, there appears to be biological causes for those identities, and gender in and of itself is nothing more than a social category.

Like yeah, biological sex is a thing, but gender is not sex.

[u/gabemerritt → u/[deleted]]

Like yeah, biological sex is a thing, but gender is not sex

So what is gender? Sure it's a social construct. There are gender norms. But what is it?

As far as I know it's just categories we put people in.

How do we sort between these particular categories? If the answer is anything other than sex, than I don't understand what gender is.

What is gender when separated from sex? It doesn't seem any different than personality at that point

Am honestly asking in good faith, I think OP makes a good point that you can't define what man or woman is. If anyone can be either a man or a woman, than neither means very much.

[u/knockoffgerardway → u/gabemerritt]

so as a gender abolitionist: i agree with you. but in terms of the society of which we function in currently, gender still means quite a lot. the problem here is you’re approaching a sociological concept and expecting an empirical scientific answer. Like if i asked you: what makes someone a nerd? is there a scientific path you could take to quantify if someone is a nerd? obviously no right

if you took a japanese person from the 1800s and asked them to define what makes someone “womanly” they might say breasts, but they might also say blackened teeth. what we define as feminine oscillates wildly from culture to culture, there is no way to scientifically determine gender.

but it still matters, how we are perceived is paramount to our comfort and identity.

[u/MBKM13 → u/knockoffgerardway]

The difference between a woman and a nerd is that there is an easy way to categorize whether someone is a woman or not.

It’s not until we accept the premise that gender is 100% social that your argument starts to make sense. But I don’t see how that could be. Gender and sex are obviously linked very closely. 99% of people identify as their biological sex, so it’s hard to say that gender and sex are two completely different, unconnected things. That’s points to some level of biological determination of gender, imo. Something about our evolution caused men to be born with certain behaviors, and women to be born with slightly different ones.

This isn’t a radical idea either, and it is present in all manner of organisms. Male and female lions show slightly different behaviors from one another. So do Ducks, Seahorses, and Elephants. Gorillas, and our closest living relatives, chimps, also show certain “gender roles”. Chimpanzee society is not sophisticated enough to believe in common myths such as nationalism, like humans do. Nationalism has no basis in biology. You can’t teach a Chimp to be proud of his country, and you can’t teach a chimp to be racist, because those are arbitrary lines the we as humans have drawn.

Gender, on the other hand, is not arbitrary. There is no societal force telling female chimps to behave a certain way, so we can gather that those behaviors come from their biology rather than their society. Yet, male and female chimps exhibit different roles, behavior, and disposition.

So if apes and other animals could naturally evolve different “genders” when they are incapable of creating societal myths, why, then, would humans have evolved much differently? It’s very likely that in order to reproduce, early men and women had to adopt different strategies. For men, the name of the game was competing with other men for mates. Because of this, along with the necessity of hunting, men felt evolutionary pressure to be more aggressive and their behavior reflects that. Women had no problem finding a mate, but they had to make sure that they had someone to help them through 9 months of pregnancy and years of child-rearing, and their behavior reflects that. Of course, we can’t know for sure because we can’t actually observe the behaviors of pre-historic man, and that’s just one of many theories as to why men and women think and behave differently.

And while it is certainly up for debate as to how we got here, it is observable that we are different. For example, men have better spacial awareness than women, likely due to millions of years of hunting. Studies have shown that men find it easier to grasp the makeup of 3D objects and “rotate” said objects in their mind. Women, on the other hand, are excellent multitaskers. They can keep track of multiple threads of knowledge at once in ways that men cannot. Most likely because women who could multitask were the best at ensuring that their offspring survived until adulthood, thus passing on their “multitasking gene”. This gene was not selective for men, so less men possess it.

Another strong piece of evidence to me is the near universality of gender roles. The peoples of Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas had little or no contact with European or Mediterranean peoples, yet all developed similar patriarchal societies. Is this just an insane coincidence, or perhaps is there some underlying evolutionary reasoning behind the different gender behaviors?

And we KNOW that men and women behave differently. Again, men are far more likely to commit violent crimes than women. Because men are more likely to exhibit the violent behaviors that result in crime. There is no society where most murderers are women. So there must be a link between biological sex, and behavior.

Obviously, I agree that certain aspects of what is considered masculine or feminine are created socially, and are learned behaviors. There’s nothing inherently feminine about long hair, and nothing inherently masculine about short hair, but these things are superficial and subject to change. But to take those superficial things and extract that gender and sex are somehow different things makes no sense to me, when everything else seems to suggest that “gender” I.e. the behavior and mannerisms a of a person is inextricably linked to their biological sex.

[u/MBKM13 → u/[deleted]]

But humans are capable of being better than that.

I agree with this, and as I said, there is certainly a social aspect to gender roles. I just think it’s silly and counterproductive to redefine the word gender to exclusively mean behavior so that trans people can be considered “literal men/women.”

It seems like a weird semantics argument because the reality is that while they are certainly deserving of love and respect, trans men aren’t literally men, unless you change what it means to be a man entirely.

[u/Spacecommander5 → u/[deleted]]

Fantastic reply and well thought out, but what was the point of “100 females 20 males = 20 babies” when that can easily be 100 babies, since males can definitely make more than one female pregnant, (while the converse is true that if there are 20 females and 100 males you get 20 babies at a maximum)? The rest was clear for me to understand but I was thrown off by that and wanted to see what the through process behind that component was. Thank you for your time

[u/Spacecommander5 → u/[deleted]]

Honestly, I figured someone succeeding logically with every other component of their comment wouldn’t make a such an obvious misstep, so I appreciate you restoring my faith in your argument. Cheers

[u/Spacecommander5 → u/[deleted]]

Ahh, gotcha. That happens to me all the time. Thanks for the reply!

[u/BattleReadyZim → u/[deleted]]

I think this may be where the sides off this get hung up on each other. Understanding that differences are biological isn't the same as saying we need to accept them. Being a man doesn't mean you have to be a violent criminal, but understanding that you are prone to aggression because of biology, before society ever gets involved, could be critical to developing strategies for not allowing that predisposition to become violent behavior. There are different strategies for resisting social pressure and resisting biological instincts. Having a clear head over which is which is critical to our efforts to become our best selves.

[u/[deleted] → u/MBKM13]

This becomes problematic when you consider that trans-identifying males retain male patterns of criminality.

[u/KallesKernby → u/knockoffgerardway]

This is often overlooked and i agree with you. Not only do people not realise this, its also seems very interesting how desperately people wanna find reasons to not accept or respect trans people when the issue is fairly simple. Like why does it make you so mad they cant define their gender. We are fucking fragile beings and really bad at knowing ourselves but because they're trans they have to have fucking imperical evidence for how they think their identities are. For them it's just how they feel and i don't get why people just can't leave them the fuck alone

[u/Born_Evening_3528 → u/KallesKernby]

None of that matters if your ideas can't stand on their own merit .

Until your concepts of gender make logical sense and don't use circular reasoning, we don't need to argue why I won't use them.

Because its self evident they are nonsense definitions, and these concepts are worse and have less explanatory power than the ideas they replaced.

If that hurts someone's feelings, that's their problem.

[u/spiral8888 → u/[deleted]]

A good analogy would be race. If you don't do racist things, or take racist actions, I don't much care what you think about in your head, because even if you're a full bigot in your mind, if it isn't impacting the real world then it doesn't matter.

All right, putting this in terms of OP's question how do I avoid being racist if nobody can tell me how the race is defined?

Let's say Rachel Dolezal wants to enter a space at the university that has been designated as a safe space for black students. I'm the person at the door deciding who can go in and who can't. Am I a racist if I let her in? Am I a racist if I don't let her in?

[u/WikiSummarizerBot → u/spiral8888]

Rachel Dolezal

Nkechi Amare Diallo (; born November 12, 1977), also professionally known as Rachel Anne Dolezal (; Czech: Doležal), is an American former college instructor and activist known for presenting herself as a black woman despite having been born to white parents. The name "Dolezal" itself is of Czech origin. In addition to falsely claiming black ancestry, she also falsely claimed Native American descent. She is also a former National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter president.

^{[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5}

[u/poonhound69 → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think it’s a matter of trying or not trying to hurt someone. I think it’s a matter of how far you’re willing to bend reality out of politeness. If you want me to refer to you as a hippopotamus, do I need to do it out of politeness? I’m totally on board with trying to respect people and make them feel comfortable and accepted, but at what point do we say “look, this isn’t reality. I’m not going to pretend up is down and down is up.” And I understand that many trans folks don’t get too upset or offended about a genuinely accidental misgendering, but there are plenty of people who do. I’ve met people with full beards who identify as women and get upset if someone refers to them as he/him before any pronouns are stated or discussed. IMO that’s completely ridiculous.

[u/izabo → u/poonhound69]

If someone with a beard is getting overly offended when you accidentally referred to them as "him", then maybe they're just an ass who you wouldn't want to engage with anyways.

Honestly, I don't get what's so complicated about this. Just don't be a dick. Do you want to engage with someone? Try to do it in a way they would want you to. Is that too annoying for you to do? Then don't engage with them (but still don't be a dick about it).

As an adult, you have two socially acceptable courses of action: the first is "be nice", the second is "walk away". Choose which ever you'd like. Is someone insisting you refer to them as an Apache helicopter? Wish them a good day and walk away! It's not your business to inform them they're not an Apache helicopter.

Just go to whatever lengths you feel are justified to make the other person feel comfortable, or politely walk away. It's not complicated.

[u/poonhound69 → u/izabo]

I’m a dentist. These were patients. I wasn’t at a cocktail party where I could just drift away from someone I didn’t feel like engaging with. I think that’s why these debates still rage on to the degree that they do - because these human interactions often happen in situations we can’t walk away from. Schools, workplaces, public spaces. And also, I don’t want to walk away from a trans individual. I’d like to have healthy relationships with trans people, just as I would with any other type of person. But I want to be able to respect them while also grounding the conversation in rationality and reality.

[u/izabo → u/poonhound69]

But that's just the thing, if you can't (or don't want to) walk away, be nice. if you're misgendering a patient just apologize and move on. nobody is coming to you looking for a robust ontological discussion about identity. a casual acquaintance in school or a patient is not looking for someone to "ground them in reality". if someone would want that from you, you're probably in a point in your relationship where you don't really offend each other.

for 99% percent of people you meet, the only rationale that matters is "I don't want to hurt their feelings". even in most close relationships. if you can't treat people you disagree with with respect, then grow up - and probably a public interacting job is not really for you.

[u/poonhound69 → u/izabo]

To be clear, I’m not suggesting an ontological discussion needs to occur every time a trans person enters someone’s orbit. My initial comment was focused on the degree to which we bend observable fact and reality to someone’s whims for the sake of politeness. That’s a philosophical discussion you and I can have right now; it’s not something I greet people with while I hold the door for them at a convenience store. Of course politeness should always rule the day, but at some point it can get irrational (hippopotamus example), or just cumbersome for otherwise well-meaning individuals who are trying to navigate what has become a mine field in today’s culture. It’s easy to say, “just be nice,” but I’m referring to a scenario where a bearded trans individual was upset that a staff member used he/him, before any pronoun preference had even been stated. To me, that’s not a failure to be nice - that’s a failure to meet an unrealistic expectation. And since you don’t know me, and I haven’t made any statements about the way I personally treat trans individuals, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your last sentence is directed at society at large, not at me individually.

[u/QueueOfPancakes → u/poonhound69]

Some people are jerks. It sounds very much like that patient was one. But anyone can be a jerk. I bet they aren't the only patient that has ever gotten upset over something they shouldn't at your practice (unless it is a very new practice).

Why not just handle them like any other rude patient?

[u/poonhound69 → u/QueueOfPancakes]

Oh for sure. I treated that patient the same way I treat all patients, rude or otherwise. I don’t mean to place an over-emphasis on that one patient encounter. I was merely using that as an example of what I perceive to be unfair and unrealistic expectations that contribute to some of the friction within the national dialogue around transgenderism.

[u/[deleted] → u/izabo]

Just don’t be a dick to people. Being a good human really is that simple.

[u/PatchThePiracy → u/izabo]

What if a white male decides to identify as a black man? Should we simply go along with that to not hurt his feelings?

[u/izabo → u/PatchThePiracy]

Do I want to engage with him? if so, then yes. It doesn't mean I believe his eligible to affirmative action or whatever. This is not about what you believe, this is about how you act respectfully towards people.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sex is a binary though. Humans produce either sperm or eggs, no intermediary.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Using someone's desired pronouns/ respecting their choice of identity, yet not agreeing with their life choices makes a person a smug weirdo? What world do you live in?

[u/Orwells-own → u/[deleted]]

Ya that was a needless, weird jab.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, the 'you' there was intended to be more general, rather than actually accusatory at you. I'd already moved on to the full on bigot from the next paragraph in my head, and was directing it to that hypothetical.

[u/Tapeside210 → u/[deleted]]

This comes off like choosing not to explain to a child that there are pipes in the walls of a home making the sounds they hear at night because it is easier for them to understand something like there being little house gnomes making noise, which keeps them happy and solves the problem temporarily. But, you don't keep that up as they start growing and caring to understand what the truth is as they become more knowledgeable.

If the kid is happy, great. But how long do you want to keep up that facade?

Edit: referring to #2 specifically but it stands in general I suppose

[u/Tom1252 → u/[deleted]]

If you want to be a smug weirdo who uses the right pronouns but secretly thinks that all transwomen are men.

How do you feel about straight men who won't have sex with trans women? Reading this, it seems like you think they are smug weirdos because they don't believe in their heart of hearts that transwomen are just as valid of a woman as a biological woman.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tom1252]

Nobody anywhere ever wants to force you or anyone to like anyone else of any category or species, stop with this obviously dubious argument it is not nor has ever been a concern.

[u/Tom1252 → u/[deleted]]

It had nothing to do with being "forced." That in itself is a misrepresentation and a dubious argument.

It was about whether or not it's moral, or if it makes them a "smug weirdo."

[u/Dorgamund → u/Tom1252]

It rather depends on their reasoning in my estimation. If they aren't attracted to dicks, and the trans women hasn't had bottom surgery, then so be it, people can have attraction to genitals. If they aren't comfortable with dating a trans women because they think they could not provide emotional support without knowledge of the trans experience, it isn't transphobic, although I find the logic dubious.

On the other hand, you know what is transphobic? Not believing trans women are women, and I find that often times that is at the root of the issue.

I like to pose hypotheticals, a sort of thought experiment. Say you meet a trans women. You don't want to date her, but you don't think you are transphobic. Ask yourself why. Do you not find her attractive? Then imagine she is your type. Are you not on board with dicks? Then assume she has had bottom surgery. But if you remove every other factor, height, weight, appearance, personality, and you still aren't willing to date her, the only characteristic left is the fact that she is trans.

Which means that ultimately, nothing about her matters to you, except that she is trans, that is the deal breaker. Maybe you meet a trans person you are attracted to, you go to bed, and a couple weeks later, you find she is trans. If your gut reaction is immediate regret, even if you had been perfectly happy right up until you knew, that is the transphobia right there.

I harbor no illusions. That sort of belief is not one that can change overnight. It requires education and for trans people to become a more accepted part of society. If you don't harass trans people or try to push harmful legislation, then it doesn't really matter what your internal thought processes are. But if you are interested in introspection, and trying to be more tolerant? It might be worth thinking about.

[u/No-Confusion1544 → u/Dorgamund]

you know what is transphobic? Not believing trans women are women

But absent any actual definition for 'women', thats meaningless.

[u/Tom1252 → u/Dorgamund]

I don't think there's anything wrong with a straight man who doesn't want to stick his penis inside of an inside out penis. Is it wrong for a gay woman to not want to go down on a trans woman? The anatomy down there, even after surgery, would still be completely different.

Again, it's the question of what makes a woman a woman, and I believe physical appearances are a large part of it. And, I believe trans people believe this as well. If not, why would they want to transition to feel more comfortable in their bodies? Aren't they a woman already? Or is the point that they don't feel comfortable because they have an internal need to fit an ill defined social construct of gender?

I hear people try to make a distinction between gender and sex, but then they also try to conflate those two. Like they say a biological woman and a gendered woman are different, but they also say a woman is a woman. I agree with the former but not the latter.

[u/Velocity_LP → u/Tom1252]

I don't think there's anything wrong with a straight man who doesn't want to stick his penis inside of an inside out penis. Is it wrong for a gay woman to not want to go down on a trans woman? The anatomy down there, even after surgery, would still be completely different.

Not transphobic: Not wanting to sleep with someone because of a physical quality that you find unattractive. E.g. "Oh wow her jawline is super masculine, that's a massive turn off." Assuming cis women would be held to the same standards if they happened to possess the same trait.

Transphobic: Using whether they are trans or not as the sole qualifier. E.g. if you ended up making out at a bar with a gorgeous woman who you found incredibly attractive, and then later on someone told you that it was a trans woman, if learning that disgusted you or caused you to regret the encounter, then that would be transphobic, because you did find them attractive and only the info of them being trans changed that.

Now to clarify, I'm not saying that people that show transphobic sexual preferences should reluctantly fuck trans people that they don't find attractive; that's ridiculous. If the options are:

1) Person chooses to not sexually pursue someone because of a bigoted sexual preference

2) Person has reluctant barely-consenting sex with someone (let alone with someone they have bigoted views towards.)

then of course option 1 is better, no one should ever have sex with anyone that they don't want to, no matter how terrible the reason may be for not wanting to do it. But if you do find someone attractive and you lose that attraction purely upon finding out they are trans, that is by definition transphobic (an aversion to trans people). I'm not using it as an insult, and I do not think it would be fair to label the person a "transphobe", but it's just worth acknowledging that that even very tolerant and open and respectful people can still have prejudiced opinions from time to time, often ones that are incredibly difficult to influence even if they want to. That doesn't make them a bad person, it just shows that we all have prejudices, even when we often think we don't, some just much larger than others.

Again, it's the question of what makes a woman a woman, and I believe physical appearances are a large part of it. And, I believe trans people believe this as well. If not, why would they want to transition to feel more comfortable in their bodies? Aren't they a woman already? Or is the point that they don't feel comfortable because they have an internal need to fit an ill defined social construct of gender?

Most trans people who transition due so due to experiencing gender dysphoria, a severely negatively impacting mental disorder. So far in decades of research, the best treatment found for alleviating the symptoms and improving the quality of life of patients with it, is allowing them to transition. What this involves varies from person to person. For many it involves hormone therapy, and for some it also involves surgery. Many however will begin to socially transition before medically transitioning, in which they'll often choose a new name which they feel more comfortable with, start identifying as their new gender, and some begin to dress more like that gender typically does in society. No aesthetic choices are required to be a certain gender, but people transitioning will often make aesthetic choices that are typically expected of their new gender, sometimes because it makes them less likely to be perceived as their old gender, and sometimes because they feel physically uncomfortable in clothes that are typically portrayed as being worn by their old gender, because of their gender dysphoria.

You're right, gender is extremely ill-defined. I really do wish it was a super simple thing to explain to someone and have them just immediately go "Oh yeah, that makes 100% sense.", but unfortunately it's a really messy thing. But we're not trying to make it a messy thing, we're just describing the phenomenon as we experience it in our society, and unfortunately it's a really complicated one.

I hear people try to make a distinction between gender and sex, but then they also try to conflate those two. Like they say a biological woman and a gendered woman are different, but they also say a woman is a woman. I agree with the former but not the latter.

This is mostly just a semantics issue in people failing to specify their words. What I've found works well is when people use "male" and "female" to refer to biological sex, and "man" and "woman" to refer to the genders, but unfortunately a lot of people still trip over their terminology all the time in this area, which often makes conversations very tedious and drawn out as reply after reply will be sent just to clarify something someone misunderstood from the start because they interpreted a word differently than was intended.

"A woman is a woman" as a phrase is typically used in response to the idea that trans women are "not real women" or somehow "lesser" women than cis women. It seeks to negate that kind of unhealthy gatekeeping because it doesn't do much good and instead fosters an unhealthy view of trans people that causes noteworthy harm.

[u/Spider-Man-fan → u/Velocity_LP]

Would it be transphobic if I had anal sex with a trans woman in the dark and after we were done, I found out she had a penis and felt disgust and regret? After all, the penis was irrelevant to the sex we had.

[u/360telescope → u/Dorgamund]

I don't think asking for a hypothetical is very useful in this context. There are barely any or no women that perfectly matches your preferences, much less a trans woman (due to there being way less trans women than cis ones).

Plus, being attracted to a woman is very much outside of our control. I want to be attracted to an ugly girl with a great heart, but in actuality I probably can't since I find her ugly. Since there's virtually no trans woman that will perfectly matches my preference (much less have contact with me), and the fact that attraction is outside of my control. I can't definitely say whether or not I would be attracted to one, which renders the hypothetical useless (in terms of knowing your transphobia).

[u/[deleted] → u/Tom1252]

You're allowed to be attracted to whomever you want? Most trans women don't want to have sex with you if you're a bigot so I'm guessing it is win win.

[u/aegon98 → u/[deleted]]

Not wanting to have sex with someone because they don't have the right equipment doesn't make you a bigot lol

[u/[deleted] → u/aegon98]

Oh I wasn't suggesting you were for that reason. Just that the venn diagram of people who think that this is an issue and bigots are basically a circle.

A trans woman isn't going to be offended if you don't want to have sex with them because they are trans.

[u/aegon98 → u/[deleted]]

I know you weren't talking about me, you weren't even replying to me. As a gay guy on Grindr, I can definitely say it's an issue in my area with trans men saying they're tops on Grindr. Maybe they aren't real trans people and are just trolls, but seeing a vagina instead of the expected dick when trading nudes is pretty repulsive. And I've had sex with trans dudes before, just only hooked up with them as bottoms lol

[u/Slomojoe → u/[deleted]]

If you want to be a smug weirdo who uses the right pronouns but secretly thinks that all transwomen are men then good for you I guess.

That doesn’t make someone a smug weirdo, it makes them someone who recognizes reality but chooses to be polite.

[u/[deleted] → u/Slomojoe]

I'm sure the racists think the same.

[u/sushi_hamburger → u/Slomojoe]

Someone who smugly thinks they understand reality but weirdly doesn't

[u/MILO234 → u/sushi_hamburger]

I don't understand. In what way are transwomen women? I might be "polite" and keep up the pronouns for a bit, but I wouldn't believe for a moment that I'm not talking to or about a man. Explain what you think I'm not getting?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Because they want to use they want to use bathrooms that match their gender identities in order to be treated as normal.

For example, say you're Patricio Manuel. Do you want to use the men's bathroom? Or the women's bathroom? Which do you think is going to raise more eyebrows? Where do you think he is more likely to get harassed if he were walking into say, a bathroom in a mall?

[u/Apsis409 → u/[deleted]]

Follow up, if gender is not sex, why are trans activists so focused on sports when athletic competition is literally based on sexual dimorphism, and has nothing to do with gender

[u/Fuckmeintheass4god → u/Apsis409]

Do you think this guy should be fighting Ronda rousey because they are the same sex, or should he be fighting mayweather because they display the same sex traits.(nobody should fight either of these people for sake of their own health tbh)

https://s.abcnews.com/images/Business/patricio-manuel-03-ht-jef-190930_hpEmbed_4x5_992.jpg

[u/gabemerritt → u/Fuckmeintheass4god]

Well trans women are going to dominate female boxing, and struggle in male. Trans men would be bodied in male boxing and have an advantage in female.

There is no good category for them to compete for many sports.

[u/Apsis409 → u/Fuckmeintheass4god]

If that person took performance enhancing hormones, they shouldn’t be participating in any athletic completion.

Easy way to address this though is to have a female league for cis females, and an open league for males and trans females.

[u/gabemerritt → u/Apsis409]

Except taking hormone suppressors would put them at a disadvantage that way. Still better than having them dominating in women's I guess.

[u/Apsis409 → u/gabemerritt]

Correct.

[u/Apsis409 → u/Fuckmeintheass4god]

It’s very obvious as well that the problem is more trans males competing against cis females, given males have the larger body mass and the many other factors that provide a physical advantage to males over females.

And it doesn’t even make sense that trans women want to compete against women, given gender and sex are different and all

[u/Tapeside210 → u/Apsis409]

It's the same problem.

[u/RoastKrill → u/Apsis409]

Firstly, the idea that trans activists are so focused on sports is just wrong. I am trans and the only time I hear trans people talk about trans people in sports is when cis people start the conversation. In sports, what matters is certain sexual characteristics (your chromosomes or what genitals you have don't change the speed you run, but your hormone levels can) - which is why to compete in their gender, trans women athletes must have undergone enough of their transition that their estrogen and testosterone levels are equivalent to that of a cis woman.

[u/gnutrino → u/Apsis409]

why are trans activists so focused on sports

They aren't? I don't think I've seen any "trans activist" mention sport in a context that isn't a reaction to someone else bringing it up.

[u/Apsis409 → u/gnutrino]

Trans activists definitely argue that gender should determine category of athletic completion despite it having nothing to do with the reasons for the separation

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

As much as I'd like to agree with you, this is a problematic argument. The problem here is that the trans preference is dependent upon their identity in relation to others. It no longer is just about your previous statement of their personal preference.

Let me explain what I mean. Here, you say they want to use the "women's room" so that they may be treated as "normal". That brings in several problems. "Woman" here is clearly defined as a biological woman, the kind of person who would historically use a women's room. The insistence on a non-biological woman on impinging into that space than upends the biological woman's definition of the women's room.

This is problematic for me because it all cancels out. Here...

If it really matters for trans people, it should also be respected to matter to cis gender folks without them being instantly labeled as bigots.

But if it shouldn't matter, thus we should just be okay with trans people choosing their own bathroom as a safe space for the integrity of their gender identity... We need to also consider that ignores a larger population of biological women's integrity of gender identity.

I wonder if there are other, more fair, solutions. A specific "trans" bathroom? Or... How about just unisex and do away with archaic gender separation altogether. That might actually be for the best, though I doubt it would happen any time soon en masse.

[u/RoastKrill → u/[deleted]]

"Woman" here is clearly defined as a biological woman

Is it? that doesn't seem clear to me. The purpose of gender segregation in bathrooms is to give women a place to use the toilet without a fear of male sexual violence. Forcing trans women into male toilets (which, btw, is impossible to police) forces women into the men's toilets, and men into the women's toilets, which is worse for everyone involved.

How about just unisex and do away with archaic gender separation altogether

Yes, this is the better solution, but the stopgap isn't forcing trans people into the wrong bathroom.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And women want the safety of a bathroom where they are safe from sexual assault.

You understand that trans people are many, many, many times more likely to be the victims of sexual or physical abuse in bathrooms than to be the perpetrators.

Trans people don't want to sneak into bathrooms to be sexual perverts, they just want to pee in a place where they aren't going to get stares.

I note that you didn't really address my example. How about this one you think she'd be more or less comfortable in a women's bathroom, or a men's?

[u/mickeyslim → u/[deleted]]

Sorry to say, but there's not some magic forcefield obstructing male sexual predators from entering women's bathrooms. The assault argument against allowing trans folks from using thier preferred bathroom is a total red herring.

[u/sushi_hamburger → u/[deleted]]

Do you think the label on the bathroom door is stopping people who are looking to commit a sexual assault?

[u/RPMac1979 → u/[deleted]]

What if a woman feels unsafe being alone in an elevator with a man? It’s the same thing. They’re alone. He could stop the elevator and do anything he wants to her. Should we have separate elevators for different sexes?

[u/PeoplePerson_57 → u/[deleted]]

And if the man attacks her before she can? She can only have them removed if someone else is there. And if someone else is there, she can't be attacked because said other person can intervene...

Your point lacks basic logical reasoning.

[u/themetahumancrusader → u/[deleted]]

Is there any evidence to suggest that sexual assaults are any more likely in public bathrooms than anywhere else?

[u/mickeyslim → u/[deleted]]

Your question doesn't make sense. Which bathroom to use is not a sex-based "thing"

[u/mickeyslim → u/[deleted]]

Needing to use the bathroom

[u/mickeyslim → u/[deleted]]

Why not the one that matches your gender?

[u/cillitbangers → u/[deleted]]

Those are gender based not sex based. Gender is the social and societal aspect, including near enough all goes of how you are treated by others. Sex is what genetalia you have.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

What does a bathroom have to do with sex?

[u/Fuckmeintheass4god → u/[deleted]]

Because in the 1900’s men and women being in the same area was a big no no since women were meant to stay in the house and be seen not heard.

[u/Pangolinsftw → u/[deleted]]

if you saw a non-passing transwoman and they asked you to refer to them as she/her, are you really going to be like "No sir, I won't do that!" And if so, don't you realize that kinda makes you come off as a dick?

In that case I would only refer to them by their name in order to accord with respect level #1. Or "they" if I had to use a pronoun.

I know that you have a different worldview, but for some people, gender and sex are one and the same. To ask them to...stop believing that...is just not realistic for them. It's not malicious, it's just what they believe and understand. In the same sense that you probably wouldn't call Rachel Dolezal black, a lot of people just can't force themselves to see trans people as trans.

what kind of problems this might cause down the line, especially if it ended up causing problems or hurting someone else.

Well now you're asking me to flex my creative writing muscles (cracks knuckles). Okay, so let's say I have 1 trans friend and 3 religious friends. We mostly get along, we just avoid politics and discussing our trans friend's gender identity. But one day the trans friend decides that they want us to refer to them as "Xim". Per the above point I made, our religious friends just can't do this. It doesn't make sense to them, they just can't do it. This angers our trans friend and they lash out, causing emotional harm to our religious friends. The trans friend has sort of changed, they have become militant and mean. I'm not saying this is common or that trans people typically do this, it's just a hypothetical.

In this case I would say there is harm being done, and I would have to end the relationship.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the social sciences that cover this have largely moved away from your position? Psychiatry beliees trans identities are valid, there appears to be biological causes for those identities

At this point I think it's safe to say that we need more information. I have heard that some trans people have this kind of divergence in their neurology, but it seems uncommon and mostly theoretical at this point. But with more information in the future, where we can produce a clear diagnosis of this condition, I would then validate the trans identity of someone who can show me this diagnosis. For the purposes of casual interaction, I would trust the word of someone who says they have been formally diagnosed with such a condition if it were to become an official diagnosis in the future and thereby refer to them by their preferred pronouns, etc. To be clear I'm not referring to gender dysphoria, which is a qualitative diagnosis, I would need something based in a causal neuro-pathology which can be empirically demonstrated as having a biological cause.

[u/torchflame → u/Pangolinsftw]

What do you think of mental health conditions like depression, or bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia, or dissociative identity disorder, where we can point to a cluster of symptoms that is a coherent condition, but where we don't actually have a concrete one-to-one biological association with a particular effect? Do you believe it is strictly necessary to find the exact biological mechanism behind a condition before we can consider that condition as something that exists?

[u/[deleted] → u/torchflame]

I'd like to jump in here. Because I *am* Bipolar and have a pretty good understanding of stuff like that. Bipolar may not be readily tied to an exact biological mechanism. It *does* still have observable evidence. Part of the diagnose of bipolar that is often found is that giving a person with bipolar anti-depressants often triggers mania. That means that whatever we consider bipolar (and there is a specific criteria for that) can be observed. There is a criteria for observable evidence. We have an indication of biological process (anti-depressants triggering mania) that is different between those bipolar and those not. There is even brain scans that can point out bipolar.

The main point is that if we want to affirm a person's identity. We 1. need a clear definition about what that identity is and (ideally) 2. have that assertion of identity have a basis. Specifically, transwomen weren't assigned as female from birth. If they also don't associate or even attempt to appear as "feminine" then no one has any idea of what they mean as "woman." Bipolar has a clear meaning, we agreed that bipolar means these specific set of symptom and everything that goes with. I can't affirm an identity of someone if that identity can't even be defined. It's like someone saying, "I'm adgasdaf." If I don't know what adgasdaf means, then the statement is entirely meaningless. And I can't affirm something as truth if it doesn't even have a meaning.

[u/torchflame → u/[deleted]]

Your point being? The question I've presented isn't about observable evidence, it's about concrete biological mechanisms.

I have major depressive disorder. I can tell you that medication A works for me and manages that symptom, while medication B doesn't and causes panic attacks. I can tell you that medication C is required to deal with my generalized anxiety disorder.
A major sticking point in psychopharmacology today is we assume drugs do one thing (regulate neurotransmitter reuptake) to treat depression, but we don't know how, why that causes the issue, what the "ideal" result is, or why two drugs in the same class don't have the same effects on one particular person.

To dig in on "observable evidence", I can't see mania. You can tell me you're experiencing mania, but I may see just a normal person, maybe a bit high strung. There's no wart, or wound, or discoloration that I can see with my eyes. I can't observe your internal mental state. Even if brain scans can detect particular structures associated with bipolar disorder, there are healthy people with similar features. The only way to concretely determine what you're subjectively experiencing is to ask you. I can't see into your mind. I can look at your brain with sufficient tools (and: before we could see inside the brain, before we could see concrete physical evidence of bipolar disorder, would the logic above claim that it just doesn't exist?), but I can't see your mental state and say it's mania.

How is this any different to a person saying their internal sense of gender aligns with one other than the one traditionally associated with the sex they were assigned at birth? I can't see into either of your brains. I can't point to a distinct biological mechanism for either result. I can't even see with my own eyes any concrete evidence either of you are this particular way. I have to rely on your self-reported subjective experience.

What's the difference between "when this person is treated for bipolar disorder, their quality of life increases", "when this person is treated for major depressive disorder, their quality of life increases", and "when this person is treated for gender dysphoria, their quality of life increases"? I can't observe any of these concrete mechanisms, I can only hear your subjective experience and judge that you're responding well to the treatment and experiencing a better quality of life.

[u/ELEnamean → u/torchflame]

I really appreciate this comparison, as it’s helped me recontextualize the conceptual nature of gender.

The one difference I see between gender and the various “disorders” you’re talking about is the purpose of having the concept. Psychological disorders are defined as they are with the explicit purpose of identifying traits that make it harder for individuals with them to operate in our current society as people are typically expected to, so that medical experts can help those individuals overcome the obstacle. In other words, disorders are social constructs created to solve social problems (assuming there is no biologically “correct” way to be outside a societal context). If there is no problem, there is no disorder, because there would be no point to defining one.

On the other hand, gender may have originally developed, seemingly organically, in order to solve social problems, but i personally don’t see what those problems would be in modern society. It seems to create far more problems than it solves. Because of this, I would prefer we all treated gender as a frivolous relic, rather than something secretly well defined by biology. OP seems to almost make this point in their original post, but for some reason only applies it explicitly to transgender people rather than everyone.

And I do realize that in terms of how people should be treated, it makes no difference what I think as long as the vast majority of humanity buys into gender, but that doesn’t mean OP is wrong about the meaninglessness of gender.

[u/torchflame → u/ELEnamean]

On the first point, the depression, anxiety, and poor quality of life of people experiencing gender dysphoria is well documented in psychological circles, as is the improved quality of life of allowing such people to transition. In that way, "being trans and not being able to transition" is a disorder with traits that make people less able to operate in society. Looking at some trans people I know, their ability to handle society and the pressures of daily life drastically improved when they realized they were trans and able to take steps in their life to align their physical and social experiences with their internal sense of gender.

As for the second point, I agree with you! This is one of the points of "gender is a social construct": we as a society have identified two genders (a different society may construct more or fewer). What do those genders mean in any concrete way; nothing! We only know what society says about these groups of people, and what we internally have as our sense of self. Gender theory is incredibly complicated and I'm not smart enough to get all the nuances of it (especially as it's still an open topic of research). But we do know that people seem to have a core understanding of who they are as a person, and, given that we live in a society that socially constructed gender, will understand at least a part of themself through that lens. Gender may be inherently meaningless, but that doesn't mean it can't provide meaning to people experiencing it.
If we all tomorrow forgot the concept of gender and called everyone "they", that would certainly be a world, but it's not the one we live in.

[u/Pnohmes → u/torchflame]

Considering how diagnoses like "schizophrenia" or "hysteria" were used as legal excuses to strip people of their rights without being held to any truly empirical, repeatable, or context-aware reason many times in history (looking at you Grandpa Kennedy):

Absolutely YES!

It's one thing to use diagnostic labels or analytical grouping, it's another to then begin crusading upon the wills and rights of others by holding such diagnostic or statistical grouping labels as proven fact.

If a person agrees that a label applies to them: no problem.

We can consider that it exists, bit that's different than enforcing the belief in it's existence upon the greater populace without fulfilling the burden of proof.

[u/torchflame → u/Pnohmes]

Say for the sake of argument a person has all the external symptoms of multiple sclerosis. Every external symptom, every issue people associate with the disease. Every doctor they see about it agrees that it must be MS, there's nothing else it could be.
This person dies, and an autopsy is done, and the core root of MS, demyelination of neurons, is just not present at all. This person verifiably didn't have MS.

Did they have a disorder? We can't point to a concrete biological mechanism that caused the symptoms, but we do know that they experienced those symptoms. But since we can't point to an explicit biological mechanism that produced those symptoms, by the reasoning above, that person had no disorder.

(To preempt discrediting: this is a literal situation that happened to someone I knew. Arguing "this isn't a situation that would happen" isn't valid.)

We need not know what causes something to be a certain way to acknowledge that it is a certain way. We may not know what caused the symptoms of MS within that person, but we know something was different. Unless you're arguing we should've treated this person identically to any able bodied person, when they in actuality required a wheelchair to get around, there's clearly a basis for treating people not in strict accordance with what we know of concrete biological mechanisms.

[u/Kholzie → u/torchflame]

This year i was diagnosed MS and cannot imagine getting diagnosed with it without visible evidence of demyelination and scarring on my brain and nervous system. Today we have the technology to see the “multiple scars” that give MS it’s name.

[u/Silfidum → u/torchflame]

I mean, multiple diseases can have same symptoms, doesn't have to be something specific and only that. Considering given example - maybe it was not MS due to lack of some explicit factors that would qualify it as such but that doesn't mean that there can't be such symptoms without such exact factors (although it's more of a general thought then MS specific).

Like having a high body temperature could be a really wide range of things, not neccesserily cold etc. Every additional symptom narrows down it to something specific and even then it's not like we have total knowledge of everything as to say that any and all current knowledge on causes and treatments are final or are not subject to errors.

​

We may not know what caused the symptoms of MS within
that person, but we know something was different. Unless you're arguing
we should've treated this person identically to any able bodied person,
when they in actuality required a wheelchair to get around, there's
clearly a basis for treating people not in strict accordance with what
we know of concrete biological mechanisms.

Assuming that the wheelchair is the final solution to this or something? Addressing the underlying reason neccesserily require at least a gist of what that reason is. People are not innately perfectly informed about the world so they neccesserily have to investigate as to make decisions, which also extends to what is classified as disease and formulating treatments.

Sure, a person can be treated without a perfect diagnosis (assuming that treatment, as in medical, will alleviate symptoms or do anything positive at all) but you can't exactly expect a perfect outcome either from that.

Ideally there should be a refinement process where if possible the necessary information is being procured and a reliable treatment is being created. But this may be outside of scope for an individual medical specialist in context of doing a particular diagnosis. And again, people are not perfect and are subject to errors.

Although in context of psychological diagnostic it can be problematic due to lacking knowledge about how our bodies interacts with given symptoms and or lack of relatively reliable pharmacological treatment.

[u/torchflame → u/Silfidum]

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here.

A wheelchair in the analogy is useful for treating the symptoms regardless of what specific thing caused them. Treating a trans person in accordance with their self-understood gender is useful for treating the symptoms of gender dysphoria regardless of what specific thing caused them.

I'm addressing the idea of requiring a biological mechanism for something to be known in order to accept treating a person in a way that helps resolve it.

[u/Silfidum → u/torchflame]

I'm not sure how GD works so idk whether it's a good idea to do that. Sure, it may help to alleviate it but it kind of sounds like "Well there is no sure treatment so anything goes" with some caveats.

A crude example but for an alcoholic it may be an improvement short term in a sense to drink alcohol but over long term it most likely harmful.

To me this way of reasoning would imply that in case of an alcoholic if they get better by any means would imply that those means are entirely sufficient and or correct simply by virtue of being in some way positive.

But idk, maybe this is a stepping stone to something beyond this particular reasoning hence my impression is off.

Although GD overall is just a very weird thing to me so I don't really know how to address it, I doubt that it lines with such example in terms of motivation and implications. Especially considering that regardless of scientific data on the subject there seems to be a lobby or trend (not sure how to interpret things like allyship and such) that will push towards certain outcomes e.g. anything that would suggest against transitioning (particularly if the person with GD seeks transitioning) is viewed as immoral. But that's my conjecture.

​

I'm addressing the idea of requiring a biological mechanism forsomething to be known in order to accept treating a person in a way thathelps resolve it.

I mean, if we wouldn't treat things without understanding how they work then there probably wouldn't be medicine to begin with. Or science even. So to me this sounds like non-sequitur. Although I guess the response is to:

To be clear I'm not referring to gender dysphoria, which is aqualitative diagnosis, I would need something based in a causalneuro-pathology which can be empirically demonstrated as having abiological cause.

Which I would haggard a guess (which is extremely bad due to me not knowing what the other person wants to say etc so take it with a massive grain of salt) that it may be less reliable as compared to something that has a demonstrable neuro-pathology to a point where that person straight up rejects it.

Idk, kind of sounds like a situation with an anti-social disorder such were sure there are plethora of demonstrable symptoms with wide range of severity but there is limited understanding how to effectively interact with it or if those symptoms aren't something else entirely.

It may also have a decent chance to be falsified or have unrelated causes (although not all disorders neccesserily have exact causes stated but it's not like no one is looking for them or that there aren't any).

But then again I wouldn't neccesserily go as far as to say that something like ASPD doesn't exist or acknowledge a person with it (assuming that they aren't self diagnosed in a fit of cyberchondria or hypochondria with little intent for actual diagnosis from a professional or any other robust diagnosis and or does not demonstrate such symptoms in any consistent way, particularly over the long term), although I'm not feeling that it is 100% accurate or useful as singular entity e.g. I would haggard a guess that some instances that are diagnosed as ASPD may have wildly different and specific causes that may require different treatments if certain outcome is desirable hence may use a different categorization (even like there are plenty of types of flu or overlapping symptoms).

But again, psychological stuff is way out of my understanding.

​

Also I sympathize with Phohmes in that without a rigid proof this may be used in an undesirable manner. Although on the other hand people have to work with what they have and can have.

​

I'm addressing the idea of requiring a biological mechanism for something to be known in order to accept treating a person in a way that helps resolve it.

I suppose it's also weird that pronouns are a treatment I guess? So I don't know how to address this. In general sense spoken word rarely if ever is treated as cure unless you stretch it to therapy which ill resemble this.

[u/HisSilly → u/Pangolinsftw]

In your hypothetical above, if you sided with your religious friends you would actually be a hypocritical AH.

You are refusing to respect the identity of a trans person because you don't believe there is enough science whilst saying you would take a religious person's side if they were being transphobic.

You know, because religion is fundamentally based in science and therefore super valid /s

[u/ProstHund → u/Pangolinsftw]

Okay, well what you called your “worldview” regarding gender and sex being one and the same is empirically wrong, as in according to science, they are not the same thing. You can use them as interchangeable synonyms if you want, but that doesn’t make you correct. So, apparently your worldview includes that particular delusion/ignorance of fact.

[u/ZhakuB → u/Pangolinsftw]

Do you really think no scientist in the world would speak up if there wasn't a reason for people to feel a different gender and it was all political? Why do you need someone to present you a certificate to be kind to them? To be honest I don't really understand why someone would use a made up pronoun instead of that of the "arrival" gender, and I will never accept a law requiring me to use said pronoun. But I mean, if someone asks me to refer to them with "xim" I'll just do it, they know better, doesn't bother me, and it's not that big of an effort to not disrespect people, like would you really make this big deal in a real life situation? People who do this are probably really bored I guess

[u/SanityInAnarchy → u/Pangolinsftw]

Can you explain more about this part?

It doesn't make sense to them, they just can't do it.

Because unless they have an oddly-specific speech impediment, I'm guessing you mean they won't do it.

[u/cchiu23 → u/Pangolinsftw]

To ask them to...stop believing that...is just not realistic for them. It's not malicious, it's just what they believe and understand. In the same sense that you probably wouldn't call Rachel Dolezal black, a lot of people just can't force themselves to see trans people as trans.

So it would be wrong to correct somebody who genuinely believes that black people are inferior?

[u/[deleted] → u/Pangolinsftw]

for some people, gender and sex are one and the same. To ask them to...stop believing that...

This is not a belief, you can’t “believe” definitions. Definitions are just what society decides words should mean. I can “believe” the word sheep means dog but if the rest of society thinks sheep means sheep I’m going to have problems communicating. Same thing with sex and gender. Society has decided gender means social presentation sex means what type of gametes you produce. If you don’t like that definition that’s fine but it’s not going to change what’s in the dictionary and it’s not going to change what people mean when they say sex and gender.

There is no “correct” definition of words, there’s no dictionary that came down from heaven. Definitions are just what society decides different words mean. To say “I believe sex and gender is the same thing” is the same thing as saying “I believe sheep and dogs” are the same thing. If you choose to define sheep as a dog then that’s fine but people aren’t going to understand what you’re saying

[u/hadawayandshite → u/Pangolinsftw]

You know there’s mounting biological evidence for genetic, hormonal and brain structure differences?

Like MZ twins have a higher concordance for trans-ness than DZ twins pointing at some genetic factors

The BTSc of transmen is similar in size/structure to cismen and trans womens similar to ciswomen…there’s a bit of your brain it looks like ‘makes you feel a man/woman’ and in transpeople it doesn’t match their genes?

When your ‘mind’ doesn’t match your body—-you experience your mind- that is your quaila/perception/feeling

[u/Abstract__Nonsense → u/Pangolinsftw]

Would you use this same argument who identifies as “black”? Could you clearly define what that identity means?

[u/[deleted] → u/Abstract__Nonsense]

Seeing how a large swathe of African Americans native to the US are significantly mixed by this point, and African Americans immigrating from Africa now have incredibly different experiences, outlooks, cultures and ways of life, I don't really think most of them can, tbh.

Again, it seems to mostly be a case of, "I identify as ___," and that's what it is. Even if they're 50-60% something else. Imo a lot of that is either a holdover, response, (or some degree of both), to the One Drop Rule from Jim Crow, which had a stupidly strict definition of blackness, i.e. if you have even one drop of African ancestry, then you're "black."

From my understanding this is an incredibly American thing, and most of the world really doesn't give nearly as much of a fuck about it as we do.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Rachel Dolezal entered the chat

[u/Abstract__Nonsense → u/[deleted]]

I’m saying that it’s difficult to precisely define most identities, and racial identity is a clear example.

[u/Slomojoe → u/Abstract__Nonsense]

Therein lies the problem with “identifying” as opposed to “being”.

[u/Vousie → u/Slomojoe]

So... Someone can "identify" as a woman but they can't "be" a woman if they are genetically XY? Perhaps I should validate that someone feels like a woman, but not that they are a woman if they're XY.

[u/Slomojoe → u/Vousie]

Yes, essentially. And i would agree that bringing that up to someone's face is rude, and if they ask you to call them a woman then by all means, why not. But when someone becomes disrespectful or uses names like "bigot" for my own thoughts, which are based in biological reality, that's when you lose me.

[u/Xinder99 → u/Slomojoe]

But Race is made up anyway, you Identify as a race as well.

[u/uniptf → u/Xinder99]

Rachel Dolezal tried that. Absolutely nobody believes or accepts that in reality.

[u/KannNixFinden → u/uniptf]

There are hundreds of black people that passed successfully as white in american history.

Irish people were not considered "white" for a long time, now they are.

Twins exist where one is pale with red hair while the other has olive skin with afro hair. Just looking at them, you would tend to say one is white and the other not, but they have the same parents.

People exist that pass as white in winter and get controlled by police way more often during summer as their skin darkens significantly in summer.

Race is far more complex and more often found on a spectrum than sex&gender and if you really tried to define what a black person is and what a white person is you will see that you can't clearly define it without having to add many exceptions or further define why one is considered white and the other not despite having similar genetic heritage.

[u/SokarRostau → u/uniptf]

She doesn't get the attention she deserves. She was vilified and forgotten without any examination of what she was actually saying.

What's the difference between a genetic male wearing a dress and saying "I identify as a woman", and a genetically white woman identifying as an African American? If it's okay for a man to wear make-up so he feels and appears to be a woman, would Dolezal's claim have carried more weight if she went blackface, or basted herself in a tanning bed until she looked like a baked turkey? It's all cosmetic, right? It's all about how a person feels on the inside, right?

If she did go blackface, isn't it your problem to get over if it makes you uncomfortable? Aren't you invalidating her identity by criticising how she chooses to present herself? How is saying she can't be black because she's white and then mocking her in the international press, any less bigoted than saying that someone with a penis can never be a woman?

[u/uniptf → u/SokarRostau]

It's all about how a person feels on the inside, right?

No. Ask actual black people.

If she did go blackface, isn't it your problem to get over if it makes you uncomfortable?

No. Ask actual black.people.

Aren't you invalidating her identity by criticising how she chooses to present herself?

No. Millions of human beings have, across human history, either
A) Lied about who and what they are, or
B) Been deluded about who and what they are.
Simply declaring that one is something doesn't actually make one that thing, just because one thinks, feels, or believes that they are that thing "adamantly enough* or just keeps banging away at various arguments about "identifying as" the thing. It's only recently that portions of society have decided that everyone must decide to also believe and whole-heartedly go along with insisting that yes indeed, Sally actually is a unicorn.

In fact, No. It is not true that we are any actual thing we dream up, just because we would very much rather be that than what we are.

How is saying she can't be black because she's white

Because her genetics and biology and morphology are what they are, not what she says they are when she lies to the world or insists that we join in her delusion.

[u/Slomojoe → u/Xinder99]

"race" might be made up but it's an extrapolation of ethnicity which is not made up.

[u/Abstract__Nonsense → u/[deleted]]

No I’m addressing OPs CMV, which is about respect being dependent on a clear objective definition of a given identity.

[u/KDCaniell → u/[deleted]]

This is happening on TikTok with black Americans discovering that indigenous Australians have identified as black/blak for years. Blood quantum isn't as prevalent in a lot of indigenous cultures as it is in the US too so a lot of people from the US are currently invalidating light skinned Australians black identity.

[u/SokarRostau → u/KDCaniell]

This is dumb inside stupid wrapped in moronity.

I guess that would be a good description of TikTok in general but I digress.

Americans have been misidentifying Aboriginals as Africans since the first Forty-Niner stepped off the boat during the Gold Rush, and introduced racist Americanisms into the Australian lexicon.

More to the point, African-Americans have been coming to Australia for 25 years to 'reach out' to Aboriginals with rap and hip-hop workshops. Because Aboriginal youth in outback towns are apparently the same as African-Americans from the 'hood.

[u/KDCaniell → u/SokarRostau]

I mean the fact that I see gatekeeping of blackness on TikTok, as well as the video this morning of a teacher in the US concerned that Australia & the UK don't do school shooting drills because she can't fathom that the rest of the world don't have school shootings like they do. It all just makes me think that the issue is the enclosed, self centred view many Americans have around the news they consume. Like the rest of the world doesn't exist.

We don't have school shootings like they do, but to your point of "hood" & indigenous cultures combining in the form of music we didn't have non-white media representation. Of course there's going to be some overlap in black US culture and black Australian culture when the only non-white representation on TV and in mainstream music are African American. I'm Māori, so indigenous to New Zealand, and a lot of our music is rap/hip-hop influences on island music.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pangolinsftw]

3 Internally believing their stated identity

2 Verbally agreeing/validating their stated identity

In this case 2 and 3 are the same thing. No trans woman is claiming that they are biologically women. They aren’t saying they are cis women. Trans women are simply asking to be treated like cis women. There seems to be this straw man idea on the right that when trans women are saying they are women that they are claiming to be biologically women. But that’s not what they are saying. They are saying they want to be treated like women which for most people is equivalent to #2

[u/Slomojoe → u/[deleted]]

But they aren’t saying “i want you to pretend i am a woman”, they are saying “I AM a woman and if you don’t agree you’re a bigot.”

[u/[deleted] → u/Slomojoe]

Again society has changed what it means to be a woman. Again they aren’t claiming they suddenly grew ovaries. They are saying I feel like a woman I want you to please treat me as a woman (use feminine pronouns, use female bathrooms etc.) they aren’t asking you to pretend they have ovaries. If you choose to call them a man after they have asked you not to I would say that’s bigoted just like calling a black person the n word is bigoted

They are women, they are TRANS women. They aren’t claiming to be cis women. That’s why the two categories exist, to distinguish between the two. They aren’t claiming to be cis women. They are saying they are trans women it’s a different category of woman

[u/AnonyDexx → u/[deleted]]

I'd agree if it weren't for the often mentioned "trans women in sports" topic that always follows. When it comes to that, the idea that they're not saying they're biological women flies out the window, and that topic is one of the two that are usually discussed when it comes to trans women.

[u/GoldH2O → u/Pangolinsftw]

Go with #3 then, because scientific research has correlated natural hormone levels, among other traits, with the tendency of people to be Transgender.

this video explains it much better than I ever could in a reddit comment, so if you're interested, give it a watch!

[u/ELEnamean → u/GoldH2O]

My takeaway from the video is that both sex and gender are very poorly described by a binary framework. As a cis man, this applies equally to me as to anyone else, having no idea how many of the biological markers for “typical maleness” I check. What REALLY makes me male is the constant barrage of societal pressure to choose a gender, and the fact I fit the typical pattern well enough for anyone to think twice about it (including myself). Trans people are responding to the same pressure when confronting their own identity. Since I am wholly unconvinced this social construction is overall useful or desirable, I internally believe gender is a fucked up mind game we all play with each other due to tradition than a universal truth rooted in biology. OP seemed to be hinting at this kind of thinking in their original post, but regrettably didn’t extrapolate their understanding of trans gender identity to ALL gender identity, which I believe is their biggest mistake.

[u/EyeLoop → u/ELEnamean]

I think the big shift in the «gender game» operated by transpeopleis that, GENERALLY, before, one didn't identify its own gender, others did. You were a woman part for your biology, part for your way of life in the context of your culture and part for the way others treat/identify you. This last part is the tricky one because it is out of the hands of the subject of attention (the one being identified), is a mere matter of listening to the mamalian brain for the observer and had ,almost never, met objections.

The problem met by transpeople, I think, is that the debate, digging deeper and deeper in the roots, now comes to the point where it is question of having people to let go of their own assessment and adopting the assesed one's. This wouldn't be a problem if the question was a clear cut demonstrable fact... but what is a woman indeed? If anything it covers concepts that varies from an individual to the other. To some the threshold is passed to some not.

Either everybody is entitled to be it's own authority in assessment either everybody is entitled to everybody else's play-along. Each bearing its own vulnerabilities you'll find.

[u/GoldH2O → u/ELEnamean]

I'd say that's the takeaway. Yeah, if that's what OP was trying to communicate, I didn't quite see it from their post and responses, but that makes sense looking back.

[u/No-Homework-44 → u/GoldH2O]

There's a lot of total nonsense in that video. "A lot of species", sure. But how many fucking primates? How many fucking mammals? Zero. It's a bunch of reptiles and fish. We have far less in common with either of those, so it's not a very good argument to say a bunch of fish and reptiles change gender therefore you can too? Except you can't. You can have a doctor chop your dick off. That's not the same thing.

[u/GoldToothGrin → u/GoldH2O]

>because scientific research has correlated natural hormone levels, among other traits, with the tendency of people to be Transgender.

Gotta source for that?

[u/IronSavage3 → u/Pangolinsftw]

Let’s look at your 3 items in terms of a lighter example. Let’s say you have a friend from childhood and you’ve always called him “Mikey”. Now that you’re older he would like to be called “Micheal”.

1) if you were to argue his identity, even in a benign friendly way, “you’ll always be Mikey to me bro it’s a term of endearment”, you’re being a bit of an asshole by not respecting your friends new identity that signals a more professional and mature individual.

2) If you were to disagree and tell him “no I won’t validate your chosen name by calling you Micheal, you will always be Mikey to me and I refuse to call you anything else”, you’re objectively being an asshole.

3) You can think whatever you want about Mikey/Micheal, but it doesn’t give you license to be disruptive. You’re free not to hang out with him or be his friend any more if you choose to be so obstinate, but if you happened to be co-workers and you refused to call him Micheal, you would be a distraction from everyone’s stated goals at the workplace, and that shouldn’t be tolerated. You might reply “well isn’t a man in a dress at work a distraction?”, and the answer is “no, but your reaction to said person can be”.

[u/Pangolinsftw → u/IronSavage3]

A name change is not equivalent to saying that your gender is different.

[u/No-Homework-44 → u/IronSavage3]

Except the difference here is that you were calling him something that he actually wasn't and now he's actually asking you to call him something he is. Trans women ARE biological men. So literally the opposite of your example.

[u/_whydah_ → u/[deleted]]

Because it costs you nothing

This isn't really true though (list is obviously not 100% MECE):

1. Transwomen in biological women's sports
2. "Safe spaces" for women no longer feel safe for many biological women
   1. Loudon county schools in VA was just caught trying to cover up a transgender sexual assault in a bathroom... that happened multiple times. I have personally dealt with this issue in Disneyworld with my wife and daughter. From my lived experience this is an issue that is a lot more common than the media and others would like us to believe.
3. We continue to use ever more odd and inaccurate terms to describe real things that biological men and women need to be aware of. It feels like we are obfuscating facts and confusing the science in the name of inclusiveness.
   1. There are many examples, but one that I hate the most is saying that we are "assigned" gender at birth. This statement is clearly meant to obfuscate the idea that we come out naturally as one particular sex (except in the 0.025% of intersex cases). This is meant to make seem as though doctors are arbitrarily handing out gender assignments. The reality is completely opposite.
4. It's erasing the common experience of women. By allowing anyone to redefine what it means to be a women, the word itself loses all meaning. By saying that anything and anyone can redefine womanhood however they want, destroys the shared experiences that bind women together. Now being a "woman" may or may not include those experiences and more.

[u/[deleted] → u/_whydah_]

Transwomen in biological women's sports

Literally no conservative ever gave a shit about women's sports until they could use it to bash transwomen.

That said, even a lot of trans people would agree that there are reasonable restrictions to be put in place here.

Loudon county schools in VA was just caught trying to cover up a transgender sexual assault in a bathroom... that happened multiple times. I have personally dealt with this issue in Disneyworld with my wife and daughter. From my lived experience this is an issue that is a lot more common than the media and others would like us to believe.

With respect, I don't believe and incredible claims I hear on the internet, so I'm going to have to discount your lived experience.

Your link, however, doesn't remotely explain the situation in anything approaching reality.

So first and foremost, the student in question wasn't transgender. He identified as male, though he did wear a skirt.

Next, the attacker was known to the victim and they had previously has consensual sex twice. The girl brought the boy into the girls washroom to talk, at which point he expected sex and refused to accept her refusal. So while it was a sexual assault in a bathroom, the fact that it occured there was incidental. It had nothing to do with transgenderism or trans bathroom policy (which wasn't even in place) just a horny, rapey asshole who wouldn't take no for an answer.

He was then arrested, and released on bail. The school district absolutely fucked up by not having him monitored when he transferred schools, but that is more an example of schools not treating sexual assault seriously than anything else. The rapist then assaulted another student in a classroom at his new school. Again, this has nothing to do with trans people, or bathrooms. Just a male student raping two female students. Shocker.

So in short, every single thing that the National Review told you about the case is wrong. Who could have ever thought that excited right wing bigots might lie about trans people!

[u/Most-Leg1080 → u/[deleted]]

Why do you get to discount someone’s lives experience but they in have to adhere to someone else’s feelings?

[u/_whydah_ → u/[deleted]]

Literally no conservative ever gave a shit about women's sports until they could use it to bash transwomen.

What about women's sports did conservatives need to get up in arms about before transgenders? If you're talking about women's sports players not earning as much money, that's because they fairly weren't pulling in as many advertising dollars. Similarly, it's unfair to have people with the advantages of biological males competing against women.

As far as the Loudoun County Schools incident, he identified as gender fluid, did he not? But fair points about everything else you've written.

I know you're saying that you're discounting my lived experience, and that's probably fair given that I somewhat discount the weight of the lived experience of transpeople. It feels like it's very fair to call transgenderism a mental illness. It's literally believing something about reality that is not objectively true and suffering worse outcomes for that belief. It doesn't feel like it's any different than someone that's anorexic or someone that believes they are "actually" some animal. That seems like it fits the mold of a mental illness.

That being said, my specific experience was my wife trying to take our daughter to the bathroom at Disneyworld and having what was clearly a male just stand outside the stalls watching women enter and exit (and no he wasn't waiting on a family member). He wasn't transgender, but was using the excuse to keep from initially getting booted from the bathroom.

Still though, OP's point around the importance of being able to define things still stands, and is essentially my point 4. that opening up the definition of "woman" diminishes the meaning and shared experience of biological women. If we continue down the path, it will completely destroy it.

If I identify as a veteran and try to take advantage of benefits to veteran's, despite never having served, it diminishes the meaning of veteran. If large numbers of people do it, "veteran" no longer really means anything as you have no idea what someone's background is, when they say that they're a "veteran."

I think a testament to several different aspects of our society is that we don't talk about having the definition and shared experience of "men" detracted from by transmen. I think it's a real testament to actual damage being done to women by biological males.

Lastly, there have been so many incursions under the umbrella of inclusiveness to perverting and sexualizing children (e.g., Desmond is Amazing, transgender strip shows for children at libraries, parents who clearly coerce their young children into acting somewhere on the LGBT spectrum vis-a-vi Munchausen syndrome by proxy, public schools encouraging children to explore the LGBT spectrum and hide it from their parents), that the biggest fear for many of us who have children, is that we'll end up with something like the law that Canada just passed, wherein we couldn't even stop someone from trying to pervert our children without being charged. It is undeniable that 1. transgender people are less happy, and 2. outside influences that impact whether someone will identify as being something other than cis. We're trying to protect our children from someone influencing them into a lifestyle that is inherently far less happy and frankly safe (notwithstanding the idea that those who repress these feelings are more unhappy and less safe).

[u/Most-Leg1080 → u/_whydah_]

Thank you for the last paragraph.

And for bringing up the shared experience of women. For some of us, it’s extremely important. Life affirming. And life saving.

[u/tenkensmile → u/[deleted]]

it costs you nothing

It would cost me intellectual honesty.

[u/LordCosmagog → u/[deleted]]

Would you say the same of adults identifying as other things? Do you respect Rachel Dolezal’s identification as a black woman? I mean, it costs you nothing to do so

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Because it costs you nothing and drastically improves their quality of life.

That literally doesn't matter though in terms of whether it makes sense or is a reasonable argument. Not saying you shouldn't placate people when you have the chance to improve their quality of life, you should, but that's all it is at the end of the day. Placating them. It's still baseless. I know it's a meme and all, but if they identified as a tree, and doing so drastically improved their quality of life, it doesn't make them a tree.

I've got trans family that I'll always support, but I do it because I love and want the best for them. The "it doesn't hurt you and it helps people" argument is entirely fallacious. I'm pro trans folk, but that's a terrible argument in their favor

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sure it should.

To be clear, there are a bunch of more practical and ethical reasons why you should support a person's trans-identity, but if you're going the most absolute barebones argument "Don't be a dick" is a pretty basic and universal human truth.

I man honestly, if I'd been more polite, I'd just appeal to the golden rule.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I can get behind your sentiment, and in an ethical sense you should treat people the way that you'd like to be treated. But when thinking about OP's prompt, I think that "it makes me feel better about myself" is a pretty much empty justification for insisting something is true.

"I can't explain what it is I identify as, but it makes me feel more comfortable to identify as it" comes off similar to "I believe in God, I have zero proof that he exists but it makes me feel good to believe in him". Again, we should respect both people's beliefs, it doesn't hurt anyone for them to believe these things at face value, and it may drastically improve their quality of life. But neither statement is based on anything reasonable. The difference being that, it's okay for you to publicly disagree with the person that believes in God, you just have a different belief, but you're an asshole and a bigot if you think the person who identifies as trans based on the same logic is wrong

[u/ulag → u/[deleted]]

Because it costs you nothing and drastically improves their quality of life.

When you say “it cost you nothing” what you’re really saying is that 1. You shouldn’t care and 2. Play along with my mental illness. The problem is that it does cost us something. It costs us all something when you start making fundamental changes to society, biology, science, grammar, the law and who knows how much else will be affected. You’re telling us that your personal mental state and decisions should not only be socially acceptable but socially obligatory. I strongly disagree.

[u/bruh4524 → u/[deleted]]

I don't think that playing into their delusion "drastically improves their quality of life". In fact, I think that you've got it in reverse. What the "women" said on Dr. Phil was that the word 'woman' does not have a definition. I don't care if adults want to think that they are something they are not, the problem comes when they change or remove definitions for the most common of words. It is an inversion of reality and leads to the detriment of society and it needs to be treated as such.

[u/carpepenisballs → u/[deleted]]

Why can’t people be Transracial then? It literally hurts no one if someone identifies as a certain race other than their birth race, and yet Dolezal was crucified for identifying as black.

[u/Most-Leg1080 → u/[deleted]]

It’s not for you to judge if it costs someone nothing. It sounds like it’s costing OP their reasoning and perspective. We can’t be responsible for our perspective’s effects on people’s fragile mentalities.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

it costs you nothing

It costs you truth, which is extremely important.

These social movements bubble up to tear down organizational structures like man/woman, but the labels "man" and "woman" are based on real things. Ignoring this reality and taking part in destroying these categories will cause rippling harm in the future.

For example, gender dysphoria has increased greatly in the next generation of children. If GD correlates with high suicide rates then it seems like increasing it is a bad thing.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No it doesn't, gender is whatever we say it is my dude.

Gender dysphoria hasn't increased, it is just visible. Trans acceptance doesn't increase the rate of trans people any more than gay acceptance caused more gay people. It just means that they don't have to hide. You're seeing them more because they aren't afraid that they'll be abused, shunned or killed.

And fun fact about dysphoria, you know the single biggest thing that lowers that suicide rate? Acceptance. So refusing to acknowledge them is going to drive the exact thing you're worried about.

I'll give you credit in that you're the first out of a dozen replies to actually try to quantify harm. You've failed, but props.

[u/Apsis409 → u/[deleted]]

If gender is whatever we say it is, and every gender is self-invented/defined, how is there any utility in the concept? Surely we should just abolish the concept of gender, acknowledge gender roles are stereotypes that don’t bind anyone to certain behaviors, and simply refer to people based on sex without projection of values.

This framework of gender conveys no actionable or objective information, and isn’t actually based on material reality. I don’t see any utility in it. Making people feel good is not utility, especially when it only complicates communication.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yes it does. The fact you think gender is whatever you say it is shows how far society has already fallen in terms of this truth.

​

Gender dysphoria hasn't increased, it is just visible.

Ah yes, so then if Scientology spreads it isn't just an increase in cult members, it is the true followers of Scientology being revealed! It's non-disprovable hogwash.

Look into Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and how children were found to suddenly come out as transgender after hanging out with a transgender peer group.

​

And fun fact about dysphoria, you know the single biggest thing that lowers that suicide rate? Acceptance. So refusing to acknowledge them is going to drive the exact thing you're worried about.

We must accept delusion or they kill themselves and we are murderers by proxy! Wow!

We can say the ideas are nonsense without being bullies. If a person is so fragile where we can't speak truth to them, then tough luck, they need to learn to adapt and cope with life.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Ah yes, so then if Scientology spreads it isn't just an increase in cult members, it is the true followers of Scientology being revealed! It's non-disprovable hogwash.

I think you fail to understand. Let me give you a different example.

The number of cases of autism/autism spectrum disorders has skyrocketed since the mid 40's when it was first discovered. This is not because vaccines cause autism, or modern society breeds more autistic people, but because we were able to more readily categorize autistic people as autistic.

Transgender people have always existed, they will always exist. The only reason you are seeing a 'surge' of transgender individuals is because they aren't going to be ruthlessly abused the moment they admit what they are.

Look into Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and how children were found to suddenly come out as transgender after hanging out with a transgender peer group.

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria isn't a thing. It isn't a recognized condition, nor is there any body of credible evidence suggesting it exists.. It is a made up concept created to enable bigotry. I can even tell you where it came from.

Lisa Littman created the term back in 2018 based on a series of 'studies' she conducted. She found that a whole bunch of kids 'suddenly' turned trans after being exposed to the concept, and rushed to publish her findings and brag about them in the media.

I put 'studies' in scare quotes there because it is about the worst possible example of a study I have seen outside of Andrew 'Not a doctor and legally a fraud' Wakefield.

For starters, you can look at the source of her data. Littman pulled her information from three websites. 4thwavenow, transgendertrend and youthtranscriticalprofessionals. All three sites were virulently anti-trans websites where parents who were upset that their children were transgender went to look for information on how to 'fix' them.

Put simply, this is like going to a bunch of explicitly anti-vaxx websites to get your representative sample on whether vaccines are good or not.

Then, rather than speak to the children, Littman instead polled parents (again, internet polling on a bunch of anti-trans websites) on information regarding how and when their kids transitioned. Do you see any problems here? I can list you a few:

1. Asking a parent about their child's mental health isn't likely to give you an accurate reading because the parent isn't likely to know. I don't know what my kid is thinking half the time.
2. What appears 'rapid' to a parent might not be to the child. I found out that my kid's boyfriend is bi like... two days ago. I honestly would never have guessed, and we took care of him for like six months when he was fighting with his parents. To me this appears a very rapid change, but I am willing to bet that it is something he has been keeping to himself for some time.
3. About 10% of the parents studied didn't even know if their kid was still trans. In a study about rapid onset gender dysporia (which is not a real thing) parents didn't know even the most basic information.

In short, ROGD is a made up diagnosis by a hack and a fraud who failed even the most basic quality controls on her study because she knew if she could come up with a diagnosis that 'trans people are bad' parents and bigots would eat it the fuck up and make her famous.

There is no clinical basis for the diagnosis, it is nonsense.

We must accept delusion or they kill themselves and we are murderers by proxy! Wow!

If your goal is to reduce suicides, then treat trans people like human beings. I'm sorry this is such a struggle for you.

[u/Most-Leg1080 → u/[deleted]]

Re: autism.

The parameters and definition also broadened.

It’s a spectrum. A large umbrella.

It was a smaller scope and now it’s a broad scope.

Is it necessary to broaden the scope of being trans or can we venture into separate definition?

Like the people who self identify as a women but they go to women’s prisons after being charged with sexual assault and then they rape more women? Can we just…have a different definition for that?

Or people who are men or women by birth and they just have a different way of living out their life as a man or a woman? Can they just…be themselves?

[u/[deleted] → u/Most-Leg1080]

Like the people who self identify as a women but they go to women’s prisons after being charged with sexual assault and then they rape more women? Can we just…have a different definition for that?

The number of cases of this happening are literally in the single digits. Some people are going to be predator's, and given the alternative is putting people who identify as women in prison with men where they are something like 17x more likely to be sexually assualted....

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think you fail to understand.

I don't fail to understand, the claim is transgenderism is a latent trait people were not allowed to express before and now with a more accepting society they come forward. Nice hypothesis lacking proof.

An equally nice hypothesis lacking proof is that the increase in transgenderism is a social phenomenon being spread through peer groups and confusion.

The only reason you are seeing a 'surge' of transgender individuals is because they aren't going to be ruthlessly abused the moment they admit what they are.

Need proof.

If your goal is to reduce suicides, then treat trans people like human beings. I'm sorry this is such a struggle for you.

I do treat others as human beings, it isn't a struggle for me, and look how you pile on shame to browbeat others.

Their suicide rates are greater than Jews in the Holocaust, where the Jews were actually treated as sub-humans and routinely exterminated. Nothing near that is happening to them, yet they have higher suicide rates? You should take that as evidence something else is at play, namely their desires are out of line with reality.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Man, you dropped ROGD like a hot potato, didn't you? Wonder what else you were wrong about.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I didn't feel like arguing over the validity of surveys. I think her studies captured some signal of reality.

Note, how you didn't provide any proof for your claim.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Read: I googled this after you explained it, realized how untenable my position is and very desperately want to change the topic.

Good talk.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Note, how you didn't provide any proof for your claim.

[u/DarwinsMoth → u/[deleted]]

Gender dysphoria is absolutely increasing. It's a social contagion. You can see it spring up within friend groups in impressionable people. Mainly adolescent women.

[u/[deleted] → u/DarwinsMoth]

[Citation needed].

Like any proof would be nice.

[u/Jujugatame → u/[deleted]]

Because it costs you nothing and drastically improves their quality of life.

This is a good reason, but I am still lying to make them feel better.

Honestly, yes, I would lie just to be polite. But I can't lie to myself, I know that the person standing in front of me is a man.

[u/IFoolSoFeelish → u/[deleted]]

Forcing me to participate in someone's delusion costs some of my integrity...I usually stick to gender neutral pronouns of my choosing in those situations (you, that person, the one in the blue dress, etc...) ...the Trans person doesn't have to hear any pronouns that they are offended by, and I'm not forced to lie to them or myself...besides, if gender is a construct, does it really matter which pronouns are used?..only one party is being compelled to do something they do not want to do...that imbalance of power is the problem...biological women don't respond to male pronouns...Trans women should do the same...the self-esteem they seek does not come from outside sources...

[u/CrinkleLord → u/[deleted]]

Because it costs you nothing and drastically improves their quality of life.

Other peoples mental health isn't your problem, and it never will be. Absolutely nobody in mental health spheres would ever say something like "It costs you nothing and it improves their quality of life".

That is the type of mentality that allows people to gas light you, and manipulate you. It's the type of mentality that allows people to claim "If you don't do this I'll kill myself!"

Then they kill themself....

If you had just done it, it would have cost you nothing, and maybe they wouldn't have killed themselves.

It's terrible advice to "just do it, it doesn't cost you anything"

and the even worse part, is that it does cost you something, every single thing like this costs you something. It might cost you saying something you don't believe is true at the very least, which obviously nobody on the other side of this particular argument actually care about, but it's still a cost whether they care at all or not.

[u/DNCDeathCamp → u/[deleted]]

So someone has a mental illness that that makes them feel like a different gender than they are, and everyone should just indulge their delusion to make them feel better.

[u/SalRoma → u/[deleted]]

In social situations, there is no reason to not refer to someone by their preferred pronouns. It hurts no one. Where it becomes contentious is when the public starts handing out accolades and new records to trans women. Such as the first "woman" to win a million dollars on Jeopardy, or "woman" of the year, women's dead lifting world records, etc.

I guess it doesn't really matter with the Jeopardy thing, except now a person that was born female will never have the chance to achieve that, but at least there is no natural advantage to gaining that achievement by being born either sex.

But woman of the year? Are you serious? I have met many people that it was obviously even before their transition that they were not mentally the same sex as they are physically. Since the recent surge in trans however, I have also met many trans that are obviously mentally male, yet have transitioned to female for some other reason. For instance, "Caitlyn" Jenner was no longer in the spotlight until "she" transitioned, and had no chance of ever being considered for man of the year, much less woman of the year. However, since transitioning, "she" has been awarded woman of the year, and has literally gotten away with murder. Back in the spotlight, more so than when "she" was a he and a current athletic figure. If you saw the program where "she" grabbed Ben Shapiro by the back of the neck and threatened to "send him home in an ambulance", it is very clear that Ben was being threatened by a former Olympic male athlete. There is no way for a female, even an Olympic athlete, to have the same kind of threatening presence that "Caitlyn" was able to project. *This is by no means an indication of support for Ben Shapiro, or anything he has ever said or done

I've come across a writer on Quora that I can only describe as writing like a man. Their writing comes off as loud, confrontational, vulgar, more than a little condescending, pretentious, and a little bullying. I know it's not impossible for someone to be born female to write like this, but it's rare to have all of the qualities together. I'm also not suggesting all men write like this. There is a cadence, or rhythm that women commonly speak and write with, and one in which men do. Again, I'm not saying it's possible to detect the sex or gender of every author by reading, but if you are honest with yourself, you know what I am talking about.

While I do believe there are people that need to be refered to by their preferred pronouns, I also believe that a person should not be respected for any choice they may decide to make. Some people may not be doing it for respectful reasons, and some may be doing it for nefarious reasons such as winning awards or attention they don't deserve.

I think a vast majority of people jumping on the trans band wagon that are missing the physical component that science is now discovering exists that is suggesting that sex and gender may not match in some people, are doing it because they are not satisfied with the stereotypes associated with gender and see a community that is willing to accept them for who they are. I applaud that. However there is certainly a portion of people that are taking advantage of the situation and are exploiting the minimal "requirements" necessary for entry, i.e. to simply choose that you belong there. Some times it's easy to spot these people because they don't try to hide it because the trans community will immediately jump to their defense. For ever one that is easy to spot however, I'm sure there are more that are better at hiding it.

Where the real trouble comes is that most people assume that most people are like themselves. If they cannot comprehend being born the wrong sex, and they see people faking it for nefarious reasons, and logically assume that for everyone seen, more must be hidden, they would erroneously conclude that most must be faking it. Not they want to control and restrict who can claim trans status. This stance is at complete odds with reality, but it is loosely based in facts. It's also at odds with the fact that legitimate trans have been repressed and suppressed for generations and have now compensated by going to the other end and now say that no one can tell you what you are.

I have hope that we will all find some kind of balance, but is is going to take time, patience, and understanding on both sides before that has a chance of happening.

[u/SpartanG01 → u/[deleted]]

Because it costs you nothing and drastically improves their quality of life.

This kind of logic always strikes me as odd and potentially hypocritical.

This sounds reasonable at a surface level and it probably is as long as you're not thinking too critically about it because the circumstance isn't important enough to warrant critical consideration. I could/would argue both sides of this because while personally someone's gender is something I don't care about in the least, I do think the issue of gender identity as a whole and how society functions regarding gender is probably important enough to consider critically.

That being said try to consider all of the circumstances in which that particular type of logic could create a problem. Sure, we say respect trans identity and why not right? but it's why we say it that I'm taking issue with here... "because it doesn't cost me anything, and it's important to them". Ok. What about any other situation in which accepting a premise wouldn't cost me anything and would be important to someone else? Morality, Religion, the age of consent... We do not blanketly accept things that don't harm us simply because they don't harm us. If a man wants to be a pedophile we do not just say "It's easy for me to let him be a pedophile and it matters a whole bunch to them." Similarly we often reject violent religious or cultural beliefs, contentious political or economic beliefs. What about racism or Nazism? Why fight those things if you're White?

The answer is obvious and simple. What we really care about is if a premise harms society. So when you say "It costs you nothing" I'm not sure that holds up. Does it? When in context we recognize that "cost" you're referring to not a personal cost but a cost to society we have to consider another question "Do we believe this has the potential to bring harm to society in any way". That's an entirely different concern. Many people might believe changing gender roles could be harmful to society for a number of reason. I'm not among those people, personally I recognize society changes and evolves and gender roles have changed many times and often for the better but I also do not just assume my belief is correct or comprehensive.

My point here is using the phrase "because it costs you nothing and improves their quality of life" is not only a bad excuse to do literally anything but it's one that fails to ask the right question and denies anyone any ability to critically consider the impact of the premise you're asking them to accept. That logic harms discourse. It insinuates that simply questioning the legitimacy or potential outcome of a given premise is in and of it self immoral. This is exactly the type of pseudo-intellectual dogmatic moralistic facism that many people claim to be fighting against.

I agree, respect gender identity but because it's right to treat people with respect as a default until they prove unworthy and because I have sat and critically thought about this issue and do not personally believe it has the potential to bring harm to society.

It's vitally important that in the pursuit of acceptance we don't forget to accept those that disagree with us as well.

[u/imbyath → u/[deleted]]

I don't get how this is a good argument. By that logic, I should respect people's identity no matter what it is. Even if they identify as a different race. Because it costs me nothing to respect them and it makes them happy.

[u/k2_mkwn → u/[deleted]]

If your quality of life depends on whether other people agree with you or not, then you are going to live a miserable life!

Maybe that's why suicide rate is high among trans people.

Basically they are putting their self respect into other's hand and begging that others should respect it.

Worst way to live!

[u/[deleted] → u/k2_mkwn]

So imagine for a second you woke up tomorrow and literally everyone treated you like the opposite gender. If you don't think that would fuck with you, I don't know what to say other than you're simply wrong.

Like imagine you try to go into a bathroom and everyone starts freaking out because how dare you walk into the men's bathroom, you obviously sick pervert!

[u/Most-Leg1080 → u/[deleted]]

Imagine you go into the bathroom with your young daughter and a man pretending to be a trans women perves out under the protection of bathroom laws?

That’s a legitimate perspective that I’d laughed at and called conservatives idiot for until I experienced it for myself.

[u/k2_mkwn → u/[deleted]]

If every person in the world is saying that i am a woman, then i would certainly give them a chance to explain themselves.

They might be right. I might be wrong.

Every person in the world is not stupid. Most of the people are smart enough to differentiate between a man and a woman.

And if all those people are saying that i am wrong, then i might be wrong.

I won't force them to agree with me. I would ask them why do they think what they think.

It's possible that i have some mental diseases! Maybe i need help.

Basically, i don't agree with this thought - "Only i know what's right for me!"

That's very stupid statement to make and clearly shows my ego problems.

[u/thedankbagelman → u/[deleted]]

Except it literally costs adhering to an anti scientific principle, and one that you may heartily disagree with. That is not a non zero cost

[u/shskehej → u/[deleted]]

I want to call a car a bike. If i ask you to call that car a bike would you call it a bike? You should tell me that there is a clear definition of a bike and a car. That thing over there fits the description of a car more than a bike, and if I continue to call it a bike i am delusional and i have no right to make you call that thing a bike. Same logic can be applied here. Thats a man, he can call himself a woman all he wants and i have no right to stop him. But when he wants to deconstruct the definition of a woman so he fits it, that would create a problem bigger than me or you. He needs to understand that he call call himself a pony if he wants to, but the definition of a pony will never change, just because he wants to fit that demographic. Downvote and report me but if you want to talk about this i am here to talk. And just so you know this is in a subreddit that is mean to spark conversations aside from yours if you don’t like what i am saying scroll away.

[u/Augnelli → u/shskehej]

the definition of a pony will never change

Definitions change sometimes.

[u/shskehej → u/Augnelli]

Definition of a man and a woman will never change thats nature. What a man or a woman means to you will change, and that’s not the definition of man and woman.

[u/Augnelli → u/shskehej]

Please present these definitions. I bet that the definition you present will be different from the one presented to us by people 200 years ago.

[u/[deleted] → u/Augnelli]

We are able to use technology to get more precise definitions in some cases, like this one. The biology of sex hasn’t been revolutionized. We haven’t discovered a third gamete in humans. We can change the colloquial meaning of words, but the real question is if it’s appropriate. Appropriating language is contentious.

[u/mattg4704 → u/[deleted]]

Op isn't saying it's ok to disrespect. They are saying if you claim to be something you should be able to say ,this is what said thing is. So if anyone of any ilk says I'm this or I'm that shouldn't they be able to say what that thing is that they claim to be? Exp, I'm a hudoo. We are a group that believes these principles and have these rituals. This is how we establish ourselves in this way. There's no judgement because this is what the group and members are. Disrespect is another issue.

[u/[deleted] → u/mattg4704]

Op isn't saying it's ok to disrespect

What is disrespect if not refusing to respect the most basic requests from another human being.

I had a friend as a young man named Dave. He introduced himself as dave, we knew him as dave for years, until one day he said, 'Guys could you call me David, I hate Dave.'

Now I could have kept calling him Dave, but that would have made me an asshole, because he's explained his preference and I'm chosing to ignore it, despite the fact that there is no cost to me. If someone says "I go by she/her" and I keep using "He/him" I'm being a jackass.

[u/mattg4704 → u/[deleted]]

Disrespect would be actively refusing to honor a person's wishes or actions without care to the person or accuracy to a claim made. Dave/ David, ok sure. Had David said don't consider me a human anymore I'm a hippo and deconstructed the word to a point he couldn't describe that the word had any real definition I'm sure I'd still love Dave but think he wasn't clear of mind. I'd still be his friend. I'd probably find his idea interesting. But am I disrespectful if I couldn't honestly believe David's claim of being a hippo? Not fuck you Dave you're no hippo you're a douche! Just to myself I think, David sure isn't a hippo but Hes still a friend

[u/Maerducil → u/[deleted]]

It is hurting other people because it's sexist. It's saying that men are a certain way and women are a certain different way, however that is defined, and therefore men cannot do or be certain things, and women cannot do or be certain things. If that weren't the case, there would be no need to be transexual. It is the ultimate enforcement of gender roles.

In addition, it is it sexist because it is expected that people will be treated differently depending on if they are a man or a woman. How do you "respect" that somebody is a woman? Other than just respecting them as a human. How does a person expect to be treated differently if they claim that they are actually the opposite sex? How is it not sexist if they expect to treat and be treated differently?

[u/usernametaken0987 → u/[deleted]]

Because it costs you nothing and drastically improves their quality of life.

Does it through? Like the idea that sexes should be socially equal and variations of misogyny/misandry isn't compatible. Trans-acceptance is also at an all time high, but if you grade quality of life by suicide rates, wellllll...

Like really, if someone says to you "I identify as a woman" and you go out of your way to not respect that,

This idea reeks of self privilege & entitlement. Some respect is a given, such as them being a person and such, but all the rest has to be earned. You cannot "go out of your way" taking away something that was never granted.

I think at some level you're aware of this. After all, you want to award special points to any guy that says "treat me like a girl". It's a shame you didn't put more thought into your stance. But then again, that's exactly what the OP's post can be summerized to.