Boys Can Have Periods Too!

[mican333]

They can't. Trans boys can, but boys can't. It's just a basic natural difference.

Trans boys are boys.

Your argument is like saying motor vehicles can't drive on two wheel. Motorcycles can, but motor vehicles cannot.

Now if we just go with "anyone" can be a boy, the word really looses it's meaning.

And since we aren't doing that, this is not an issue.

For if you are a girl in every way but how "you" feel, what are you appealing to actually be?

A male. Obviously.

I mean we both feel like we are males (I assume you are the same sex and gender as me) and it makes perfect sense for use to consider ourselves to be male. And the same goes for the transgendered males that I personally know.

IOW, if the definition of boy can be anyone, what is a trans male identifying with/as?

The definition of boys IS NOT anyone. If one's gender is (as in they identify as) female, then they do not fit the definition of "boy".

How did I know he was a "guy" when I met him?

The same way you identify ANY guy you meet for the first time.

If I met you in person and brought my brother along, you might think "Who's that guy with Mican?" because you see a guy next to me. And if I brought one of my trans male friends, it would be the exact same thing.

Look, I'm all for respect for nearly all (there are exceptions). I just don't see people getting mad if a pronoun isn't what you want it to be.

Whatever you say, lady.

Of course I am not seriously calling you a "lady" but it wold not be unreasonable for you to get a little annoyed if I kept calling you "lady" and referred to you in the female manner including pronouns. I think that goes for most people.

Where you are at (it seems) is we need to change the def of "boy" to include anyone, but you still hold onto other gender/sex/whatever pronouns (male, guy, etc) to mean a definition that is not consistent with "boy".

I am using a very consistent and exclusive definition of "boy". If your gender identity is male, you are a boy. If your gender identity is female you are NOT a boy.

It is a definition shift but it's not a definition elimination. The term "boy" does not refer to everyone and therefore definitely still has meaning.

It is confusing and I expect tolerance from all sides, which would include trans people as well. If someone is talking respectfully to you in every way but miss a pronoun you prefer I just don't see it as a catastrophe.

Then I suggest you test out that theory by going to the toughest bar in your town and talk to all of they guys there in a respectful tone but use the female pronoun when addressing them. I think the results might be quite catastrophic.

I don't think anyone in this thread has promoted trans people not having the same rights as anyone else. People need to lighten up and not look to take offense where none is intended.

Well, I have referred both of my trans male friends as female in the past and they didn't take offense. And the reason was that in the past they looked female and did not inform me of a preference to be addressed as male. So I called them female and it was fine.

But NOW, they identify themselves as male and maybe if I make an honest slip of the tongue since I knew them as females in the past, that's no problem either.

But when it gets to the point where one KNOWS that they identify as male and CHOOSES to refer to them as female, it is very reasonably considered a sign of disrespect. It is not effectively different than going to a bar and calling a male stranger "lady" or "miss". It doesn't mean that the other person need freak out but it's very, very reasonable to think you are being disrespectful. I mean if one asks themselves "Why did he call me lady?", one is not likely to conclude that it was out of respect.

If I seriously started calling you "lady" on this thread, whether it upset you or not, it would be hard to imagine that I was being respectful to you when I was doing that.

[SharmaK]

I think all this talk of gender binary choice is a little offensive and ignores those that are neither and other or even fluid. I trust that one day we can just be the best person we can be without having to justify ourselves to others.

I don’t understand why there’s an issue with having to use an extra word to address someone. We do it all the time with titles and other prefixes, middle names and suffixes.

[Belthazor]

Trans boys are boys.

No, generally they are a girl that feels like and wants to be treated like a "boy", per most everyone that has participated so far in this thread.

---------- Post added at 08:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 AM ----------

Your argument is like saying motor vehicles can't drive on two wheel. Motorcycles can, but motor vehicles cannot.

I don't get the analogy? Are you saying motor vehicles and motorcycles are the same?

Do you see motor vehicles driving on two wheels often?

---------- Post added at 08:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 AM ----------

A male. Obviously.

I mean we both feel like we are males (I assume you are the same sex and gender as me) and it makes perfect sense for use to consider ourselves to be male. And the same goes for the transgendered males that I personally know.

Yes, you think anyone can be male now. First just "boys" now "male".
Definition lost, as there is no "male" to appeal to...

---------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------

The definition of boys IS NOT anyone. If one's gender is (as in they identify as) female, then they do not fit the definition of "boy".

I didn't say is anyone, I said can be anyone, per you, if they identify that way.

---------- Post added at 09:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

The same way you identify ANY guy you meet for the first time.

If I met you in person and brought my brother along, you might think "Who's that guy with Mican?" because you see a guy next to me. And if I brought one of my trans male friends, it would be the exact same thing.

If nobody can tell the difference I don't see pronouns being "mixed up" in the first place, so no real issue here at all...at least until they go into a girls" rest room. I can understand why this might make the other "girls" uncomfortable. I don't think most guys care
too much if a "girl" was in the "men's" rest room.

---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 AM ----------

I am using a very consistent and exclusive definition of "boy". If your gender identity is male, you are a boy. If your gender identity is female you are NOT a boy.

It is a definition shift but it's not a definition elimination. The term "boy" does not refer to everyone and therefore definitely still has meaning.

But it can be anyone that so chooses. Definition lost.

---------- Post added at 09:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 AM ----------

If I seriously started calling you "lady" on this thread, whether it upset you or not, it would be hard to imagine that I was being respectful to you when I was doing that.

Sure, any comment can be made to insult. If someone is purposely saying something with the intention of offending, they probably will succeed.

---------- Post added at 09:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------

I think all this talk of gender binary choice is a little offensive and ignores those that are neither and other or even fluid. I trust that one day we can just be the best person we can be without having to justify ourselves to others.

I don’t understand why there’s an issue with having to use an extra word to address someone. We do it all the time with titles and other prefixes, middle names and suffixes.

Because it is a natural part of reproduction so a common thing for people to talk about. It's part of communication to identify that which you are discussing. Does it matter who has sex with who (consenting adults)? Not really at all.
To identify ones self is not justifying anything.

There are those that are both/neither. I haven't seen them as really speaking out on the issue, but perhaps I am just ignorant of it.

[mican333]

No, generally they are a girl that feels like and wants to be treated like a "boy", per most everyone that has participated so far in this thread.

Well, people choose the definition of words so it's a choice whether we call them boys or girls. So there is no objective standard but instead it's a question of what we SHOULD do.

So SHOULD we recognize a transgender male as a male and therefore address in him in all relevant ways as a male and therefore call him a "boy"? If so, then he is indeed a boy.

And since I maintain that we should show respect to transgendered males, they should be referred to, and therefore are, "boys".

If you agree with my reasoning, then you must agree that they are boys. If you don't agree, then explain your disagreement.

I don't get the analogy? Are you saying motor vehicles and motorcycles are the same?

Motor cycles are a subset of motor vehicle just as trans boys are a subset of boys.

So SOME motor vehicles have two wheels and some boys have periods.

Yes, you think anyone can be male now. First just "boys" now "male".
Definition lost, as there is no "male" to appeal to...

Those who have the gender identity of female cannot be a boy. so you are incorrect.

I didn't say is anyone, I said can be anyone, per you, if they identify that way.

But only roughly half of the population DO identify as male. The other hand CAN'T BE male.

You do realize that "identifying as male" is not just saying "I'm a male", right? It's just like with homosexuality. Assuming you are straight, you can't just say "I'm gay" and suddenly be gay and have an attraction to men.

If nobody can tell the difference I don't see pronouns being "mixed up" in the first place, so no real issue here at all

Okay. So you will typically recognize a trans male as a guy upon sight. And some of those guys can have periods.

But it can be anyone that so chooses. Definition lost.

It's not a choice. You identify as male and you cannot choose to identify as female. Even if you say "I'm a girl", you will always feel like a guy and that cannot change by choice or likely by any method.

And it's the same for a trans male.

Sure, any comment can be made to insult. If someone is purposely saying something with the intention of offending, they probably will succeed.

But even if it's not your intend to offend, if you are aware that someone will likely not like being referred to as the gender that they don’t identify as, then the choice to do it anyway shows that you are not concerned with whether you do something that they don't like and therefore is disrespectful.

So assuming you want to show as much respect to transgendered people as you can, you will do your best to identify them as the gender that you assume they identify as in all relevant ways, including pronoun use.

Just like I will consistently refer to you with the male pronoun because I figure that that is what you prefer.

[Belthazor]

Well, people choose the definition of words so it's a choice whether we call them boys or girls.

I see. In that case,

this debate is over.

In fact, all debates are now over, and I was just about to send another $20 ODN's way.

If there are no definitions of words I just as well say:

"sof svpopsswdw, csppewap da jkhs"

You may have the last word, BUT, it will only mean ANYTHING to you, since no one else will know what you mean...

Have a great evening Mican
(no sarcasm intended there sir)

[mican333]

I see. In that case,

this debate is over.

In fact, all debates are now over, and I was just about to send another $20 ODN's way.

If there are no definitions of words I just as well say:

"sof svpopsswdw, csppewap da jkhs"

You may have the last word, BUT, it will only mean ANYTHING to you, since no one else will know what you mean...

Have a great evening Mican
(no sarcasm intended there sir)

I didn’t say that there are no definitions.

I said people determine what the definitions are.

If that is not true, then something else must determine what the definitions are. And obviously there is no external source (like a definition God) that determines what the definitions are so it's obviously people that decide what words mean.

[Belthazor]

Here's another story demonstrating just how contorted the beliefs of the Left must be to support the fiction of "transgender".

[INDENT]Boys can have periods too, children to be taught in latest victory for transgender campaigners

An interesting development on this issue.

Is common sense making a come back????
Doubtful....

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tran...173839095.html
"A judge on Wednesday ruled against him after analyzing arguments at a High Court trial in London.

"There is a material difference between a person's gender and their status as a parent," said Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division of the High Court, in a ruling.

"Being a 'mother,' whilst hitherto always associated with being female, is the status afforded to a person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth.

"It is now medically and legally possible for an individual, whose gender is recognized in law as male, to become pregnant and give birth to their child.

"Whilst that person's gender is 'male,' their parental status, which derives from their biological role in giving birth, is that of 'mother.’"


IOW, call yourself whatever gender you like, but in a legal sense it may not matter what you call yourself, reality can prevail.
Social construct vs legal construct.

[mican333]

An interesting development on this issue.

Is common sense making a come back????
Doubtful....

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tran...173839095.html
"A judge on Wednesday ruled against him after analyzing arguments at a High Court trial in London.

"There is a material difference between a person's gender and their status as a parent," said Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division of the High Court, in a ruling.

"Being a 'mother,' whilst hitherto always associated with being female, is the status afforded to a person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth.

"It is now medically and legally possible for an individual, whose gender is recognized in law as male, to become pregnant and give birth to their child.

"Whilst that person's gender is 'male,' their parental status, which derives from their biological role in giving birth, is that of 'mother.’"


IOW, call yourself whatever gender you like, but in a legal sense it may not matter what you call yourself, reality can prevail.
Social construct vs legal construct.

The legal ramification of the ruling is that some people will have mothers who are male. I'm not sure why that should be considered as commons sense making a comeback.

[Belthazor]

The legal ramification of the ruling is that some people will have mothers who are male. I'm not sure why that should be considered as commons sense making a comeback.

Agreed, that definitely shows no common sense....

[Belthazor]

The legal ramification of the ruling is that some people will have mothers who are male. I'm not sure why that should be considered as commons sense making a comeback.

Obviously that was not the part showing common sense...



I find it funny that when discussing biology this issue doesn't come up at all. For instance, search "definition of a human male":

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/male
"a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man.
an organism of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces a sperm cell or male gamete."

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/male
"Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."

---

Seems pretty straight forward like all other animals are classified.
Now add the "human equation" and search "definition of gender":

https://www.who.int/gender-equity-ri...definition/en/
"Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men"

---

So it appears to me disconnect here is more about everyday speech regarding trans people and what is considered respectful speech cause the biology part of this conversation is pretty much settled by science a long time ago.

Now putting "female products" in the "male" for trans-males sounds fine and I doubt too much would have been said about that in and of itself.

Saying trans males/boys can have periods likewise I expect little dissent.
Saying all genders can have periods (given the above definition) I would expect a little more dissent because that is not what gender meant historically, but think this argument could be overcome fairly easily for most people.
Saying "all boys/males/men/the roughly half of the population that can't conceive, carry and give birth" can have periods is non nonsensical.
It's a married bachelor. They can be married I guess, but you have to change the definition of one or both to do it.

So it seems to me:
one side of the argument is concerned biology when discussing these terms, and one side the "social, verbal communication" of the terms with little regard to biology.

IWO, the two sides are having a communication problem of talking about two different things even though they are discussing the same subject matter, just two different aspects of it.

Make sense?


Forgive me if this came up earlier in the thread, but I am curious,

how do feel about people choosing their race as well as their gender?

[mican333]

I find it funny that when discussing biology this issue doesn't come up at all. For instance, search "definition of a human male"

Maybe people don't debate the biological aspects of the debate because there is no disagreement.

If you think people are arguing that those who are born with XY chromosomes and a penis can have periods, you are operating on a misunderstanding of what the pro-trans people are forwarding.

So it appears to me disconnect here is more about everyday speech regarding trans people and what is considered respectful speech cause the biology part of this conversation is pretty much settled by science a long time ago.

if you think that the biological facts are under debate, then THAT is a disconnect. No one is arguing that those who are born biologically male (XX chromosomes and male genitalia) can have periods.

The debate is over whether those who identify as male, regardless of their biology, should be considered male by law and society. If yes, then SOME people who are to be considered male (those "males" who were born as biological females) can have periods (since practically everyone who was born biologically female can have periods).

Saying trans males/boys can have periods likewise I expect little dissent.
Saying all genders can have periods (given the above definition) I would expect a little more dissent because that is not what gender meant historically, but think this argument could be overcome fairly easily for most people.
Saying "all boys/males/men/the roughly half of the population that can't conceive, carry and give birth" can have periods is non nonsensical.
It's a married bachelor. They can be married I guess, but you have to change the definition of one or both to do it.

No one is saying all boys can have periods.

When it's said "boys can have periods", it means that SOME boys can have periods. And since the male gender does include some biological females, some boys can have periods and even conceive.

So it seems to me:
one side of the argument is concerned biology when discussing these terms, and one side the "social, verbal communication" of the terms with little regard to biology.

IWO, the two sides are having a communication problem of talking about two different things even though they are discussing the same subject matter, just two different aspects of it.

Make sense?

I don't think the kind of confusion you are referring to actually exists.

BOTH sides recognize that some who are born biologically female identify as male and want to be considered "male" in all relevant ways. If that is granted, some some of the male gender who are biologically female can have periods. That likewise is clearly recognized by both sides of the debate (assuming they know what is being debated). And the point of debate is whether we SHOULD recognize everyone of the male gender (even those who are biologically female) as "male" and therefore agree that some males can have periods (since some "males" are biologically female).

So one side is saying "I recognize that some people who are biologically female identify as male and I think that they should be considered male by society and law".
The other side is saying " recognize that some people who are biologically female identify as male but they should still be considered female by society and law".

If one agree with the first position, then they will agree that some boys can have periods. Since I agree with the first position, I likewise hold that some boys can have periods and even know a trans male who still has "lady parts" and therefore is, by my assessment, is a male who has periods.

So we all agree on the biological facts. It's just an issue of whether we CHOOSE to recognize people's gender based on their gender identity instead of their birth sex.

And as I've argued, assuming our primary concern is showing these people a modicum of respect, we will choose to recognize them by their gender identity. If one doesn't, it's not a disagreement on the facts but a choice to not respect their wishes to be considered the gender they identify as.

Forgive me if this came up earlier in the thread, but I am curious,

how do feel about people choosing their race as well as their gender?

I reject the premise that people choose their gender. I certainly can't choose my gender. Can you?

I mean I could put on a dress and act like a girl and say I'm a girl and so on but I could not change the fact that I feel like a male. And since I can't choose my gender, I don't think anyone can either.

[Ibelsd]

No, it's so they are treated with the same respect that everyone who's not transgendered receives. THAT is my agenda.

I don't go around calling my cisgender male friends "girls" and wouldn't call my transgendered male friends "girls" either and I see no reason why I should do that.

As I see it, it is not your job nor your prerogative to demand people treat others with respect. No one owes your trans friends respect. Respect isn't something that should be codified into law nor inserted into academic discussion. Respect is something one person chooses to provide to another person, usually because it is deemed as something deserved. I have a trans friend and refer to them with the name they asked me to call them. They are a friend and respectfully asked me to refer to them a certain way, and out of mutual respect, I agreed. However, if you are demanding that I refer to all trans people a certain way, then hell no. Not every person deserves my respect. If someone is demanding I call them something, and I deem they are doing it for ideological purposes, I should feel no compulsion to respect them.

In terms of teaching on menstruation, which is how this thread started, what does gender have to do with biological function? What do social constructs have to do with menstruation? This concept of gender, which I think reasonable people may disagree, is clearly an attempt to introduce a certain ideological view into the classroom. And this, to me, is an abuse of power. More than just introduce this ideological view, it forces students to accept this ideological view of gender. I can only assume the students will be tested on this information.

I have asked this before and I do not think anyone has provided the answer. What is the legal definition of transgender? Male and female have legal definitions. Take Black's Law Dictionary. I can find definitions for male and female. Curiously, no definition of transgender. Why? As was pointed out by another poster, it is a subjective term. It is equivalent to how someone feels. Your friends feel 'male' but it may or may not mean that they are actually men. You may choose to call them men, but you'd be correct, in an objective and legal sense, in referring to them as women. So, what is the point of teaching that boys and girls can both menstruate? Does this teach a biological fact? Does this help to clarify the menstruation cycle? Of course not. It is an attempt to hijack language to meet an ideological end. Wouldn't it, after all, be more correct and more helpful to teach biological girls have menstruation and, without regard to how one identifies, if you are a biological female, then will likely experience menstruation? Wouldn't that be much more clarifying than to lead boys (both biological and gender) to believe that they could, somehow, experience menstruation?

[mican333]

As I see it, it is not your job nor your prerogative to demand people treat others with respect.

As I see it, I did not demand any such thing. Advocating people should treat each other with respect is not the same as demanding it.

And by respect, I mean "not disrespect". I generally don't do anything regarding the numerous strangers I pass on the street which is being respectful of them. And if some stranger asks me something innocuous ("what time is it?"), it's respectful to respond to them without disrespect. And if the person is transgender and I figure they would be prefer to be addressed by their gender identity, I'll do that. And there is nothing wrong with the position that others should do likewise.

No one owes your trans friends respect. Respect isn't something that should be codified into law nor inserted into academic discussion. Respect is something one person chooses to provide to another person, usually because it is deemed as something deserved.

Speak for yourself. I think people's general default mode is to respect other people until they are given a reason to not respect them. I certainly give a modicum of respect to every stranger I pass by and if I feel that someone wants something that's not particularly unreasonable and doesn't cost me anything to give it, I give it. If someone gives me a friendly nod, I give them a return nod. I don't demand that people be respectful to each other as a default but I advocate it.

And I agree that there isn't a law against being an A-hole nor would I forward that such a law be created but I think that one should not be an A-hole to another person without a good reason.

I have a trans friend and refer to them with the name they asked me to call them. They are a friend and respectfully asked me to refer to them a certain way, and out of mutual respect, I agreed. However, if you are demanding that I refer to all trans people a certain way, then hell no. Not every person deserves my respect. If someone is demanding I call them something, and I deem they are doing it for ideological purposes, I should feel no compulsion to respect them.

I think we generally agree then. It seems as long as someone doesn't give you a reason to disrespect them, your default is to respect them. So I should ask, what if instead of your trans friend, you met a trans stranger, like someone who you encountered in a store or something. The person is clearly a biological male who is of the female gender and refers to herself as female and there is nothing about them that you find worthy of disrespect. I assume if you had to address that person, you would would have the respect to address them as a female instead of a male?

In terms of teaching on menstruation, which is how this thread started, what does gender have to do with biological function? What do social constructs have to do with menstruation? This concept of gender, which I think reasonable people may disagree, is clearly an attempt to introduce a certain ideological view into the classroom. And this, to me, is an abuse of power. More than just introduce this ideological view, it forces students to accept this ideological view of gender. I can only assume the students will be tested on this information.

If forwarding the view that transgendered boys can have periods is an ideological imposition then isn't teaching that only girls can have periods also an ideological imposition?

You forward one position or the other and I don't see why if one position is an imposition the other one isn't.

I have asked this before and I do not think anyone has provided the answer. What is the legal definition of transgender? Male and female have legal definitions. Take Black's Law Dictionary. I can find definitions for male and female. Curiously, no definition of transgender. Why? As was pointed out by another poster, it is a subjective term. It is equivalent to how someone feels. Your friends feel 'male' but it may or may not mean that they are actually men. You may choose to call them men, but you'd be correct, in an objective and legal sense, in referring to them as women.

No, in a biological sense they are men. The legal definition can (and should) change if it refuses to recognize transgendered males as "male" for most legal issues. And there is no objective definition of ANY word (since all definitions are subjective) so no one is objectively male or female. I'm not objectively wrong when I call a transgender male a "male". It's my choice whether I address him by his gender identity or his biological sex and neither option is objectively wrong.

So, what is the point of teaching that boys and girls can both menstruate? Does this teach a biological fact? Does this help to clarify the menstruation cycle? Of course not. It is an attempt to hijack language to meet an ideological end.

And now we are back to an unconvincing "leftist conspiracy theory" issue. Until you provide some real evidence for these slippery slope conspiracy theories, I'll just say "your opinion is noted".

Here's what I think is going on.

The "agenda" is to treat everyone with respect, including transgendered people. So that means that transgender males, some of whom have periods, should be allowed to use the boys bathroom. Since some users of the boys room can have periods, the boys room needs to have menstruation bins like the girls bathroom have. So now the students can clearly see that the boys room has menstruation bins which raises the issue of WHY they are there. So this requires an explanation. Where's a good place to explain why there are menstruation bins in the boys bathroom. How about the sex ed class concerning menstruation? Okay, let's do that.

So yes, if we go by the "nefarious leftist agenda" of treating trans people with respect, it makes sense to teach about transgenderism during menstruation.

[Belthazor]

I reject the premise that people choose their gender. I certainly can't choose my gender. Can you?

I mean I could put on a dress and act like a girl and say I'm a girl and so on but I could not change the fact that I feel like a male. And since I can't choose my gender, I don't think anyone can either.

Funny thing about humans (one of...) is, men and women are actually different. If you were born a man/male/term of choice for that half of the sex, you can not know what it is to "feel" that you are female. You can admire, aspire, emulate, etc but you will never know the complex hormonal mood swings for instance because you can not think like a woman:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...etween-genders
"It’s no secret that boys and girls are different—very different. The differences between genders, however, extend beyond what the eye can see. Research reveals major distinguishers between male and female brains."

(* note here how the word gender is being used, biologically, not in the politically correct sense)

"Scientists generally study four primary areas of difference in male and female brains: processing, chemistry, structure, and activity"
"Male brains utilize nearly seven times more gray matter for activity while female brains utilize nearly ten times more white matter?"
"Male and female brains process the same neurochemicals but to different degrees and through gender-specific body-brain connections."
"A number of structural elements in the human brain differ between males and females. “Structural” refers to actual parts of the brain and the way they are built, including their size and/or mass."
"While we are on the subject of emotional processing, another difference worth looking closely at is the activity difference between male and female brains. The female brain, in part thanks to far more natural blood flow throughout the brain at any given moment... "


So generally speaking, there are differences between the brains of the two "genders" (male/female) in the way they are constructed and operate on a functional as well as emotional level.

[Sigfried]

So generally speaking, there are differences between the brains of the two "genders" (male/female) in the way they are constructed and operate on a functional as well as emotional level.

Remember what you were saying about biology, keep in mind what you said here, then give this a read....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0524112351.htm

It is about how brain studies of transgender people are finding their brains are wired more closely to the sex they identify with than their "biological" sex.

[Belthazor]

Remember what you were saying about biology, keep in mind what you said here, then give this a read....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0524112351.htm

It is about how brain studies of transgender people are finding their brains are wired more closely to the sex they identify with than their "biological" sex.

Interesting article, though the "study included both adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria" (in addition to being trans gendered). Gender Dysphoria (GD) "is the distress experienced by transgender people". Now they also say that "GD incidence is rare"
Since something like 0.6% of the US identifies as Trans. Of that group only adolescents participated. Of that group of adolescents, only those with GD participated in the study.
A rather small pool to be sure.
The study itself was only to "assess brain activation patterns in response to a pheromone known to produce gender-specific activity".
Then they offer "some brain structural changes were detected that were also more similar,".

So, this study was an incredibly small group and very limited in scope for the claims they are making!
However, I did do more research on the subject and there is evidence of some of what they are saying here, though I think my points still stand.

I'm curious, are you suggesting that being Trans is solely a product of the brain, and that the environment and personal choice have little/no affect on ones "gender"?


Anyway, I was more commenting on the twisted legal situation we find ourselves when one is allowed to legally choose their "gender" (which definition keeps going back and forth from a biological to social construct and back again).
The person in my link is now legally a man and woman.

---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 PM ----------

I reject the premise that people choose their gender. I certainly can't choose my gender. Can you?

I mean I could put on a dress and act like a girl and say I'm a girl and so on but I could not change the fact that I feel like a male. And since I can't choose my gender, I don't think anyone can either.

And I think you are incorrect if you think the only reason one would choose their gender is an altruistic one

But to my question:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...eal-ncna871656
"Dolezal’s insistence on maintaining an African American identity that she somehow believes she’s earned the right to claim"

She lived as a black woman and was head of the Spokane NAACP.

Should she be able to legally claim being black?
What if Sig's fMRI study showed that her brain more closely matched that of a black woman than a white woman?

[Sigfried]

Interesting article....

I'm curious, are you suggesting that being Trans is solely a product of the brain and that the environment and personal choice have little/no effect on one's "gender"?

Nothing so absolute.

When you talk to Trans people about being trans, they will generally tell you the feel some strong compulsion from "inside" that tells them they are not the gender their body is expressing on the outside. They say their mind/soul is one sex while their body is another. And when push comes to shove, the exterior is what they want to change because the interior is who they are, how they feel, what they think.

You may not agree, but it's pretty well established that your brain is where you do your thinking, it is the house of your awareness and sense of self. I'll leave whether the brain shapes your mind or your mind shapes your brain for another debate, but they are intrinsically linked regardless.

You pointed out the brains of men and women are measurably different as a way to cement that you can't just decide biology away, that it is more than just your genitalia. I pointed out that being transgender may well be because your brain is "sexed" differently than your body and they truly are, in mind and spirit, a gender other than their body. You could counter by saying the body is more important than the mind. But the fact is, their mind and body appear not to be aligned in harmony with regards to sex at a fundamental level, not just at a social level.

The physical, as well as mental reality here, seems to be that they have the soul/mind of one gender and the body of another. Not just in imagination but in hard physical fact. Most of us don't have to struggle with this dichotomy and our society is not well equipped to peacefully accommodate it.

What trans people want most is a means to resolve this conflict satisfactorily for themselves, and for society to make some accommodation for the difficulty they face.

What I'm trying to do is to get you to get a look into the reality of their lives and to empathize with their situation at least a little.

Anyway, I was more commenting on the twisted legal situation we find ourselves when one is allowed to legally choose their "gender" (which definition keeps going back and forth from a biological to social construct and back again).
The person in my link is now legally a man and woman?

Complicated and unusual situations are often difficult to resolve.

[Belthazor]

Nothing so absolute.

Fair enough, but then I am curious what your link was supposed to show me?

When you talk to Trans people about being trans, they will generally tell you the feel some strong compulsion from "inside" that tells them they are not the gender their body is expressing on the outside.

Admittedly where I live this is not common, but I don't have any issue talking/working with a trans person

They say their mind/soul is one sex while their body is another. And when push comes to shove, the exterior is what they want to change because the interior is who they are, how they feel, what they think.

Much stickier ground here.
I think you will find that:
1. Many Trans people that have changed the "exterior" don't recommend it to other Trans without very careful consideration of all the related issues.
2. the suicide rate for Trans people that have changed the "exterior" is unusually high.

You may not agree, but it's pretty well established that your brain is where you do your thinking, it is the house of your awareness and sense of self.

Actually I lean materialist personally. I have had a few conversations on ODN whether the brain creates the "mind".

But to your point, the brain as such, should want to reflect reality should it not?

out of time, I will finish later.

[Sigfried]

Admittedly where I live this is not common, but I don't have any issue talking/working with a trans person

Much stickier ground here.
I think you will find that:
1. Many Trans people that have changed the "exterior" don't recommend it to other Trans without very careful consideration of all the related issues.
2. the suicide rate for Trans people that have changed the "exterior" is unusually high.

These two sets of responses don't go well together. I do have friends who are trans and I see a lot of conversations they have. I do not at all find that they recommend against transition procedures. What they do is support the decisions others make about transition. Its a personal decision that has plusses and minuses and they support other trans people whichever way they choose. All the trans people I personally know did transition and they all seem happier for it and much more successful in their lives as the other gender.

Your other claim is a statistical one so I went looking for research. It's still not all that strong because of the numbers we are dealing with being pretty small.

I found this article among others.
https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/...eople-suicide/

The decision to medically transition to the gender with which one identifies can be stressful and may place someone more at risk for suicide. However, studies show that once a transition is completed, it does have beneficial effects.

A survey of trans people in the UK found that a completed medical transition was shown to greatly reduce rates of suicidal ideation and attempts, in contrast to those at other stages of transition (imminently transitioning or beginning transition). 67% of transitioning people thought about suicide pre-transition and only 3% post-transition (Bailey et al., 2014).

That seems to ring pretty true to me. It's a pretty darn stressful thing to try and change your body this way and deal with new hormones etc... but once you are finished, you feel more whole and at peace with yourself. I don't think the stats really back your notion that transition is ultimately unhealthy for people who do it. Nor does my personal experience which you have admitted seems greater than your own.

Actually I lean materialist personally. I have had a few conversations on ODN whether the brain creates the "mind".
But to your point, the brain as such, should want to reflect reality should it not?

Two things here.

1. Exactly what you mean by reality makes a big difference. Penis = 100% male and Vagina = 100% female is not really reality. That is more a kind of oversimplification of things. A lot of different factors go into our genders. Our bodies are capable of both. Some living animals can change genders naturally. It's complicated business even at the biological level. But you seem to be advocating it is a very simple binary truth.

2. The brain more abstracts reality than anything else. It represents it for us. An apple is not truly "red". It reflects light in a specific frequency etc... and we represent that with "red" as a word and an idea. There are some realities of sex to be sure, but the way they exist in our mind is really an abstraction of that, a useful one to be sure. But, that doesn't always make it accurate or true in a metaphysical sense. So there is room to adjust our abstractions of reality to be more useful to us.

out of time, I will finish later.[/QUOTE]

[mican333]

And I think you are incorrect if you think the only reason one would choose their gender is an altruistic one

You are smuggling the premise that gender is a choice. Since I don't agree that it's a choice I can't agree that one makes that choice for any reason.

But to my question:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...eal-ncna871656
"Dolezal’s insistence on maintaining an African American identity that she somehow believes she’s earned the right to claim"

She lived as a black woman and was head of the Spokane NAACP.

Should she be able to legally claim being black?

It depends on the criteria we use to define one as "black". Since it seems like we define "black" as having a certain percentage of African genetics and she doesn't have enough, I would say we shouldn't allow her to be legally black.

But then if we are to use this as an analogy for transgenderism, the scenario would be of a person who is cisgendered but lies about it and claims that they are transgendered. I wouldn't approve someone doing that but that either but it does not equate to an argument against treating actual transgendered people according to the gender that they identify as.

What if Sig's fMRI study showed that her brain more closely matched that of a black woman than a white woman?

Can an MRI study differentiate the brain of a white person from the brain of a black person? I'm pretty sure it cannot and therefore this hypothetical cannot occur.

But assuming that she shared some physical characteristics of a black person, then I would say that she has a good case for actually being considered black.