That’s an appeal to common ignorance. We have biologically defined sex, and lay people should not misuse terms that have precise scientific meaning as it just serves to advance ignorance.
They are biological males. I actually covered such possibilities in my original postings in this thread–I allowed for individuals who have biologically male chromosomes but whose genitals do not develop as they would in a normal specimen of the species.
I’m not asserting opinions here, I’m asserting scientific fact: biologically mammalian sex is determined at fertilization by the chromosomes. This isn’t something that is malleable based on political beliefs or whatever.
Edit to add: A healthy human is born with two arms and two legs. If they have a mutation which causes any or all of those limbs to not develop, are they still human? Of course they are. Same thing for a biological male that doesn’t develop normal genitals for his biological sex. He’s still a biological male. How he chooses to live his life in terms of gender is his own decision.
Is it possible to disagree with this and not be delusional?
Words mean whatever people understand them to mean, and can mean different things in different contexts. As long as people understand each other - that when a transwoman says “I am a woman” she doesn’t mean that she has XX chormosones - then it’s pedantic to insist that because in the context of biology the term is used otherwise that she’s being delusional.
[The significance of the issue is that these people would like to be grouped together with other women and not grouped together with men for all sorts of social purposes, and language can ease that.]
A delusion would be a strongly held belief held in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. However in terms of mental disorders or illnesses it is distinct from beliefs held out of ignorance or lack of information. I’d assume most people who held an opposing belief about how mammalian sex is determined would be acting more out of lack of knowledge or ignorance than a genuine delusion.
But the lay definition predates the scientific definition. I’m not sure why we should give up a perfectly good usage of a word just because its been appropriated by a particular profession.
Mental illness is a very broad definition which can be abused. By one metric even an intersex person such as I can be said to be mentally ill due to my gender identity problems. I have no good answer.
I would say woman isn’t the same as “biologically female.” If someone with XY chromosomes claims they are biologically female they are incorrect. If they want to self identify as a woman they can. But if they cross the line and assert alternative theories of biology they are no longer making personal decisions about their life but trying to overturn establishes science based on individual emotional needs and desires.
The arguments that “words mean whatever we want them to mean” is an absurdity, scientific fields use specific terms for clarity of purpose and when they conflict with the lay usage of the words the scientific term should and is always the preferred usage. Lay usage certainly can never trump the scientific usage.
If you were posting this kind of dehumanizing mess about the poor, or women who needed abortions, I would be saying the same things.
:rolleyes:
I am not outraged. I am contemptuous of you, but I’ve seen enough bigotry that a post on a message board isn’t going to outrage me. I don’t care about you that much, not do I care about what your friends and family do for a living. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it does nothing to make me feel like you’re a good person, or whatever the point of your reveal there was.
And yes, I think it’s disgusting say that about someone’s job, where they help people to transition more smoothly.
Please, stop trying to be funny.
I’m not going to get into my personal history with mental illness, nor am I going to flaunt the pain of my loved ones so I can get cred with you. Suffice it to say I have plenty of experience. I’m am sorry you lost family to mental illness. It’s very hard. Perhaps you can get an inkling of an idea of why it’s so critical to help people who have gender dysphoria then, instead of calling them names and denying them treatment.
They aren’t delusions, and it is an insult.
You aren’t delusional. You just think you know more than you actually do.
The same reason we gave up beliefs in humors and apparitions. The primitive usage of the word inspired the scientific term, but the science actually gave clarified definitions and makes distinctions based on real science. The idea that when someone throws out the scientific definition you want to respond with “well the lay definition is…” demonstrates ignorance. The lay definition is fine in casual conversation but people should not insist it is superior to the scientific definition especially when someone is actually making use of the scientific definition.
It also better informs study of things like GID. We know someone’s biological sex is male for example, and if they strongly wish to have physical features typical of a female and inability to do so causes great emotional distress we can quickly determine this person has a problem relating to the brain. It could be brain structural, brain chemistry, hormonal etc, but since we know they can’t possibly “actually be” the other sex, we know there is instead a problem of cognition and that informs research pathways.
I’m aware of the biological definition of “sex.” I also think that the biological definition is not the only applicable, or most useful, definition of the term in most contexts.
Is that ignorance, or delusion? If its the former, exactly what am I ignorant about?
I would say there is no other useful definition of sex, and you should instead speak of gender for any other situations where such topics would arise.
Well, that’s a fairly absurd assertion, but if that’s the way you feel about it, whatever. My point was not to argue the value of scientific versus non-scientific definitions, but to counter the idea that arguing for a different definition of sex is delusional.
That’s not what I asked you.
I rejected the premise of your question.
You say that, but historically no one really pays attention to oppressed people until they start getting angry and making a scene.
Then all the folks show up and say, if you;d just been nice, we could have given you respect and civil rights. That’s where you and I are now, I think.
The consensus among doctors is that gender dysphoria is real, and that the people who have it aren’t “crazy” or delusional. That’s the standard practice of care. How or why this occurs is still up for debate, but there’s not a significant population of doctors who believe trans* persons are the same as people who think they are Napoleon.
He isn’t questioning them. He’s asserting counter-factual, hateful things.
I don’t care if he thinks it’s up for debate; we have members who honestly want to debate whether or not black people are as fully evolved as whites. Are you telling me that isn’t hate speech, because they really believe that? What about Westboro? They honestly think God Hates Fags. It that not hate speech, because they mean it?
Fine. Great. There’s an entire internet and tons of trans* people out there willing to talk with you and teach you, if you ask respectfully and are willing to learn.
Well, while you’re busy with your stuff, trans* people still have to live their lives, and they still need to use the bathroom, and they still need basic civil rights. You take all the time you need to work out your feelings, but don’t expect us to wait.
Yeah, I wish we could march on Washington and shut down buses and garbage collection too. It would be more effective than all this “talking” and “debating” and “convincing” we’re currently using. But, you know, I think the American people aren’t as interested these days in giant protests that divide the nation. Oh well.
Which is not an unreasonable question.
Likewise. That’s part of the point I was making.
Well I have doubts that my working definition is a good answer either. And of course this related subject has come up and caused much debate in other threads, such as the whole group of discussions about Asperger and ADD and others being variations of normal vs illness and so on … I am not sure there are good answers. Maybe less poor ones? The point is that when a discussion contains so many terms that have broad and varying defintions, terms that are loaded hot buttons to some and not to others, imbued with history for some and of different implications to others, well whack-a-mole is the least that can be expected.
Your patience in educating the rest of us and your understanding of our positions of ignorance has been greatly appreciated.
Who is making this claim?
There’s a big difference between “Words mean whatever people understand them to mean” (what I said) and “words mean whatever we want them to mean” (what you quoted). You may be confusing me with Humpty Dumpty.
It’s not a fight, and both can coexist. You use lay usage in a lay context and scientific usage in a scientific context and everyone understands each other and God’s in his heaven and all’s right with the world.
I tend to agree with this.
It’s a lot like when kids are making a fuss and you try to calm them down by giving them what they want but force them to ask nicely so that you can pretend they’re getting it because they asked nicely. But you can’t fool the kids and they know why they’re getting it and will do the same thing next time.
More broadly, in a democracy, a determined minority generally wins over a more apathetic majority. So a minority who is very affected by an issue has to their advantage to press as forcefully as they can in the hope that the majority will go along just to shut them up and make the issue go away.
If it’s an issue that the majority really cared about, then it wouldn’t work. But on an issue of this sort, which frankly has very little impact on people who are not transgender themselves, this kind of ruckus-making and intimidation can be very effective.