Because language is a socio-cultural thing. When we use science to describe mathematical phenomena, we assign arbitrary symbols to certain states, conditions, and ratios. We might not be able to see the pi ratio with our naked eyes, but we know how to describe it in an accepted way.
However, we’re using antiquated socio-cultural language tools to describe a scientific phenomenon. It’s like “infrared” and “ultraviolet.” We cannot see them, so we make up words to define what we know to be true. We don’t just say “black” when we mean “infrared.” Science drives the use of language.
Your definition of “male” would therefore be more accurate to say, “A person bearing X and Y chromosome pairs usually demonstrates secondary sexual characteristics which we have come to call male.” In this case, language is driving the science, instead of the other way around — we as humans demand that the language fit the convenient definitions of “male” and “female,” which we understand, instead of accepting what the science says to be true.
Bricker Thank you for presenting some interesting well thought arguments without appealing to emotion with vicious ad hominems.
I don’t agree with the analogy of walking into an alley. It is socially unacceptable to attack someone in an alley. Social norms developed for a reason. They serve a purpose within a society. Certainly they may be changed, but I don’t necessarily agree that it’s just a responsibility of people to simply accept paradigmatic shifts as though they are nothing.
I think that the social norm we are being required to accept in this thread is a bit too blithe and flippant about the impact that this sort of thing has on society. The level of hostility that I received for even entertaining the notion that there are two sides to this story is telling.
I am not necessarily opposed to the agenda, but I don’t just embrace it blindly either. There is a reason I live in New York City, because I want to live in a cosmopolitan environment, knowing that there are places that are not as willing to just accept a disruptive shift.
And by the way, regarding your “but when I see them, I see a human” response, if you see someone who is surgically corrected to match their inner identity, why wouldn’t you refer to them as they appear? Why must you require a DNA sample ?
Bricker Some people wield righteous indignation as a weapon. It’s a common expression of groupthink regardless of which group is doing the person’s thinking.
So you think that a definition of ‘man’ from 1907 would include X and Y chromosomes?
And if in, oh say 10 years, a MtF transgendered person gives birth, thanks to advances in medicine, would she then become a woman at that point? Or is it a man giving birth?
Are there no bisexuals out there? Because years ago it was either straight or gay, no inbetween. But wait, back before that there was no gay or straight, just whatever you were doing at the time. Egads, if only the planet would remain static we wouldn’t have to challenge our worldviews! :eek:
Because it simply doesn’t reflect the complexity of biological reality. For instance, due to the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome that kimera mentioned above, some people with genetically male XY chromosomes have physical characteristics of females. Saying “these people with XY chromosomes and vaginas are male” is not intrinsically more meaningful, in terms of our expectations of sexual categories, than saying “these people with XY chromosomes and vaginas are female”.
For the vast majority of people, sure. The vast majority of individuals have either XX or XY chromosomes; have either a vagina/uterus/ovaries/clitoris or a penis/testes; have either a typically female or typically male hypothalamus structure; start producing either estrogen or testosterone during puberty; psychologically identify as either a woman or a man; etc. etc. And in the vast majority of individuals, all these characteristics fall into the same category: either all typically female, or all typically male.
If the whole human species consisted only of individuals whose physiology and psychology conformed neatly to these nice stable binary categories, then there’d be nothing to argue about here. The point, though, is that there’s a small but non-zero population who don’t fit neatly into this simple stable classification scheme.
Therefore, as far as these individuals are concerned, we have to come up with some other way of relating them to the simplistic binary categories of “Man” and “Woman”. You’re proposing to deal with the situation by establishing a bunch of additional categories, such as “Androgyne” (your “half man and half woman”), “Transgendered Woman”, etc. That’s one way of handling it, sure, and many in the transgender community support this approach.
However, it’s not what our society as a whole is currently moving toward. What we seem to be doing at present is just retaining the simple binary categories of “Man” and “Woman”, and leaving it up to individuals to decide which category they fit into, according to how they self-identify. This seems to me like a perfectly good practical solution and I can’t understand why you’re so strongly opposed to it.
I’m down with that, Bricker, and thank you for your thoughtful and courteous response, as well as for your contributions on the subject of the thread.
Because they can’t breed, it’s functionally relevant. When I meet a woman I don’t say “Hi woman, it’s nice to meet you nice woman.”, nor do I say, “Hi tranny, it’s nice to meet you nice tranny.”, it doesn’t actually make much of a difference, I deal with the person as an individual not as a type, but the word ‘woman’ has a real meaning, regardless of how you feel inside.
Right, I am not trying to fit everyone into binary categories. In fact I am rejecting attempts to do so.
I prefer a more precise approach to language. I do not think we should conflate the binary categories into subjective catchalls that no one can ever be sure of.
I would call Sol, Sally if that’s what they wanted to be called. That’s not the same as defining Sol as a woman. I know a man named Michel and I’ve known many women named Michelle. It is clear what gender they are. The fact is I am going to react differently to a woman who has breeding potential than an altered androgyne who doesn’t. The social roles are different, the dynamics are different. My wife is breast-feeding my daughter right now, if she were a transgendered MtF then that wouldn’t be occurring. I think that’s a pretty essential difference.
A woman is capable of the choice whether she wants to breed or not, I am fine with the choice she makes. If she wants children and can’t have them, I feel sorry for her, but none of these arguments is a compelling reason for me to make the word woman amorpous and malleable.
Practicality and imprecision are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, often we settle for imprecise definitions and classifications just because they’re more practically useful, in everyday situations, than a highly ramified scheme that provides greater precision but is difficult to remember or to apply.
Heck, I’m not breast-feeding your daughter right now either. In fact, I’ve never breast-fed any child, although I am a fertile (as far as I know) bio-female woman. Does that make me somehow “essentially different” from your wife in terms of “woman-ness”? Does that make me more similar to a transgendered MtF than to your wife, as far as being a woman is concerned?
No, you are more similar to my wife than a transgender due to the probability that you could accomplish that feat. It changes how people will relate to you.
No, they don’t. No words in any living language have stable definitions, and English is livlier than most other tongues. Definitions are always in flux, as we adapt our language to suit the needs of our current situation. Right now, we’re discovering that the traditional definitions of “man” and “woman” are insufficient to describe the reality of current society. So we are altering the definitions of these words to suit our needs.
Then it must really burn you up that we use words like “hot” and “cold” and “day” and “night” and “heavy” and “light” and “red” and “blue” and “green” and “easy” and “difficult” and “smart” and “stupid” and “you” and “I” and “happy” and “sad.”
The rest of the human population can cope with words that are malleable, relative, and perspective- and context-dependent. The fundamental building blocks of language, the day-to-day tools human beings use all the time, are fundamentally imprecise.
I can think of no good reason why you would put your foot down over sexual definitions, and not over any others, unless you feel it somehow threatened you personally.
Why? You’re married. I presume that you’re not planning to divorce or have an affair. Therefore, the breeding potential of any woman other than your wife is completely irrelevant to you. In addition, you’re talking to people on a messageboard who may be up to half a world away. The breeding potential of any women you’re talking to here is completely irrelevant to you. On what grounds do you need to differentiate between Kimstu as a woman and Sally as a woman?
I’m thinking it’s an ick factor similar to what comes up in discussions about homosexuality. I can somewhat understand it, because unlike gay people, if you have a personal issue with transgender people, it’s “harder” to keep them out of your personal life. After all, the chick you pick up at a bar could’ve once been a dude.
There’s even some similarities to the arguments. “Man was biologically formed to have sex with woman, and that’s the end of it” <-> “A transgender is biologically born a man/woman, and that’s the end of it.” “Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman” <-> “A man is defined as having XY chromosomes.”