Improper questions, but understandable given the changing notions and thus language. Properly asked, is a biologically male body with a biologically female brain a man or a woman. And even then we science has not yet linked whether gender resides in the mind or the brain. These are not automatically linked. However, your question can be applied to the issue of a chimera where the initial twins were a male/female fraternal twin set. You question makes an assumption that every time that such a situation occurs, the individual will identify as the same gender each time. The question cannot be answered because one person fitting that criteria might identify as a man, and the other as a woman.
This is making an assumption that would deny the existence of sexual orientation. Otherwise, gay males would have their bodies attracted to females. While the first statement is true with regards to transgenders, and some non-binaries, the second one is stereotyping. There are transwomen out there who don't want to wear what is currently stereotypical women's clothing. But even many cis women are not wearing such clothing. NOT a result of female brain in male body. That would only be a result of negative reinforcement from others. If all the person received was positive reinforcement, that fear would not be present. You are conflating transgender with intersex. While yes intersex might be one source of transgenderism, there is nothing so far linking it definitively.
That means nothing. People disagreed with the premise of the heliocentric model above the geocentric.
Do they believe the kid when they say they can fly or shoot laser beams from their eyes? Don't get me wrong, I am all for parents supporting their children when they figure out what gender they are. But that isn't evidence of the existence of gender itself.
Definition of gender (Entry 1 of 2) 1a: a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms ... The words sex and gender have a long and intertwined history. In the 15th century gender expanded from its use as a term for a grammatical subclass to join sex in referring to either of the two primary biological forms of a species, ... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender The concept of gender has been around for hundreds of years. Long enough to have an existence.
Go find us a 1950s version of webster and then you might be more credible. webster has been playing the PC game and scrubbing away all the old definitions in favor of new ones to comply with the times.
What does something of 70 yrs ago have to do with today? We don't have black and white tv anymore. We even have this fancy invention today called a microwave. We've evolved.
No disagreement here. What is happening now is that "gender" is being separated, outside of the clinical or scientific use, from "sex" (Ref: the body) and applied to identity. Yant0s' premise is not that the word and its past uses don't or haven't existed, but that the new concept of identity, that the word is now being applied to, doesn't exist. Let me put it this way. When my stepson was growing up, he claimed to have Sight. Not in so many words, mind you. He claimed to see things that happened to match descriptions of things like Brownies and other Fae. And not all of them were ones we had exposed them to yet at that time. Being, let's say not non-believers, in such matters, we choose to believe him in it. But that didn't mean that Sight truly exists. Even thought the word "sight" and other meanings still and have existed.
You seem to misunderstand how dictionaries work. They are not what decides the definition of words. They are the reflection of what words currently mean to society. That is why you will find in many words definitions that are listed as Archaic. The common use of the word has changed and while the old definition is still technically valid, it is no longer used. Gay is a perfect example. Some other common examples and their old meanings: abroad: out of doors bedlam: an asylum bumper: a generous glass of an alcoholic drink compass: encircle or surround conjure: implore (someone) to do something discover: divulge (a secret) estate: a particular state, period, or condition in life freak: a whim intelligence: news meet: suitable or proper And this is just a sampling words we still use today in common language that have completely different meanings than before. In some cases, like "discover", the words still uses the older meaning as well as the newer ones. In other cases, the definition has gone onto other words or variations thereof. Encircle or surround is now the definition of the word "encompass", which we can, in this case, clearly see the lingual evolution of. So no, Webster and the other major dictionaries are not playing PC games. They are reflecting the current language as commonly used, no matter how much you don't like that the common uses have changed.
It is not being separated outside of the clinical or scientific use. transgender has been around for a long time. Transgender people have been around near as long as humanity has been around. The change from male to female isn't a hard binary transition is on an analog/sliding scale. Genes/hormones/organs occasionally get crossed/mixed up. We have masculine males. Feminine males. Feminine females, masculine females. And a whole host of in betweens.
I don't think you are understanding what I am trying to say, and maybe that is on me. Yes the people to whom we apply the current label of "transgender" have always been among us, but we didn't always recognize it, first as a whole and then later as a normal statistically uncommon occurence, much like being left handed is. The label itself, transgender, is a relatively recent term and label, replacing transsexual, which is no becoming the common term to refer someone who has undergone SRS, instead of of all transgenders as a whole. There is a world of difference between the condition and the word or words used to describe or label it. The word "gender" is indeed being used outside of medical and scientific use, in the common language, as a label for the identity of a person as opposed to their physical body. This is not a new thing. "Pedophile" and related words, for example, is now commonly used to refer to any adult who is sexually attracted to or engages in sexual activity with anyone legally a minor. This despite the fact that clinically, "pedophilia" is only those attracted to, regardless of engaging with, pre pubescent children, and is found nowhere in law. Likewise "gay" has evolved from meaning festive and joyful, to a homosexual slur, to a homosexual label. This is basic lingual evolution. And yes we have masculine women who still identify as women. Being "masculine" has nothing to do with their gender.
Interesting points as always. I've enjoyed reading your perspective. I do agree about what you said about labels, yes we do use them as shorthand to briefly discribe something, but it still doesn't confirm gender to exist. I'm still holding firm on my belief that there is sex and beyond that there is simply the individual. I don't think we should be sticking labels on ourselves. Gender would need to be on a scale and literally EVERYONE would be the exact same lable "gender fluid" as we would constantly be moving around the scale as feeling, experiences and thought changes. This is why it can't exist, only the individual. I'll pretend it exists.... So how could you even measure the constant waves of feeling and identify the % of masculinity and femininity a person is feeling at any give time to ensure the label is factually correct? and is the idea of gender just be a feeling , like happy , sad, angry?
I get where you are coming from, but I think you are trying to pin it down just a little too exact. Think of it this way. We could apply this same thinking to sexual attraction. But given that it is the extremely rare person that is attracted to all of their proclaimed sex/gender (Westermarck Effect aside), we'd be in that same position of looking at a scale. Plus there are people, who are more attracted to gender than to sex. I will put myself in that category. I had a transwoman girlfriend a few years back. Pre-op at that. Sadly it didn't get far before she took a real good job several hours away. And I have seen transmen, pre-op, who have in no way attracted me. So do we call sexual attraction not real as well?
I would say we are attracted to the individual and sexuality labels are different, they are simply there to discribe who/what physicalities we are willing to have sex with (for whatever reason). Regarding attraction I think the lines blur more than many would like to admit.
Didn’t read through the whole thread, just wanted to drop my take. Sex is biological. Gender is societal. While we can certainly associate certain phenotypes with one gender or another, socially it is so much more than that. The clothes we wear, the way we act, the things we enjoy and do, etc. These all inform our understanding of gender. Considering these are not hard and fast biological imperatives, I don’t see a point in getting hung up on gender. I find it to be a useful tool in social interactions, mostly because the majority of people prescribe to it, but it doesn’t hold any intrinsic value
Gender is also biological. There are women with XY DNA and men with XXY DNA. Transpeople have brains that conform to their chosen Gender Identity rather than the Sex of their genitals. The SRY gene plays a Gender role in that it is directly linked to aggression/maternal instincts. You are correct that the clothes we wear and the way we act are societal issues. So was Gay marriage and yet society adapted. Nothing stopping society from adapting to enable men with female gender brains from wearing dresses and heels just as women with male gender brains can wear pants and have short hair.
Well, are there things men can do that women can't? Are there things women can do that men can't? I mean naturally. I would say a man cannot "get" pregnant by merely having sexual intercourse with a woman. But, a woman and only a woman can get pregnant by having sex with a man naturally. That's absolute. By the way, DNA does decide who is a male and who is a female. Are there cases where the person can decide based on the chromosomes, sure. But, that is few and far between. As far as woman being able to do whatever a man can, sure. Can they do everything better? No. No woman naturally will run a 9.9 100 meter dash. No woman will ever out lift a man either in competition. Does that mean woman can't participate in athletics? Of course not. Title IX was written to give equal opportunity for women to compete in equal amounts of activities. Not the same activities. You might have a woman kicking field goals, short ones. But, you will never have a woman playing the WR, QB, OL, DL or anything else in college or pro football. So, stop trying to say there is no gender. There certainly is. I do have a question. I have heard for decades gays and lesbians say they were born into the wrong bodies. I'm sure you have said this as well, right? How is that the case unless we are organized with two bodies, one spiritual and one physical. That our spirit body is in the wrong body. A gay would say he has a "she" spirit body and is misplaced in a male physical body. And, I've heard lesbians say just the opposite, that they are in the wrong gendered body. They are male spirits inside female bodies and they need to therefore commit homosexual sins. What's been up with this? So, God does exist and had spirit children. The problem is God doesn't make mistakes and put girl spirits into boy's bodies and vice versa. It's all about being psychotic and vile.
Then we are back to that standard of if a person can't do those specific things are they a man or woman? Only males can produce sperm. If a person is otherwise male looking, but is born without testicles, are they still male? If they are born with a vagina and working testicles, are they classified male? And keep in mind that these things are happening naturally. Maybe it does, and that anything else is irrelevant to such a designation. However, the vast majority of the time, we don't actually check DNA when making that determination. Show me a hospital that routinely checks DNA to determine if the child's DNA is male or female. Furthermore, what are you counting in that determination? The chromosomes or the SRY gene? A person can be XY, and be missing the SRY gene, and will physically look female. Likewise a person can be XX and have an added SRY gene, and will look physically male I have seen no evidence that a person chooses their gender anymore than they choose their sexual orientation. This is a completely different topic altogether. The concept that when looked at as a whole, and noting the trend that women do X better than men and men do Y better than women, means nothing towards individuals. An individual woman can end up doing Y better than most men. I'm not the one making that claim I've heard those too. However, you will rarely hear that nowadays, with regards to sexual orientation. I think, and there is no real study to confirm this that I am aware of, that most transgenders were identifying as gay, especially if their attraction was aligned with the heterosexual for their gender as opposed to their sex, simply because they either were not aware of the transgender status, or because even as hated homosexuals were, homosexuals were more accepted (in comparison) and better understood. I haven't really come across anyone who is gay claiming to be a "man born in a woman's body" in over a decade. With transgenders being more and more accepted, they are identifying as such instead of "woman in a man's body". So, God does exist and had spirit children. The problem is God doesn't make mistakes and put girl spirits into boy's bodies and vice versa. It's all about being psychotic and vile.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] All more reason for mankind to follow the Lord Jesus Christ and his laws and commandments before this world really crashes a burns. The number of people born with both sex organs is so small and minute that what we are seeing in the world today concerning transgenderism has nothing to do with that. Like I said, today, at birth, if there is that problem, it can be corrected immediately. It can be corrected in their adulthood as well. As far as men born without testicles, almost all the time, the testicles simply did not drop. I had one like that but the doctors back in the 50's were able to drop it and I'm a fine heterosexual man. No more excuses...
FTR your IMAGINARY deity is 100% RESPONSIBLE for transgender people. According to YOUR own bible he made EVE from Adam's XY dna therefore Eve was transgender. Then he made JESUS from Mary's XX dna therefore Jesus was transgender. Obviously it isn't YOUR imaginary deity that is "making mistakes". Instead it is his Science Denying followers who are NOT using the brains that their "god" gave them to LEARN about HOW he "creates" transpeople. Once theists EMBRACE Science and Knowledge all of these idiotic concepts of "sinning" just DISAPPEAR.
Due to another's post, I realized I had forgotten to address this point, and even had forgotten to properly enclose it in quote tags. I will agree with you that God doesn't make mistakes. But you do as a human, as do I. And neither one of us are anywhere near God's intelligence, nor can we know His plans. Everything that happens outside of human decision is due to God. Which means every mutation or "defect" is due to Him. He has a reason. We are not smart enough to discern all His reasons, and anyone who thinks they are needs to revisit Pride, among other failings. We know these things are not simply decisions because when we try to correct them so that they choose otherwise we damage them more. God made transgenders, and for His own reasons. Your only choice in the issues, is whether you see that as a negative or not. Remember God also made all of the natural disasters, and if they were meant as punishment they wouldn't have been left on automatic running. So logically, they serve mother purposes we simply do not see. Same goes for homosexuals and transgender's and all variations off the statistical norms.
