The cruelty and mental illness of obsessive transphobia

The "cat out of the bag" usually suggests an issue that must be addressed. In this case, you and I appear to agree that this was not the appropriate context to address gender issues in sports.
I also don't necessarily agree about your bull rush comment. There are maybe two or three posters who vociferously defend gender [diversity] in all contexts. There are probably a few more who staunchly oppose any support for transgender people. Yet many others are in the "live and let live" or "I don't really understand this phenomenon, but I'm not gonna freak about it" camps. Not many here are gonna throw their support behind a trans female competing in female basketball or kickboxing. I'd agree that there are a few strong opinions, but no bull rush.

 

Bro, the "PC" answer was, "We have a game tomorrow that we are focused on, so let's stick to that." Dawn Staley coaches at the flagship state university in SOUTH CAROLINA. She was not avoiding controversy by taking that stance. It was quite courageous to say that, particularly in that moment. She knew (and acknowledged) that people would blow up her social media for it.

You throwing shade at Dawn Staley?

 

No

 

Are you challenging the idea that gender was ever synonymous with sex, or are you rejecting the idea that people are warranted in hanging onto that view. Something else?

When my wife was pregnant, and the baby had developed enough, we would get asked if we would like to know the baby's gender.

I think they are silly, but surely you've seen some crazy "gender reveals" online. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but there is a well-established understanding that gender is synonymous with sex.

Some people believe that gender is biologically identifiable; you don't need the person to be conscious or even alive to identify their gender (synonymous with "sex").

Some people believe that you can't actually know somebody's gender unless they express it to you in a way that leaves no room for misunderstanding (the definition that you have pulled up). This understanding of gender requires "faith" because the person's claim is not falsifiable. You are simply taking their word for it.

And just because there are these two sides doesn't mean there may not be others. You may not identify with either of these sides, who says there has to be only two. These are just two sides that I have observed with, seemingly, the most divergent views on the matter.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

When did this "well-established understanding" happen? Where did it happen? And for whom did it happen?

 

Just talking about trans stuff in general. There's very little open back and forth discussion that surfaces to where people can hash out their differences and attempt to respect and understand where others are coming from. It's way more prevalent than it is talked about, but maybe that's more regional in nature.

The bull rush was in reference to the changes that people don't agree with, not the frequency of a particular angle on the subject: Presumed usage of pronouns; presumed usage of gender; presumed understanding of male/man/female/woman. The bull rush refers to a "here's how you need to think!" method of delivery vs. a "let's talk about how we use these words and what the words may mean to us" method of delivery.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

It still happens today.
It happens all over the country.
For anybody that's ever been pregnant that has doctors similar to my wife's

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I'm going by the definition of gender found from a simple search. Are you arguing the validity of that definition?

How do you feel about the label "Sex Reveal" parties? Would that be a big hit on the family-building celebration circuit? What grounding do you lean on for your claim about a "well-established understanding that gender is synonymous with sex?" Do you believe those well-established understanding were grounded in scholarly/scientific examinations of gender?

This is an assumption. Please provide any evidence of what I believe regarding their claims . . . seriously.

I'm interpreting the posts of some who claim sides. We appear to be in agreement here, as I believe there to be more than simply two sides.

 

It appears obvious that there are few well-established understandings regarding gender identity. Here we are on a forum of well-educated people who possess different perspectives, some who view the issue as a simple dichotomy. Your ideological definition of gender appears to lean on particular communications from a pediatrician. That would logically be a good source of understanding regarding dichotomous traits, such as sex. I wonder, though, how the conversation would go with your pediatrician regarding gender identity of adolescents and young adults. Do you suppose they might operationalize "gender" differently or at least be open to doing so? I suppose they might or might not, depending upon their background, knowledge, and disposition. If the pediatrician were some kind of scholar on gender issues, though, I suspect their operationalizing of "gender" would be more flexible/open than that which was shared with you and your wife at the birth of your children.

 

No, but I would rather try to argue that it isn't valid than argue that it is. Practically, though, doesn't it boil down to whether or not two different concepts of "gender" can co-exist within a society? Or must there be a "winner" in terms of how the term is used? What are your thoughts?

I'm not following you, my point about "gender reveal" parties was that it demonstrated that the term was used in a way that is synonymous with "sex." What do you mean by the second question?

I mean, life experiences. It seems like you and Lawyer may have experienced something significantly different because you seem surprised by some of these ideas. Some of these ideas that you are challenging seem like common sense. Would love to learn more about your perspectives.

Is this one of those "does language belong to science or to the people" questions? If people refer to a "scrum" when watching a football game, it is not very scholarly, nor is it scientifically accurate, BUT, because of how it is used, we can *know* what is being described. Tell me more about what you are getting at here?

LOL, I think you are reading my response different than how I was intending to deliver it. That's my fault, I could have worded it better. I wasn't intending to say you (@gatordavisl ) are taking their word for it. I was saying when somebody expresses their gender to you (generic), you have to take their word for it...it's an obligation by nature of the concept of the word.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

And yet, there's significant debate throughout this country. So I don't consider that an answer to the question.

 

Really, what percentage of the country would have to share a view to constitute "well-established?" It's mind boggling to me that either of you would think that the idea of a nurse talking about a baby in the womb and its "gender" as meaning something other than sex. Which seems to be what you are implying.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

We were talking about "gender" and now we're talking about "gender identity." Is there also a "sex" and a "sexual identity?"

No literally just common language. The only confusing part of the term gender is trying to understand what people mean when they use it now (when they don't agree with its traditional usage).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Not me. I'd much rather argue on behalf of the definitions provided by experts.

I don't believe it's about winning. I believe it's about the best-informed (i.e. evidence-based) concepts.

My suggestion is that this particular synonymous use of sex/gender is colloquial and not research-based. Part of the reason being that "sex reveal" might not sound appropriate to some. Imagine inviting your pastor to a "sex reveal" party.

You would likely be surprised by my personal beliefs about the trans phenomenon. My beliefs and experiences are not necessarily congruent, as one is anecdotal and the other a mix of personal ideology & the limited reading I've done. My personal experience relates to trans college students. All have been delightful people. One in particular was president of our student association, a strong graduate, a leader, and is now entrusted with teaching peoples' children. That last part is what I take most seriously about my job . . . should our grads be trusted to care for children? I hope this partially answers your question re: perspective. Thanks for asking.

 

What we're saying is that there isn't a consensus that gender and sex are one and the same. And there wasn't some well-established consensus the world over that has suddenly changed.

 

No - this entire topic is about gender identity. Our difference seems to be in how we define gender, which is why I introduced a definition (which included the notion of identity). Here it is again:

the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.


I don't know if there is such a thing as sexual identity, but suspect that sex is considered more along biological terms.

 

I did say country, not world. Would love to see a survey on that; as I said, my life experiences suggest otherwise. Maybe the different experiences are regional in nature.

But ultimately, the bigger deal is can the different ideas of "gender" co-exist with one another; or must one definition prove to be superior?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Respectfully disagree. I believe I am the first person to make a reference to "gender identity" on this thread, and it was for a specific use case explicitly *not* congruent with gender.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS