Ge:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Ge:1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Thanks for that answer, appreciate it. Cranc, you have such an easy time understanding this stuff that maybe it doesn't seem real when others have a hard time understanding it. It's not that I don't want to . . . it is that I'm having a hard time understanding it. Actual gender? It's just hard for me to accept that without questioning the whole idea. But I do agree there is no reason to be mean to transgender people. And I would probably call anybody anything, if that's what they want.
In your opinion. Science says otherwise. Of course they do. You just want to ignore that fact. Knowing is different than feeling. You're claiming they feel a certain gender. That is different than actually being a different gender. Their actual gender does match their genetics. Again...in your opinion. Which, again, disagrees with science. I think we can all agree with this part. But you're building a strawman since nobody here is advocating harming them. We feel that we are using proper gender terminology. You're the one wanting to change scientific definitions.
I actually completely get your view, and I think that's all that anyone SHOULD ask, it to try and understand, and be nice. That's it. It might not make sense to you, it doesn't make total sense to me. I have not grown up in that body with those thoughts and so can't really understand what they are thinking. But I can understand that they get seriously ridiculed in society, often physically accosted, and all the time they aren't doing anything to anybody else that is rude, mean, hurtful.... So I guess, why not extend a hand and just be accepting. Why hold onto our past notions of gender being just about what's between the legs. If I can't understand putting myself in their position, but they do it with full knowledge that much of the world looks down on them, then damn, that must be pretty serious to them. So fine, you want to be called He, or She, or Cassidy or Buck or whatever, I'll do that. I'll also keep trying to understand. I'll also ask others to be understanding. That's it. You don't need to be attracted to them, I wouldn't bang Rosanne Barr just because she's a woman. Bang people you find attractive and who want to bang you.
The modern argument distinguishes between gender and sex. Gender (man vs woman) is a social construct. What it means to be either is dependent on the culture one was born into. Sex (male vs female vs intersex) is biological. So, yes, someone's gender can be incongruent with their biological sex.
This forum is really funny. You must be here for a few week to realize someone would indeed make the above post.
That's all fine and dandy, and I understand the point and agree to an extent. But there are a lot of people that simply live by the biological sex concept, and I don't think they're wrong, either. And that's where, to me, there's a disconnect in this discussion. Many people choose to view through the biological definition and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as we all respect one another.
Sure, you can predict someone's gender based on their biological sex, just as you can predict any social behavior based on a biological feature. That doesn't mean you're going to correct in your assumption 100% of the time. Like you said, the trick is respect.
That's fine. You don't have to acknowledge the validity of modern viewpoints. I was just pointing them out to you.
What's funny is watching the viewpoints coming from somebody in grad school, with no basis in reality or usefulness, and then comparing them to the real world. Please go ask a decent sample size of these people and see how many of them agree to "being a man, but still a female". Then get back to me with your "valid modern viewpoints", aka academia thought study.
In other words: "I don't understand the issue so I'm going to dismiss the informed discussion (fancy book learnin') of it." And the fact that you view the attempt to understand the issue on a level deeper than your own gut feelings as having "no basis in reality or usefulness" is telling.
It's cute and comical when you try to go with the "I'm more intellectual shtick" with me. I've been through the grad school / academia ordeal. It was fun and interesting. I now deal with lots of you coming in for interviews, thinking you know how things work. The reoccurring theme is that, while it's nice to think of hypothetical and philosophical angles to real world issues, the reality is that it's a useless waste of time when it isn't based in what actually happens in the real world. Sorry. It's "telling" in that I'm correct and living in the real world. There are no gut feelings involved here, just science / genetics. Again, find me a significant number of people that call themselves "a man but a female". You threw out the "someone's gender can be incongruent with their biological sex" argument, so the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, like I said, it's a useless thought study.
Since you appear to be the arbiter of reality, what would you define as the real world? Are all social sciences useless wastes of time, or just the ones that attempt to understand transgendered people? Wow. Are you really unaware that there is a whole community of transgendered people? Or is their self-identification merely hypothetical academic mumbo jumbo?
In my opinion, sex is a matter of biology, not psychology. It doesn't really matter to me what you feel like what you are, rather what your chromosomes say you are. You might be both, but you can't be one and say you're another.
