The Couch

What do 'you' think about...

Comments on What do 'you' think about...

henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 09/14/12 - 9:29 AM:
Subject: What do 'you' think about...
...this?

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=27556

There's a lot to wade though, so, I expect no quick answers.

What I 'do' expect: honest assessments.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 10/01/12 - 12:54 PM:

I don't think everyone who has a penis is male. Transgender children know very early that the gender of their body does not match the gender of their psychology. They are immediately determined to embrace the other gender and are often driven to suicide if not permitted to do so.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 10/03/12 - 8:46 AM:

As I say in the thread: if Ibby wants to self-define as 'girl' (calling himself 'she', dressing as a woman, having surgeries and injections to alter the appearance of his flesh) then he should do that; also, folks who want to refer to Ibby as 'she' should do that.

My only point in the thread is -- apart from his self-definition and his treatment by others -- he 'is' he and I won't refer to him as anything other than 'he'.

Your point, Lib, really is just a restatement of what I heard several times in the thread.

And: that's fine, but it's not addressing what seems to me to be the schism between what 'is' and what some one 'wants'.

He can 'want' all he likes but -- 'till he recodes himself from XY to XX -- he is 'he'.

That was, and is, my only point.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 10/03/12 - 11:07 AM:

Anatomically, certainly, I agree that male parts are how one is defined as being male. If a transgender female wanted to get into a boy's only school, a physical exam to check whether she has a penis is all the qualification she would need. No psych exam or any other test would qualify her as unequivocally.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 10/03/12 - 1:27 PM:

"a transgender female"

Right there is the sticking point: he is 'he' (male)...again: he can self-define as he likes but he is NOT female.

XY/XX: pretty unambiguous.
Wayfarer
New
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 20, 2012

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 3
Posted 10/21/12 - 2:58 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
"a transgender female"

Right there is the sticking point: he is 'he' (male)...again: he can self-define as he likes but he is NOT female.

XY/XX: pretty unambiguous.


Henry, you don't seem to grasp the distinction between sex, which is biologically determined by chromosomes, and gender, which is a socially determined attribute. What is considered "womanly" and the role of a "woman", is different in different societies. It seems to me that if somebody is functioning as a woman in society, and is identified as a woman in that society, then their gender is female, regardless of their biological sex.

You can argue this point, of course, but the fact is Henry that on the street you don't know the genotype of everyone you meet, nor do you get to examine their genitalia. You make a decision to call them "sir" or "m'am" based on social cues - things like their name, whether they are wearing a dress, wearing make-up, physical attributes, etc. All of these cues can be altered,and thus it is entirely possible that if you were to pass this Ibby person on the street you would identify them as "female". You might even know people who are of the female gender but are biologically male, and be unaware of this. There are famous examples of this; Bond girl and glamour model Caroline Cossey, who even posed for Playboy, was also a biological male - but no one was aware of this until she was outed by a tabloid.

It is odd to me that you only acknowledge biological reality as "what is" and discount completely the social reality. I find it odder still that you would insist on referring to somebody in such a way that makes them uncomfortable.

Lastly, biological sex is not so clear-cut. A significant number of transgendered people are born with ambiguous sexual characteristics; the parents are often asked, shortly after to birth, to choose a sex which is then "assigned" to the infant by doctors. Only years later does it become apparent that the "choice" is often wrong.

In my experience, "what is" rarely resolves itself into neat categories.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 10/22/12 - 9:05 AM:

Way,

It's tiresome being told by folks what I 'do and 'don't' know.

Such a tactic is the last resort of one who can't dispute, for example, that 'man' (like 'woman') is fundamentally defined by a chromosome pair.

I don't give a shit about shifty cultural definitions...fuck that noise.

As I say (over and over) in the other forum: a body can self-define as it likes, but until said body re-codes its chromosomes, it is one or other (male or female), not both and certainly that body is not switching back and forth like some sexual chameleon.

If Joe wants to be Josephine, dresses like Josephine, has surgeries to appear as Josephine, that's great.

If Joe can get 7 billion folks to call him 'her', that's great too.

None of that changes the fact that Joe is a guy, a 'he', a male.

#

"All of these cues can be altered, and thus it is entirely possible that if you were to pass this Ibby person on the street you would identify them as "female"."

Very true. Wouldn't be the first time some one lies to me... wink

#

"discount completely the social reality"

I discount it because 'it' is NOT real.

If every one says fire is ice-cold, am I to follow the fiction to save face or play nice?

Cultural insanity, embraced by every one, is still 'insane'.

#

"I find it odder still that you would insist on referring to somebody in such a way that makes them uncomfortable."

I never signed any contract to deny what is real in favor of an other's 'feelings'.

#

"A significant number of transgendered people are born with ambiguous sexual characteristics."

Deviations from the baseline don't redefine the baseline.

That is: aberrations are just that: aberrations (not a moral judgment, just a biological fact).


Again: I've no interest in hobbling Ibby in his pursuits, but I’ll not participate in his lunacy.
Wayfarer
New
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 20, 2012

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 3
Posted 10/22/12 - 3:56 PM:

henry quirk wrote:

Such a tactic is the last resort of one who can't dispute, for example, that 'man' (like 'woman') is fundamentally defined by a chromosome pair.


Except that the social category of "gender" is not fundamentally defined by a chromosome pair the way biological sex is. As I pointed out, and you admitted, you do not request chromosome testing and genital examinations for each person you meet before referring to them as "he" or "she" - you do so based on entirely social cues.

Therefore in practice you relate to gender as a social phenomenon, even if in theory you deny the reality of both gender and social phenomena in general. For your behavior to be consistent in your views, you would have to examine the genitalia and run karyotype testing of every person you meet before you could refer to them with gender-specific terms.

henry quirk wrote:
As I say (over and over) in the other forum: a body can self-define as it likes, but until said body re-codes its chromosomes, it is one or other (male or female)


And again, this point is entirely moot because when a transperson claims to be "male" or "female" they are not talking about their chromosomes; they are talking about a social role.

henry quirk wrote:
"discount completely the social reality"

I discount it because 'it' is NOT real.


Social reality is perfectly real. It operates differently from physical reality, but that doesn't make it any less real. And one cannot always deduce social reality from physical reality, anymore than one can deduce the laws of biology from the laws of physics. They operate at different levels.

Your attitude is basically like saying, "There is no Queen of England, because there is nothing in the molecular structure of Elizabeth II that is any different from a commoner." It's attempting to explain away a level of reality by appealing to a different level of reality, and it doesn't ultimately work. It's basically a crude form of reductionism, one that is so rigid that you yourself don't even live in terms of it (see my point about chromosome testing everyone you meet).

henry quirk wrote:

Deviations from the baseline don't redefine the baseline.


I never said that they did, but that doesn't mean that deviations don't exist. My point is that even biological sex is not simply a matter of XX and XY, as any college level introductory biology course makes clear. Gender is an even more complicated matter.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 10/23/12 - 9:24 AM:

"social cues/gender"

Generally, both are related to (extend out from) 'sex' which is determined by a chromosome pair.

Again: aberrations do not redefine the baseline.

#

"There is no Queen of England..."

There isn't (any more than there's a Prez of the USA) beyond what folks agree to, or submit to. If every one told Obama (or Romney) to go fuck himself and refused to recognize his 'authority', is he still the Prez?

Nope.

'Tree' (as 'reality') exists even if no one is there to observe it...'queen', 'president', and 'transgender' are all 'fictions' which one can abide or not.

I decline to participate.

#

"that doesn't mean that deviations don't exist"

Of course deviations exist...but the existence of aberration -- AGAIN -- doesn't redefine the baseline.

#

"For your behavior to be consistent..."

Nonsense. Again: 'social cues/gender' generally extend out from sex (determined by chromosome). AGAIN: aberrations are just aberrations, not the 'norm'.

If I speak with a woman (who is really male), then shame on him for lying (to himself and to me).

#

"they are talking about a social role"

This -- AGAIN -- is generally, largely, an extension of what’s encoded in the flesh. AGAIN: aberrations are just aberrations.

#

"Social reality is perfectly real"

Only to the extent that folks agree to abide.

AGAIN: I decline to participate.

#


Heard all this before, Way, in the other forum...bring sumthin' new to the table, or, we -- you and me -- will just have to agree to disagree...I got no interest in endless rehashing.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/12/13 - 12:21 PM:

Semantic discussion, no?

We somehow need to define femininity and masculinity, and then identify a way to measure the two concepts according to the definition. The results from such a measurement would create a clearer picture, but only for the applied definition. I would be interesting to see whether femininity and masculinity are distributed along a very classic normal distribution, with a certain overlap. But then, what would it mean for any given individual.

That's the non-semantic discussion:
Are you
- who you feel that you are
- the sum of your actions
- the image as it is perceived by others
- something else?

Me? I'm definitely something else! sticking out tongue (j/k)
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/13 - 9:22 AM:

As I say, smoke, I don't give a flip if the other insists 'fire is cold; ice is hot'...I know better and act accordingly.

If the other chooses to act according to the belief that 'fire is cold; ice is hot' then they bear the brunt of the consequences for that belief alone (and/or with others equally deluded).

*shrug*
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.