But they aren’t when it comes to competing. Or, if they are, why have two different gender categories? Why not just have a single Olympic contest of each athletics discipline? Because that’s the logical endpoint of where gender self expression is going. (Answer: because only men will win.)
Great, there are no rules in track preventing a possessor of Y chromosomes from participating in the women’s category, rather quite to the contrary, the rules specify exactly how that is to be done, so nothing unfair there either, right? Aren’t rules rules?
A "possessor of Y chromosomes" is usually called a man. Did you have something else in mind?
Agreed, “a ’possessor of Y chromosomes’ is usually called a man”.
I and others have answered your question in this thread and numerous others, so you can’t be seriously asking it of me.
A "possessor of Y chromosomes" is usually called a man. Did you have something else in mind?
For the sake of accuracy: most men have only one Y chromosome and thus are known as 46,XY. There are males who have one, two or three extra Y chromosomes - as in 47, XYY; 48, XYYY and 49,XYYYY - but those male karyotpes occur very rarely.
Agreed, for the sake of completeness, some men have no Y chromosome, and some women do.
A "possessor of Y chromosomes" is usually called a man. Did you have something else in mind?
For the sake of accuracy: most men have only one Y chromosome and thus are known as 46,XY. There are males who have one, two or three extra Y chromosomes - as in 47, XYY; 48, XYYY and 49,XYYYY - but those male karyotpes occur very rarely.
Is the moon blue today? Not only have you for once said something I don’t disagree with, it is also neither repugnant nor an outpouring of the Nile into the Sahara, but just one short para.
A "possessor of Y chromosomes" is usually called a man. Did you have something else in mind?
Agreed, “a ’possessor of Y chromosomes’ is usually called a man”.
I and others have answered your question in this thread and numerous others, so you can’t be seriously asking it of me.
Then why didn't you just say "man"? Anyway, you are conflating two issues here; one is what the current rules are (which depends on what level you compete at and where you live, so really there is no such thing as "the rules"), and the other is what they should be.
We have women's sports because we as a society agreed that women need a separate category due to male advantage. You are saying people (transwomen) with that male advantage should be let in anyway, as long as they identify as female. Why do you say that, when quite obviously the male advantage does not come from identifying as anything?
Agreed, “a ’possessor of Y chromosomes’ is usually called a man”.
I and others have answered your question in this thread and numerous others, so you can’t be seriously asking it of me.
Then why didn't you just say "man"? Anyway, you are conflating two issues here; one is what the current rules are (which depends on what level you compete at and where you live, so really there is no such thing as "the rules"), and the other is what they should be.
We have women's sports because we as a society agreed that women need a separate category due to male advantage. You are saying people (transwomen) with that male advantage should be let in anyway, as long as they identify as female. Why do you say that, when quite obviously the male advantage does not come from identifying as anything?
But they aren’t when it comes to competing. Or, if they are, why have two different gender categories? Why not just have a single Olympic contest of each athletics discipline? Because that’s the logical endpoint of where gender self expression is going. (Answer: because only men will win.)
I guess I'll call the bluff on this one. If you are right, and "only men will win," then I guess we'll go to just one category. It will be like the NFL or something.
But you are basing your opinion on something that has not happened and will likely never happen. I am basing my opinion on actual reality.
Agreed, “a ’possessor of Y chromosomes’ is usually called a man”.
I and others have answered your question in this thread and numerous others, so you can’t be seriously asking it of me.
You are saying people (transwomen) with that male advantage should be let in anyway, as long as they identify as female. Why do you say that,
I challenge you to find one post of mine in any thread (shouldn’t be hard to identify me) saying that or anything roughly like that.
If you truly want to understand others’ viewpoints, honesty and precision is necessary. It’s a lot easier to identify disagreements than argue loopily endlessly.
Liberals are usually the ones that claim they want more rights for women, and conservatives are usually the ones that like to advocate for more traditional roles for women
Again, the realm of reality is things are they exist. So if you’re born with male parts but identify as a woman in an idealist or notional sense, you are denying reality.
as they exist* but you get the gist. Definitionally you run into problems when you realize reality cannot be replaced by perception, which is the word you are actually looking for.
Ok, so I think gender identity is a core part of a person's sense of self that forms at a relatively young age. The sense of self is a real thing, it can be documented and measured and it not delusion or imagination. I am sure you have a strong sense of self, we all do.Anyway, this is a sense of self that is genuine, very deeply held, persistent and fairly immutable. This sense of self/gender identity deeply and profoundly informs how a person behaves, appears, interacts with other individuals and institutions and their general relationship to the outside world. It does not mean that they conform to some sort of stereotypical behavior associated with a given sex or gender. In turn this outward expression of the gender self also has a major impact on how individuals and institutions view and interact with the person.
As for what renders a male a woman or a female a man, it is having this sense of self and therefore navigating the world with this identity all day every day.
I am still in the dark about what you really mean by “gender identity.” Because throughout your post you never actually define what the word “gender” in the phrase “gender identity” means in your view.
You also conflate a lot of different things in ways that I think end up muddying the waters rather than making your points crystal clear.
You start off saying that gender identity is a core part of the human sense of self, which seems to be a tacit way of acknowledging that you see the human sense of self and gender identity as two distinct albeit sometimes related things.
But very quickly you start speaking of the human sense of self and gender identity as though they were one and the same, using the term “sense of self/gender identity” and then abandoning the “sense of self” part entirely and speaking solely of “gender identity.” Then you switch to speaking of behavior and the “outward expression of the gender self.” And finally, you speak of “a non conforming gender identity.”
But you never say exactly what the “gender” in the phrase “gender identity” means in your view.
My own understanding is that gender means the set of sexist stereotypes, sex roles and expectations associated with each of the two sexes in any given society that collectively constitute the norms of femininity and masculinity at present and historically or traditionally.
As far as I can figure it, gender identity in your view is a universally-held core component of the human sense of self or self-concept that’s based on, and built around, the set of sex stereotypes, roles and expectations for each of the two sexes considered normal and customary in the family and cultural milieu of one’s own upbringing and where one lives at present.
If that's not the case, please explain what I have gotten wrong.
BTW, I strongly agree with you that the human “sense of self is a real thing.”
I also very much agree that a person’s sense of self “deeply and profoundly informs how a person behaves, appears, interacts with other individuals and institutions and their general relationship to the outside world.”
I further strongly agree that sex stereotypes, roles and expectations are very real - and they are imposed on all of us in our formative years as well as later on, and we all have to deal with them to some extent as we go through life.
I just don’t think that everyone focuses so heavily on the sexist stereotypes, roles and expecations that collectively constitute gender, takes them so much to heart and sees them as of such enormous, overriding importance that these sexist steretoypes, roles and expectations are at the very core of every human being's fundamental sense of self the way you contend.
I believe most people have a definte awareness of their own sex, some more intensely than others - and for many of us, awareness of our own sex is a central component of our basic sense of self both generally and especially in specific situations and times/phases of life. But I don’t think being aware of one’s sex is the same as having a gender identity.
I have no problem recognizing that some people have a gender identity, and that their gender identity is at the core of their own sense of self, and it matters very much to them. But I have a problem with the notion that because some people have a gender identity, we all do.
I also have a problem with the view that because some people have a gender identity and their own personal gender identity really matters a great deal to them as individuals, then gender identity should be the main organizing principle or pillar that society is built around and laws and policies are based on.
I also disagree with the view that gender identity should supplant sex as the basis on which humans are categorized for sports participation, competition, rankings and records. And for purposes like health care, and the design and allocation of shared facilities outside the home such as toilets & washrooms, locker rooms, fitting & changing rooms, spas & bath houses, rape crisis centers, shelters, barracks, dorms rooms, bunk houses, hostels, hospitals, nursing homes, refugee camps and other places where people sleep, get undressed and are especially vulnerable to pervs and predators.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
I am not sure of the determinants of this sense of gender identity, but I would not be surprised if there are biological ones, genetic, neural, developmental reasons. In the end, I also am not sure we can really ever know why people have a non conforming gender identity or if it is "real or not", but I am comfortable taking people's word for it and treat them accordingly.
You and I do not know the true cause of this, because we are not "experts" like GD. She has already explained to the rest of us that it is all about most modern queer theory. Another popular explanation is that males, especially white males, are trying to acquire the status of "marginalized" people (aka victims) by pretending to be women. That does not explain FtM trans people. But that does not seem to matter.
The bottom line is, some people do not want anything to remain unexplained. So when they face something that has not been fully explained, they just come up with some explanations and try to fit the reality into them. They fear unknown, so they want to feel secure by coming up with explanations that match their existing worldview.
But you never say exactly what the “gender” in the phrase “gender identity” means in your view.
My own understanding is that gender means the set of sexist stereotypes, sex roles and expectations associated with each of the two sexes in any given society that collectively constitute the norms of femininity and masculinity at present and historically or traditionally.
I am not an "expert" like GD, but I don't think that's what "gender" is. Both gender roles and gender expressions are derived from gender, but that's not gender itself.
I have read many accounts of MtF trans people (fewer accounts of FtM people, simply because fewer of them are easily available). And they seem to have a common theme.
They were all gravitated toward "girly" things from an early age, whether it's clothes, toys, cartoon characters or whatever. But you are not a girl just because you want to wear pink dress. You are not a girl just because you want to play with Barbie. You are not a girl just because you emotionally relate to Disney princesses. Each one of those things can be signs of gender incongruence, but they are never the proof on its own.
One tipping point for many trans girls is when they enter the school system. All of a sudden, your activities are separated by gender, and you are taken away from your closest friends (girls) and put into a group with boys. And this is not just sports, but any activity where neither girls or boys have any inherent advantage. That causes strong stress.
Now just because most of your closest friends are girls, that does not mean you are a girl inside. Most of my closest friends in high school and college were girls / women, and I never questioned my gender identity. But all my friends treated me as a boy / man, and I didn't expect anything otherwise. It's different with trans girls. They want to connect with other girls as girls.
I don't really know what "gender identity" is, but it is something deeper than gender expression or gender roles.
There is an old interview of Nicole Maines that opened my eyes. When she was a little kid, she used to like pink. But she later found she liked darker colors like black better. She didn't really explain why this change happened. But I could guess that liking pink was her way of telling others that she was a girl. She didn't have the vocabulary to explain how she was feeling inside, so she expressed herself by the color she chose. But once people around her started treating her as a girl, she no longer had to wear pink to make a statement. She can just wear whatever she wants to.