Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ZultanQ wrote:
That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.

If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.

However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?

Seriously? Have you even seen a transwoman's vagina? (there are plenty of medical articles online on the subject, I'm not talking about the other type of website) You're saying stuff that can be completely disproven by just googling the information! Transwomen CAN get wet (that's a link to a forum post asking the same question). They may not be able to give birth (due to the somewhat obvious lack of a uterus), but they most certainly aren't just "Hole[s] in the transwoman's pelvis". Medical science is surprisingly advanced.

 ZultanQ wrote:

My definition of "natural born woman" is someone who was born a woman and didn't decide they were a woman later in life.

What does it mean to be born a woman?

 stanman wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
{{Citation needed}}

A stupid picture.

Congratulations. You have become the very first person to join my ignore list, due to the sheer unbridled assholery of that post.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and you just posted the equivalent of scrawling badly spelt hate slogans on a wall in your own feces.

Well done.

 Goliath wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:
That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.

If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.

However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?

Seriously? Have you even seen a transwoman's vagina? (there are plenty of medical articles online on the subject, I'm not talking about the other type of website) You're saying stuff that can be completely disproven by just googling the information! Transwomen CAN get wet (that's a link to a forum post asking the same question). They may not be able to give birth (due to the somewhat obvious lack of a uterus), but they most certainly aren't just "Hole[s] in the transwoman's pelvis". Medical science is surprisingly advanced.

Well let's just say that I have my fair share of familiarity with transgender vaginas, lol. But if you want to post some kind of source that supports transwomen "vaginas" as being "close enough" then I'm all ears, I have read and seen enough to know that they aren't vagina enough for my definition and most gynecologists don't consider these pelvic cavities to be the aspirations of their careers.

 Polonius wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:

My definition of "natural born woman" is someone who was born a woman and didn't decide they were a woman later in life.

What does it mean to be born a woman?

To be born in a gender role as determined by your biology. Having a vagina is a good start. Gender roles exist for a reason. For example, biological women are considered more "passive" because they are physically weaker than men on average. The whole concept of womanhood was created under the notion of a gender role for biological females. This isn't some conspiracy created by the patriarchal illuminati to keep women down, it's an objective fact.

 ZultanQ wrote:

To be born in a gender role as determined by your biology. Having a vagina is a good start. Gender roles exist for a reason. For example, biological women are considered more "passive" because they are physically weaker than men on average. The whole concept of womanhood was created under the notion of a gender role for biological females. This isn't some conspiracy created by the patriarchal illuminati to keep women down, it's an objective fact.

You keep repeating "born as a woman" and "woman by biology."

I"m asking for specifics: what makes a woman a woman? Genetics? Functioning reproductive system? Being raised as a woman? What is it?

 Polonius wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:

To be born in a gender role as determined by your biology. Having a vagina is a good start. Gender roles exist for a reason. For example, biological women are considered more "passive" because they are physically weaker than men on average. The whole concept of womanhood was created under the notion of a gender role for biological females. This isn't some conspiracy created by the patriarchal illuminati to keep women down, it's an objective fact.

You keep repeating "born as a woman" and "woman by biology."

I"m asking for specifics: what makes a woman a woman? Genetics? Functioning reproductive system? Being raised as a woman? What is it?

As I said, and I think you would agree, "woman" is a gender role. My point is that this gender role was created by the attributes of biological females. When a transwoman says "I am a woman", what they are basically saying is "I fulfill the same gender role as biological females". But they do not because they do not possess the same attributes that created this gender role. They can try all the want but "close enough" only works in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 ZultanQ wrote:


As I said, and I think you would agree, "woman" is a gender role. My point is that this gender role was created by the attributes of biological females. When a transwoman says "I am a woman", what they are basically saying is "I fulfill the same gender role as biological females". But they do not because they do not possess the same attributes that created this gender role. They can try all the want but "close enough" only works in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Well, I think if you're going to argue that gender roles are fixed, then you have bigger problems. They so clearly aren't it's painful.

If anything, a transwoman couldn't fulfill the sexual roles of a cis-female, namely pregnanxy and lactation. Gender roles are simply behaviors. I think they're somewhat hard wired in, and the sexual dichotomy helps define them, but I"m not sure what female gender role couldn't be filled by any person, regardless of biological sex.

 Polonius wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:


As I said, and I think you would agree, "woman" is a gender role. My point is that this gender role was created by the attributes of biological females. When a transwoman says "I am a woman", what they are basically saying is "I fulfill the same gender role as biological females". But they do not because they do not possess the same attributes that created this gender role. They can try all the want but "close enough" only works in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Well, I think if you're going to argue that gender roles are fixed, then you have bigger problems. They so clearly aren't it's painful.

If anything, a transwoman couldn't fulfill the sexual roles of a cis-female, namely pregnanxy and lactation. Gender roles are simply behaviors. I think they're somewhat hard wired in, and the sexual dichotomy helps define them, but I"m not sure what female gender role couldn't be filled by any person, regardless of biological sex.

If a concept doesn't have a fixed definition... then what are you trying to define?

Gender roles are behaviors, but there are reasons why certain people have certain behaviors. Biological females have traditionally fulfilled the "woman" gender role because the woman gender role is to possess the behaviors of a biological woman. However, the problem begins when you have situations like the OP where it's not just about behavior anymore, thus gender roles take a back seat to biology. Because the word "woman" has been hijacked to mean the gender role that I just defined instead of its original meaning (biological female), we shouldn't even have sports called womens' and mens' sports anymore, since being a woman and being a man these days means subscribing to certain behaviors. But what do these behaviors have to do with sports? The reason these sports were divided in the first place was because of the biological differences between biological women and biological men, it has nothing to do with gender roles and their associated behaviors.

This is why I suggested before that sports should be divided by biology versus gender roles.

Seriously? Have you even seen a transwoman's vagina? (there are plenty of medical articles online on the subject, I'm not talking about the other type of website) You're saying stuff that can be completely disproven by just googling the information! Transwomen CAN get wet (that's a link to a forum post asking the same question). They may not be able to give birth (due to the somewhat obvious lack of a uterus), but they most certainly aren't just "Hole[s] in the transwoman's pelvis". Medical science is surprisingly advanced.

 ZultanQ wrote:

If a concept doesn't have a fixed definition... then what are you trying to define?

Gender roles are behaviors, but there are reasons why certain people have certain behaviors. Biological females have traditionally fulfilled the "woman" gender role because the woman gender role is to possess the behaviors of a biological woman. However, the problem begins when you have situations like the OP where it's not just about behavior anymore, thus gender roles take a back seat to biology. Because the word "woman" has been hijacked to mean the gender role that I just defined instead of its original meaning (biological female), we shouldn't even have sports called womens' and mens' sports anymore, since being a woman and being a man these days means subscribing to certain behaviors. But what do these behaviors have to do with sports? The reason these sports were divided in the first place was because of the biological differences between biological women and biological men, it has nothing to do with gender roles and their associated behaviors.

This is why I suggested before that sports should be divided by biology versus gender roles.

You're the only one in this thread bringing "gender roles" into the discussion. None of it makes any sense, especially this:

being a woman and being a man these days means subscribing to certain behavior

It's actually pretty much the opposite. Gender roles have expanded for both genders dramatically.

AS for biology, that's a good one. The question becomes, again, biologically, "what makes a woman a woman?" Specifically with regards to sports?

 Frazzled wrote:

Seriously? Have you even seen a transwoman's vagina? (there are plenty of medical articles online on the subject, I'm not talking about the other type of website) You're saying stuff that can be completely disproven by just googling the information! Transwomen CAN get wet (that's a link to a forum post asking the same question). They may not be able to give birth (due to the somewhat obvious lack of a uterus), but they most certainly aren't just "Hole[s] in the transwoman's pelvis". Medical science is surprisingly advanced.

I'm going to have to defer to Dakka's in house expert team on this. Where's Kronk for an opinion?

lol'd. Somebody get the DTVTF (Dakka Tranny Vagina Task Force) in here pronto!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:

If a concept doesn't have a fixed definition... then what are you trying to define?

Gender roles are behaviors, but there are reasons why certain people have certain behaviors. Biological females have traditionally fulfilled the "woman" gender role because the woman gender role is to possess the behaviors of a biological woman. However, the problem begins when you have situations like the OP where it's not just about behavior anymore, thus gender roles take a back seat to biology. Because the word "woman" has been hijacked to mean the gender role that I just defined instead of its original meaning (biological female), we shouldn't even have sports called womens' and mens' sports anymore, since being a woman and being a man these days means subscribing to certain behaviors. But what do these behaviors have to do with sports? The reason these sports were divided in the first place was because of the biological differences between biological women and biological men, it has nothing to do with gender roles and their associated behaviors.

This is why I suggested before that sports should be divided by biology versus gender roles.

You're the only one in this thread bringing "gender roles" into the discussion. None of it makes any sense, especially this:

being a woman and being a man these days means subscribing to certain behavior

It's actually pretty much the opposite. Gender roles have expanded for both genders dramatically.

AS for biology, that's a good one. The question becomes, again, biologically, "what makes a woman a woman?" Specifically with regards to sports?

According to you, women have nothing to do with biology. However, biological females are clearly defined and it is my position that sports should be divided by biological female/male instead of woman/man.

 ZultanQ wrote:
If a concept doesn't have a fixed definition... then what are you trying to define?

Exactly.

You're advocating a legal position based on what is at best a very loose definition, and at worse something that is completely artificial and inherently unhelpful.

Gender roles in the modern, enlightened day and age, don't need to be a thing. There are certainly sexual roles (uteruses give birth, testes fertilise) but even then they're getting to the point that they're slightly fluid, what with recent advances in IVF. Gender roles are un-necessary in society, and using them as a basis for definitions is silly.

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm going to have to defer to Dakka's in house expert team on this. Where's Kronk for an opinion?

Kronk's busy helping Japan and Western Europe with their declining population problem.

*Slaps Jihadin's hand*

Tag, you're up!

 ZultanQ wrote:

According to you, women have nothing to do with biology.

If I actually said that, please point it out so I can correct that. HOwever, I've been pretty clear about the need for hormone therapy and other factors, so I'm gonna feel okay call that a straw man.

Surgeries and hormone replacements alter the biology, which is one of the reasons definitions get fuzzy.

However, biological females are clearly defined

In most cases, sure. There are no shortage of examples of genetic misfits, hermaphrodites, and other things that complicate sex a lot.

it is my position that sports should be divided by biological female/male instead of woman/man.

I agree with you, I just feel that at some point a transwoman can be athletically comparable to a ciswoman, and thus qualifies.

 Goliath wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:
If a concept doesn't have a fixed definition... then what are you trying to define?

Exactly.

You're advocating a legal position based on what is at best a very loose definition, and at worse something that is completely artificial and inherently unhelpful.

Gender roles in the modern, enlightened day and age, don't need to be a thing. There are certainly sexual roles (uteruses give birth, testes fertilise) but even then they're getting to the point that they're slightly fluid, what with recent advances in IVF. Gender roles are un-necessary in society, and using them as a basis for definitions is silly.

I'm advocating nothing of the sort, especially not the rigidity of gender roles. I humored the idea of the "woman gender role" for the sake of argument but really, "biological females being biological females" isn't much of a role because I do not view MTFs to be women. I'm simply trying to understand the definition that people have ITT, because I personally think the emphasis placed on gender roles here or in society at large is given way too much relevance.

People are arguing ITT that transwomen have a right to participate in "female" sports because they have some right to an identity. I submit that identity has nothing to do with sports and a person's eligibility to participate in mens or womens sports comes down to biology, and furthermore that the man/woman labels on sports are misnomers since sports are divided by biology, not gender roles.

 ZultanQ wrote:


I'm advocating nothing of the sort, especially not the rigidity of gender roles. I humored the idea of the "woman gender role" for the sake of argument but really, "biological females being biological females" isn't much of a role because I do not view MTFs to be women. I'm simply trying to understand the definition that people have ITT, because I personally think the emphasis placed on gender roles here or in society at large is given way too much relevance.

Literally nobody here is talking about gender roles other then you.

People are arguing ITT that transwomen have a right to participate in "male" sports because they have some right to an identity. I submit that identity has nothing to do with sports and a person's eligibility to participate in mens or womens sports comes down to biology, and furthermore that the man/woman labels on sports are misnomers since sports are divided by biology, not gender roles.

I guess you're really arguing that gender cannot be changed. That any identity, aside from the one assigned at birth, is defective.

That's a more coherent argument than you've been making, but it does seem to fly in the face of the evidence.

 Polonius wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:


I'm advocating nothing of the sort, especially not the rigidity of gender roles. I humored the idea of the "woman gender role" for the sake of argument but really, "biological females being biological females" isn't much of a role because I do not view MTFs to be women. I'm simply trying to understand the definition that people have ITT, because I personally think the emphasis placed on gender roles here or in society at large is given way too much relevance.

Literally nobody here is talking about gender roles other then you.

People are arguing ITT that transwomen have a right to participate in "male" sports because they have some right to an identity. I submit that identity has nothing to do with sports and a person's eligibility to participate in mens or womens sports comes down to biology, and furthermore that the man/woman labels on sports are misnomers since sports are divided by biology, not gender roles.

I guess you're really arguing that gender cannot be changed. That any identity, aside from the one assigned at birth, is defective.

That's a more coherent argument than you've been making, but it does seem to fly in the face of the evidence.

Transwomen trying to pass as actual women has everything to do with gender roles, because if you are claiming that transwomen can become actual biological females, that's obviously not true. See: pregnancy. And if you say "well they can be close enough", I'm saying no, they cannot.

But let's say the can become pretty much biological women. Not all of them can even then. So what would be your standard? Do you mean to test every transwoman who tries out for womens sports, and if they don't meet the requirements, they can't join?

Talk about a crapstorm, that would open a pandora's box of lawsuits that may very well destroy the sports themselves. Now every single transwoman who got denied at the local womens' boxing ring is up in arms yelling about social justice and who are you to decide whether I'm a woman or not. This is the world we are headed toward with this kind of rampant liberal ideology.

I identify myself as xenu, alien emperor of mankind.


you are all rude bigots if you refer to me as: human, him, her, he.she, easysauce, or any titles that is not either "exalted xenu", "your majesty", "the emperor", or "xenu" if you are a close personal friend.

Not letting me rule the world as my self proclaimed identity allows me to, despite me wearing this crown and taking these pills for years, is bigoted and makes you a bad person.

 ZultanQ wrote:
I'm advocating nothing of the sort, especially not the rigidity of gender roles. I humored the idea of the "woman gender role" for the sake of argument but really, "biological females being biological females" isn't much of a role because I do not view MTFs to be women. I'm simply trying to understand the definition that people have ITT, because I personally think the emphasis placed on gender roles here or in society at large is given way too much relevance.

I know it fits in with your whole world view thing, but that bit I've bolded... Seriously? You can write that out with a straight face and not go "okay, maybe I *am* being bit intolerant"

A few things though:

1) Women/female is an inherently social term, and using them to define sexual/biological roles is, at best, a bit wishy-washy.

2)If, you walked past most Post-op trans* people, you wouldn't be able to tell. Who are you to say "Oh, well before I thought you were a woman, cause you looked like one to me! now though, cause I know you used to be a biological male, I'm not going to accept you as female."?

3)I also think gender roles are given too much relevance, in that they shouldn't exist. full stop. Sexual roles are a thing, but they can be changed sex should follow one's gender, not the other way around, so arguing that someone shouldn't have as many rights as others because they had the misfortune to be born with their sex matching their gender strikes me as rather mean.

I don't have anything against them but i'm not able to understand why any guy would want his parts cut off, I mean isn't that like the greatest fear most men have?

 ZultanQ wrote:

Transwomen trying to pass as actual women has everything to do with gender roles, because if you are claiming that transwomen can become actual biological females, that's obviously not true. See: pregnancy. And if you say "well they can be close enough", I'm saying no, they cannot.

Pregnancy is not a gender role. Gender roles are social and behavioral aspects of gender. Giving birth is an aspect of biological females. Being a caregiver is a traditionally female gender role.

Also, keep in mind, that not all women can become pregnant. Are they not really women?

But let's say the can become pretty much biological women. Not all of them can even then. So what would be your standard? Do you mean to test every transwoman who tries out for womens sports, and if they don't meet the requirements, they can't join?

Talk about a crapstorm, that would open a pandora's box of lawsuits that may very well destroy the sports themselves. Now every single transwoman who got denied at the local womens' boxing ring is up in arms yelling about social justice and who are you to decide whether I'm a woman or not. This is the world we are headed toward with this kind of rampant liberal ideology.

Heading towards? The New York supreme court ruled that transwomen can compete in women's professional tennis in 1977. This isn't exactly fresh news. Guess what: hasn't destroyed a single sport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
I identify myself as xenu, alien emperor of mankind.


you are all rude bigots if you refer to me as: human, him, her, he.she, easysauce, or any titles that is not either "exalted xenu", "your majesty", "the emperor", or "xenu" if you are a close personal friend.

Not letting me rule the world as my self proclaimed identity allows me to, despite me wearing this crown and taking these pills for years, is bigoted and makes you a bad person.

Your argument would make sense if half the planet were emperors of mankind.

Also, trivializing gender reassignment as a custom change and a few pills is pretty ignorant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
I don't have anything against them but i'm not able to understand why any guy would want his parts cut off, I mean isn't that like the greatest fear most men have?

It is. Which I think reinforces the idea that transwomen are pretty serious about not being men.

Polonius wrote:
The right to identity is the idea that a person can identify as they want, not as society demands. If a man identifies as a woman, he can. If a white skinned person of Mexican origin wants to identify as latino, they can. I mean, clearly, there are limits. If you want to identify as female you need to present yourself as such, and so on. But basically if a person can make a good case for having an identity, they have a right to it.

So, if I make a case that I had an African ancestor, some number of generations ago, I could choose to present myself as African American, qualifying for all the minority employment criteria, in spite of the fact that these are in place specifically to help actual minorities? Because that's "my" identity?

... but the most important sporting event in the world...

I don't think the World Cup weighed in on this at all.

squidhills wrote:GQ had an article on a transgendered MMA fighter (I forget her name) that I read recently. It was in the same issue as the Duck Dynasty homophobia incident, so if you have or can find that issue, that's my source.

Anywho, the article says that, given all of the estrogen a transgendered person takes every day, they actually have lower muscle mass than a man, and usually less testosterone than a normal woman would. This particular MMA fighter actually has less defined muscles on her body, because getting as ripped as most MMA fighters is impossible with as much estrogen coursing through your blood as she has. Yes, her bone density is higher than a woman's, but nobody has suggested that bone density is some kind of unfair advantage in a kung-fu fight.

That would be relevant if the question was could a trans-woman compete on even footing with a cis-male. And, according to what you said, the answer in that case would be no, because they don't have the same muscle mass.

However, that's not the relevant question to be asking or answering here. If we accept that a trans-woman loses muscle mass due to her hormone treatments, the relevant question is does she lose enough muscle mass to make it a fair competition with cis-women, and I don't think there's any data on that.

From the company's perspective, and in the absence of data, I can totally see how they'd want to err on the side of a fair competition for the hundreds of cis-women participating, at the risk of offending the one trans-woman. As what is essentially a marketing event, you'd far rather have one unhappy participant than several hundreds feeling cheated.

 easysauce wrote:
I identify myself as xenu, alien emperor of mankind.


you are all rude bigots if you refer to me as: human, him, her, he.she, easysauce, or any titles that is not either "exalted xenu", "your majesty", "the emperor", or "xenu" if you are a close personal friend.

Not letting me rule the world as my self proclaimed identity allows me to, despite me wearing this crown and taking these pills for years, is bigoted and makes you a bad person.

The issue here is that there aren't three genders (being Male, Female and Xenu), so identifying as "Xenu" is just you being a dick, or having mental issues, or both. Unfortunately for you, there is no surgery available to allow you to transition from (presumably) male, to Xenu; nor is there the legal recourse to allow you to legally become "Xenu" (In any aspect other than name).

Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly.

I wish you luck in your rule of mankind though; it would make a pleasant change from the secret cabal of space lizards. (Unless you're a space lizard, in which case we've already got a surplus)

 Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:
The right to identity is the idea that a person can identify as they want, not as society demands. If a man identifies as a woman, he can. If a white skinned person of Mexican origin wants to identify as latino, they can. I mean, clearly, there are limits. If you want to identify as female you need to present yourself as such, and so on. But basically if a person can make a good case for having an identity, they have a right to it.

So, if I make a case that I had an African ancestor, some number of generations ago, I could choose to present myself as African American, qualifying for all the minority employment criteria, in spite of the fact that these are in place specifically to help actual minorities? Because that's "my" identity?

Knew a white guy in HS who got an African American based scholarship due to his family coming from South Africa.

 Polonius wrote:
Your argument would make sense if half the planet were emperors of mankind.

Also, trivializing gender reassignment as a custom change and a few pills is pretty ignorant.

half the population is not trans gendered either, yet you have no issue with that as a valid Identify,

even I know there are more then 3 genders, even before we start adding in all the vairous "trans" identities that come into play with gender reassingment, male, female, neither, both, are valid biologically.

Once we open up non biological orientations (which is 100% ok) we can no longer say this or that identity is invalid without being total hyppocrates.

somone identifying as an alien has just as much right to that identity as somone identifying as a trans-man or woman,

and while you could argue that my description of the process of becoming a trans-gender as being "trivial" it is, FACTUAL... they get surgery, take pills, fill out some forms and now they are X-gender as if biology didnt matter.

If anything is being trivialized, its actual biological men and women, and what it means to be one.

 Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:
The right to identity is the idea that a person can identify as they want, not as society demands. If a man identifies as a woman, he can. If a white skinned person of Mexican origin wants to identify as latino, they can. I mean, clearly, there are limits. If you want to identify as female you need to present yourself as such, and so on. But basically if a person can make a good case for having an identity, they have a right to it.

So, if I make a case that I had an African ancestor, some number of generations ago, I could choose to present myself as African American, qualifying for all the minority employment criteria, in spite of the fact that these are in place specifically to help actual minorities? Because that's "my" identity?

Actually, yes. I believe the legal cut off in the US is 4 generations(so around 1/16), but it may have changed since the last time I did research on it(gotta love race sociology classes, huh?).

 easysauce wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Your argument would make sense if half the planet were emperors of mankind.

Also, trivializing gender reassignment as a custom change and a few pills is pretty ignorant.

half the population is not trans gendered either, yet you have no issue with that as a valid Identify,

even I know there are more then 3 genders, even before we start adding in all the vairous "trans" identities that come into play with gender reassingment, male, female, neither, both, are valid biologically.

Once we open up non biological orientations (which is 100% ok) we can no longer say this or that identity is invalid without being total hyppocrates.

somone identifying as an alien has just as much right to that identity as somone identifying as a trans-man or woman,

and while you could argue that my description of the process of becoming a trans-gender as being "trivial" it is, FACTUAL... they get surgery, take pills, fill out some forms and now they are X-gender as if biology didnt matter.

If anything is being trivialized, its actual biological men and women, and what it means to be one.

I didn't realise it was possible to be born an alien! When did this happen? Are there pics? Surely anyone that's born as an alien (as there must be for the "I wasn't born an alien but I am one inside" thing to work) would be famous by now! This is amazing! To think, we were talking about trans* discrimination and we've suddenly found proof of aliens!

Except, you know, not.

somone identifying as an alien has just as much right to that identity as somone identifying as a trans-man or woman,

It's possible for a human being to be born as man, woman, or in between. It is not possible for a human being to be born as an alien, and so saying that someone can be "incorrectly" born as male-female when they should be "alien" (something that isn't possible) is ridiculous.

 Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:
The right to identity is the idea that a person can identify as they want, not as society demands. If a man identifies as a woman, he can. If a white skinned person of Mexican origin wants to identify as latino, they can. I mean, clearly, there are limits. If you want to identify as female you need to present yourself as such, and so on. But basically if a person can make a good case for having an identity, they have a right to it.

So, if I make a case that I had an African ancestor, some number of generations ago, I could choose to present myself as African American, qualifying for all the minority employment criteria, in spite of the fact that these are in place specifically to help actual minorities? Because that's "my" identity?

Well, people can see through identities of convenience, but if you found that you had an African ancestor, and grew to embrace that aspect of your past, that's who you are. If you chose to identify publicly as African American, that's your right.

Any job that actually favors minorities is going to favor minorities that look like minorities though, and you have sort of stumbled across the difference between ancestry and race. Also, more then a few thinkers would disagree with me, and argue that those that can "pass" should not claim the identity.

From the company's perspective, and in the absence of data, I can totally see how they'd want to err on the side of a fair competition for the hundreds of cis-women participating, at the risk of offending the one trans-woman. As what is essentially a marketing event, you'd far rather have one unhappy participant than several hundreds feeling cheated.

And that's a good practical point. California law may make their strategic decision moot, but I'm not saying I agree with the breadth of california's laws.

 Goliath wrote:
The issue here is that there aren't three genders (being Male, Female and Xenu), so identifying as "Xenu" is just you being a dick, or having mental issues, or both. Unfortunately for you, there is no surgery available to allow you to transition from (presumably) male, to Xenu; nor is there the legal recourse to allow you to legally become "Xenu" (In any aspect other than name).

Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly.

I wish you luck in your rule of mankind though; it would make a pleasant change from the secret cabal of space lizards. (Unless you're a space lizard, in which case we've already got a surplus)

I can certainly get surgery to make me LOOK like an alien... surgery is 100% capable of that, legally, yes I can also have my ethnicity changed to that word, so both your points there fail.

you middle point, "Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly."

so before the world recognized "trans-identities" those people were just "dick(s), or having mental issues" as you so eloquently put it?

cant pick and choose what identities are valid (well you can, it just makes you a hyppocrate)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Goliath wrote:
It is not possible for a human being to be born as an alien, and so saying that someone can be "incorrectly" born as male-female when they should be "alien" (something that isn't possible) is ridiculous.

so if someone wants to BE an alien, or identify as one, they must be BORN as an alien...


hmmm, funny, when you apply that logic to trans gender, its called bigoted discriminatory, wrong ect (as it should be)


again, you cannot have it both ways, either what you were born as matters, or it does not.

 easysauce wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
The issue here is that there aren't three genders (being Male, Female and Xenu), so identifying as "Xenu" is just you being a dick, or having mental issues, or both. Unfortunately for you, there is no surgery available to allow you to transition from (presumably) male, to Xenu; nor is there the legal recourse to allow you to legally become "Xenu" (In any aspect other than name).

Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly.

I wish you luck in your rule of mankind though; it would make a pleasant change from the secret cabal of space lizards. (Unless you're a space lizard, in which case we've already got a surplus)

I can certainly get surgery to make me LOOK like an alien... surgery is 100% capable of that, legally, yes I can also have my ethnicity changed to that word, so both your points there fail.

you middle point, "Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly."

so before the world recognized "trans-identities" those people were just "dick(s), or having mental issues" as you so eloquently put it?

cant pick and choose what identities are valid (well you can, it just makes you a hyppocrate)

Is it possible to be born as an alien? yes/no?