Gender vs. sex & other transsexual discussions

When we try to apply language that's based on a binary paradigm to a more complex situation, language will fail. Try talking about N dimensional physics if all you have is a high school geometry textbook.

Jds4med - My thoughts exactly, in fact I had just logged back in to add that to my previous comment. The English language is a language that presupposes a gender binary, which is false. This is therefore a language that is oppressive and requires revision.

How would you like to differentiate sex and gender?

Surely there is a difference between someone born male or female from someone who was surgically or hormonally altered to look like the other.

A BMW does not become an Audi because you threw a different body on the chassis.

How would you like to differentiate sex and gender?

Surely there is a difference between someone born male or female from someone who was surgically or hormonally altered to look like the other.

A BMW does not become an Audi because you threw a different body on the chassis.

No, but a Volkswagen does 😉

This is why the LGBT community has created new terms for the various gender identities.

Susie,

Easy. We identify people as the gender they identify themselves as- not as the gender that society and society's conventional version of language tries to impose on them.

You need to give it a rest with the analogies. Hair color, cars, whatever. You yourself said that semantics are not your thing. Your analogies don't prove your point, they prove your confusion.

I ask again,

1--how do you differentiate between sex and gender

2--how do you differentiate between a person BORN a given sex and one ALTERED by surgery and/or hormones and/or clothes to appear like the other?

Certainly there IS a difference.

I ask again,

1--how do you differentiate between sex and gender

2--how do you differentiate between a person BORN a given sex and one ALTERED by surgery and/or hormones and/or clothes to appear like the other?

Certainly there IS a difference.

1 - You create new linguistic tools AND don't talk about genetics (X/Y combinations) and gender identity at the same time,

2 - Why do you need to? (Except in medicine where genetics and vestigial organs count)

You obviously don't have an answer to and are skirting my questions.

If I gave you a million dollars in cash wouldn't you care if it was printed by the US Mint or by me?

You obviously don't have an answer to and are skirting my questions.

If I gave you a million dollars in cash wouldn't you care if it was printed by the US Mint or by me?

It's because your questions are nonsequitur.

I ask again,

1--how do you differentiate between sex and gender

2--how do you differentiate between a person BORN a given sex and one ALTERED by surgery and/or hormones and/or clothes to appear like the other?

Certainly there IS a difference.

I ask again,

1--how do you differentiate between sex and gender

-------OK, you don't want to answer that question.

2--how do you differentiate between a person BORN a given sex and one ALTERED by surgery and/or hormones and/or clothes to appear like the other?

Certainly there IS a difference.

I think the real question is WHEN does it make a difference?

There are diseases that are genetically linked to gender, that matters. There are vestigial organs after SRS, that matters medically. There are pharmaceuticals involved, that matters. There are created and altered anatomic structures, that matters medically.

Nothing else matters except how the person identifies.

So there ARE differences related to SEX--the body determined by the chromosomes that matter. One born one way is not the same as another that has been "converted". One is NOT the same as the other. You are saying you may have to treat a woman (would you call them female?) for the disease of a man and vice-versa..

One other thing, why do you keep using the word "gender" for everything instead of the word "sex" where male and female is the question?

Susie I think the answer to your question is that if someone transitions from one sex to the other, they are trans. Male to female is a trans woman. Female to male is a trans man. Trans is Latin for across. Then there are people whose gender coincides with the gender assigned to them at birth based on their sex. They are known as cisgender. Cis is Latin for on this side of. So we differentiate by saying either cisgender or transgender.

Once again, by the way, your analogy does not apply. I am talking about your example of money and counterfeit money. A trans woman is a woman, a cis woman is a woman, a trans man is a man, a cis man is a man. One is just as real as another.

What analogy are you going to use next? Something about a skunk falling in love with a cat that has a stripe painted down its back? You are looking everywhere but the matter at hand, and it's ridiculous. It's clear that you care more about winning an argument than learning something. You discredit yourself with such disregard for the truth.

2--how do you differentiate between a person BORN a given sex and one ALTERED by surgery and/or hormones and/or clothes to appear like the other?

The possibility, the technical ability to do this, hasn't been in existence long enough for language to have evolved a clear consensus on which words and terms to use. These are new concepts, confusion will reign for quite some time until everyone begins to agree on what the best words are.

New knowledge and new technical abilities create the need for new words with new specific meanings. In the questions of transsex and cisgender and changing gender/sex, all of this involves language that wasn't even in existence some decades ago. We are still in the stage where nothing is fixed and so much is fluid and evolving.

And what about people who are disgusted by all these possibilities? And there are indeed many of these. They will (actively) push back and refuse to use certain terms because they are laden with meaning - acceptance or rejection.

I predict yet more confusion and disagreement on what sex/gender specific words mean. Language always evolves and changes.

Language DOES need stability and more purity than it has had recently. If it constantly changes, how can we possibly communicate if people keep changing what the words mean?

I think you'd feel more comfortable had you been born a francophone. Your arguments above come right out of the school of thought espoused by the Academie Francaise and other venerable institutions in that country ... ha ha. The use of French is very rigid and controlled from above, by official institutions and as we all know, institutions do not like change.

But reality is change, evolution and innovation, also backsliding and regression. But always change. Especially since the concepts discussed here weren't even concepts some decades ago, they being virtually impossible in a techno-biological sense. Many of the words in use today on this subject aren't even a century old. No wonder nothing is fixed and set.

Consider for instance this quote from wiki on the the work of Magnus Hirschfeld:

He developed a system which categorised 64 possible types of sexual intermediary ranging from masculine heterosexual male to feminine homosexual male, including those he described under the word he coined "Transvestit" (transvestite), which covered people who in the 21st century might be classified as transgender or transsexual.

Or an example from popular American culture. In old 'Our Gang' shorts, Alfalfa is always 'making love' to Darla. Eeck! Wtf? They weren't even 12 years old in the movies ... until you realize back then the term meant 'courting'.

Or when the BEF went to war in 1914 and sang about Paddy O thinking everyone in London was gay. Really? London full of inverts (the term used back then instead of gay)? Of course not, it meant simply 'loose morals'

These are all such new terms that nothing is yet fixed. And things will keep changing in the future as well.

But that's what makes English such a great language. It's plasticity. It's ever changing subtleties.

But that's what makes English such a great language. It's plasticity. It's ever changing subtleties.

Right.

And also why so many other other languages copy English words and phrases and idioms. French police movies are full of English (not that you'd recognize the pronunciation though ... ha ha). Cops chase 'serial killers', they are having a 'break' when they take a few days off and so on ...

And English is shameless thief. It takes, borrows and assimilates words from all over. Just try doing that in Dutch and the discussions will drag on and on for decades and then ultimately they will come up with a ridiculous sounding, but ever so linguistically correct Dutch term, just to keep their precious language pristine pure.

You guys sometimes don't appreciate the sheer inventiveness of English. Yes, it can cause confusion because of the fast changes, but the fun you can have ...

But that's what makes English such a great language. It's plasticity. It's ever changing subtleties.

English stinks as a language for exactly those reasons. It has very poor consistency and it is too easily changed, partly, maybe largely because people are too stupid to follow the rules or to read a dictionary for correct usage.

There are so many exceptions to the rules, there might as well not be any. French is MUCH better in that regard. My French is lousy, but grammar follows the rules with very few exceptions.

If you want a new word, make a new word and see if it catches on. DON'T bastardize an existing word by changing its meaning.

OK, It's bedtime for me now. I will have more to say tomorrow when I am awake.

English stinks as a language for exactly those reasons. It has very poor consistency and it is too easily changed, partly, maybe largely because people are too stupid to follow the rules or to read a dictionary for correct usage.

This is because English is used by such a variety of people, cultures, nations and groups the world over. If it were not such an attractive language to use, mainly because of it loose rules and no controlling and admonishing linguistic institutions, then it is doubtful so many diverse people would have adapted it.

Yes, there is lots of anarchy in English. But it has nothing to do with people being stupid. It is because English allows a large latitude in how it can be used, adapted, changed and fit to specific purposes. You should read some of Bill Bryson's early books, like 'Mother Tongue' which is a hilarious and endearing romp through the many vagaries and inconsistencies of the English language. It helps understand why English is such a versatile and yet also such a subtly precise language.

So there ARE differences related to SEX--the body determined by the chromosomes that matter. One born one way is not the same as another that has been "converted". One is NOT the same as the other. You are saying you may have to treat a woman (would you call them female?) for the disease of a man and vice-versa..

One other thing, why do you keep using the word "gender" for everything instead of the word "sex" where male and female is the question?

Why gender? Because I use sex for an act. Gender is a description.

Yes, there are differences. For example, a MtF can still get prostate cancer because they still have a prostate. It may be significantly atrophied due to hormones, but it's there. (It's also a mind bender to give a transvaginal prostate massage.)

As for labels (you know how I despise labels), a woman (female) or man (male) is, in this case, a state of being, not an absolute. There would be a very different description of the person (psychosocial) versus the body (anatomy). Once involved with folks in this community, you realize how unimportant the bits are compared to the person.

BTW, thank you Susie (?) for separating this from the other thread with the offensive name.

@Jds: I split the thread last night.

RESPECT is all important. Respect for all, not just those and that which you like.

Fifty years ago, Bob Dylan admonished us "Don't criticize what you can't understand." I always found the word choice "Can't" instead of "don't" to be telling.

@Jds: I split the thread last night.

Then thank you!

For example, what does Bruce Jenner think is going to be different about his life now that he dresses like a girl? Sure, he gets to be on a lot of talk shows and he makes money doing all his transsexual interviews and photoshoots. He says he likes sex with women, he still has his cock and balls, and has had body sculpting and takes hormones to look like a woman, but HE STILL HAS A Y CHROMOSOME. You can have ANY NUMBER of X chromosomes as a genetic defect, and you may have poorly or undifferentiated sex organs, but you're still a MALE. Likewise, Chastity Bono went from female to male, but Chaz still has a vagina. I fail to see how Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner or Chastity/Chaz Bono can function as heterosexuals

I tend to agree. I just don't understand the whole concept of "transgenderism".

Bruce/Caitlyn is certainly the best current example of how ridiculous it is to me. he has all the money and resources anyone could want, but still refuses to give up hir penis and testicles. That alone makes me disbelieve hir motivations for the entire process. How anyone can claim to be "transgender" without removing the primary sex organs (uterus & ovaries, in the case of female-male) is beyond my comprehension. if it's not permanent, it's a long-term experiment. Transvestitism + hormones + "body sculpting" still = transvestitism.

Bringing "transgenderism" of prepubescent kids into elementary school is even more ridiculous, IMO. Role-playing is one thing, but pretending to recognize a boy as a "real" girl is beyond ridiculous at that age.

The next step in PCness is Obama/Carter's latest announcement to bring transgenderism into the military. Just the ongoing psychological disruptions inherent in the "transgender" process should be disqualifying!

I know multiple TG people who don't get 'bottom' surgery. There can be many reasons - money, function and health are just a few. One MtF couldn't because of coronary disease. Many FtM folks won't because of function. The surgically created penis is frequently nonfunctional. These people treasure their sexuality.

Anything written about Caitlin Jenner is not necessarily factual. If it didn't come out of her mouth, it's suspect.

Your comments about TG folks show a high level of ignorance, especially your comments about children. It's one thing not to be able to grok, it's another to be resistant to knowledge.

The next step in PCness is Obama/Carter's latest announcement to bring transgenderism into the military. Just the ongoing psychological disruptions inherent in the "transgender" process should be disqualifying!

The military doesn't always benefit from being made up of John Wayne clones ... differing points of view can result in beneficial and innovative input.

And continuously calling something ridiculous is just giving an opinion, not formulating an argument ... besides, things that are new are often thought to be ridiculous at first ...

@ intruder: I feel your confusion & difficulty with the concepts and terms. IMHO much of the discussion on this thread may be resolved by realizing that there is a spectrum, from a 'normal' male to an XY person who believes she's really a woman and has had body sculpting and genital re-assignment surgery, has a stable sexual relationship with a man. If one just likes to play with women's clothes and realizes he's a man, he could be a cross-dresser, transvestite. Another person has discarded men's clothes, wears jewelry, makeup and in life functions as a woman socially. Further along are persons who have had body sculpting--face, breasts--and so are permanently out of functioning as men socially, but have penises and have rectal sex. Maybe such a person could have orientation and sex with women. IMHO trans people are all on a journey from one end to the other. Some have arrived and most are in between; many are happy being in between. How you label the person is the controversy.