Being on the conservative-right wing- traditionally Christian side of the SDMB I thought these two questions were completely relevant. If I write “only men have penises” or “only women get periods” it starts a discussion on transphobia, sex-gender and stuff. So, for the purpose of a thread where not even 10 years ago the meaning would be 100% clear (men: human, XY, usually a penis from birth) now, especially at the SDMB this word “men” is not that clear-cut.
Also, in the new rules for Debates/Elections, there is this rule (I know this was in GQ):
(my bolding, snipping)
Since the thread starts with the (correct in my point of view) presupposition that men and women are different at least in the mass-shooting sphere it made me wonder if he was saying that men are women ARE different enough, because if men qua men are more prone to mass-shooting (which is true) then the logical conclusion is that they can be different in other areas.
Transgenderism and mass shootings are both rare enough that any statistics or other factual information would be somewhere between meaningless and nonexistent, so you can’t have been asking about that. The only reason you were writing that is to use as a gotcha the next time you posted in a transgender-related thread.
Other differences between men and women would be off-topic for a thread about this difference. Definitions of male and female are only on-topic if there’s a commonly-used and sincerely-held definition of the terms that contradicts the OP’s premise.
You question, and this follow-up, sure look like you’re trying to do a sneaky end-run around the restrictions on transphobic blathering. “Trolling” seems a pretty good description of that effort. Well-done, Chronos.
I gotta agree with the OP. In the modern age with discussion of fluid genderism, gender based on choices, brain differences between men & women and which transgendered people’s brains most resemble, the growing usage of he/her/its, etc. and especially the recent board discussion pertaining to gender issues, it is not unreasonable that when posts are made that depend on distinguishing male/females that someone ask, “What definition are you using of male/female?”
It’s not unreasonable if the definition matters. Are you suggesting that there’s a commonly-used definition of male/female that contradicts the idea that most mass shooters are male?
Wait, how are you defining “mass”?
How are you defining “shooter”?
How are you defining “most”?
All of those questions are equally insignificant to the observation. But Aji de Gallina hasn’t been on a years-long kick to discredit the idea that “shooters” refers to rifles AND pistols, nor a kick to discredit the idea that “most” includes numbers as low as 70%, nor that “mass” includes occasions where just 4 people are killed. So he didn’t nitpick those definitions. He only irrelevantly nitpicked the definition that’s part of his ongoing transphobic patterns.
Recognizing the reality of transgendered individuals is recognizing that men and women are different. If they weren’t, then we would have “gender based on choices” rather than fundamental differences so severe that they cause some individuals trauma. That’s the whole reasoning behind the TERF schtick is that it undermines the idea that there aren’t any differences between genders.
So, while I think that asking “What, are you saying males and females are different?” is not a completely inappropriate thing to ask when you contrast it to some other topics discussed on the SDMB, asking “what do you define as a male” is not one of those comparisons since it undermines the dominant narrative of no default gender differences.
Which, to my mind, is more inflammatory than the question at the end of your paragraph. Even better, since this was GQ and not GD or IMHO, the OP should have instead sought to clarify the question or even, gasp!, provide additional information to the GQ question. So, if this was the OP’s concern, maybe he/she should have stated something like, “You’re probably referring to cis-men, since I can’t think of any transwomen or transmen who have been mass shooters. However, since the number of trans-men and women and the number of mass shooters are both quite small, the lack of that particular combination may just be a statistical anomaly.”
None at all, for me. However, even when people say “men are better at most sports” we get mired in the discussion of “what is man” or “in this super niche activity women may be better”. It is gospel here, and a rule in GD, that saying that women are predisposed to some activities is wrong.
The questions are clear, so as to not come into any problems. You say that transgenderism is very rare, but in other threads it looks like everyone meets tons of trans people every day. When we talk about trans people in pro sports, we don’t get “trans and pro sportspeople are very rare.”
Glad your crystal ball has received the latest firmware.
What is a man?
What is a woman?
What is a male?
What is a female?
Do you have definitions? No, commonly-used is commonly treated as transphobic or homophobic, so give me definitions.
No, I didn’t mention trans people on purpose. I didn’t want to get even close to that so an in-thread definition was what I wanted.
If the question were “Why are 95% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies male?,” would the same questions be relevant in GQ?
The percentage of transgender individuals in the population is sufficiently low that the question becomes irrelevant in this particular context. Asking the question was a blatant attempt to hijack or derail the thread.
Oh, bullshit. In the absence of any reason to believe there have been enough transgender or nonbinary or genderfluid mass shooters (have there been any at all, that we know of? Hard to believe that angle wouldn’t take over Fox News for most of a week) to have an impact on the statistics, it’s a blatant attempt to bring transgenderism into a discussion that has nothing to do with transgenderism.
Au contraire, it’s an attempt to take it out, so that in no moment I say man or woman it can be construed as anything else or somebody saying “what about trans men?”.
I, of all people, would not want to step into that minefield.
But if I say “because men are different and work harder and derive more pleasure from being at the absolute top of a company than women” even if I say it’s 40% if the answer, I’d be tarred and feathered as misogynistic because “how dare you say women are different from men”. You can’t have it both ways.
Can we use the “trans people are too few” in other contexts or only when you like the result?
I was specifically trying to avoid getting trans people into the discussion by asking from clarification, at the SDMB we get “trans men are real men” and even “don’t even say trans men, they are men, period” so the statistics for men being mass shooters also hit trans men, unless you specifically exclude them (as you should for, at least, statistical reasons.)
You did a terrible job of not stepping into that minefield, given that you were the one who sprinkled the mines all over the thread. Nobody else but you brought up the issue. There was no need to bring the issue up. There’s no significant number of mass shooters who are anything but cis male.
I don’t think OP’s point is necessarily relevant to transgenderism. A question about the whyness of a majority of mass shooters being male implies the presumption that differences exist, but a question as to whether such differences are innate, or inherent, or rather constructed seems highly apposite.