That’s all good and logical, but it’s flat-out wrong. Gender dysphoria is a real thing that’s recognized by every major medical and psychological organization. So clearly, the mind can be in opposition to what the body manifests. And as the mind goes, so goes the self, the identity.
If Betty “thinks she’s a man,” then yes, Betty is a man. If Bruce “thinks he’s a woman,” then Bruce is a woman. If Sam doesn’t feel like either a man or a woman, then Sam is non-binary.
Why is this only true for gender?
I gotta say that I would have a hard time not rolling my eyes at a biological male who looks like that one proclaiming they are a woman. I feel like the term “woman” is supposed to mean something that is at least halfway objective. If the term “woman” can be used to describe anyone who claims to feel like a woman, then the term ceases to have an objective meaning.
I’m not looking forward to the day when saying something like “There’s a man following me” gets met with the response “How do you know they are a man?” Or you can’t say “Women over the age of 40 need to get screened for cervical cancer” because you might risk offending the women who don’t have cervixes or vaginas or any other female reproductive organ. Maybe these fears are unfounded, but they are still lurking in my mind whenever I talk about anything gender and sex-related.
So by your own logic, saying “A man can’t become a woman” is 100% correct and thus totally non-controversial. Because if a person thinks they are a woman, they are already a woman. There is no “becoming” involved.
…identifying as non-binary is not identifying as a woman. And Forstater knew that Gregor identified as non-binary. The details matter here.
Don’t play annoying games.
I’m sure the transgendered folks out there who never had gender dysmorphia are annoyed by what you said.
There are plenty of people who feel “meh” about their gender who don’t identify as “non-binary”, by the way. A lot of folks have no problem using their genitalia to peg their gender 'cuz they think all the label stuff is for activists with a political agenda.
…in the context of this discussion what does this even mean?
And I wasn’t speaking specifically about this guy (or whatever word would be appropriate for them). I was expressing how I imagine I would feel about a biological male with that person’s features proclaiming themself (ugh) to be a woman. If you can’t grok how that person’s features seem incompatible with the most widely held concept of “woman”, I don’t know what to say.
Because GreysonCarlisle posted something I took issue with? Because I don’t agree with GreysonCarlisle’s definition of “non-binary”? If a woman is someone who feels like a woman, why wouldn’t a “non-binary” person be someone who feels “non-binary”.
If someone feels neither male or female, I’m not going to presume they re “non-binary”. I’m going to wait for them to tell me that’s what they are. And I think it would be considered impolite for me to question this label if said person expressed to feeling like a woman sometimes and a man at other times.
I don’t know how my point relates to the OP. But acting like it isn’t tied to the free-flowing discussion we’re having about the importance of self-identity to gender is bizarre and irritating to me.
…it looks to me that you absolutely were speaking specifically about Gregor.
But in this case Gregor doesn’t identify as a woman. I don’t particularly care to indulge you in whatever game you are playing here. Gregor identifies as non-binary.
How are you defining non-binary?
Gregor has identified as non-binary. And in the context of this particular case Forester knew that. There is no need to presume anything here. The facts of the case are known.
If the mere discussion of this topic is bizarre and irritating to you imagine what it would be like to be constantly deliberately misgendered.
More annoying games.
And to give context to this, Gregor Murray is a Scottish politician who was revealed to have directed vile, misogynistic abuse at women, repeatedly. Murray’s behavior was so extreme that it lead to a formal government investigation forcing “they” (aka. Murray) to step down from “their” position and leave the party. So basically we’re being told that Forstater is a bad person because she won’t bend over backwards to be polite to a woman-hating lout, and then that Rowling is a bad person because she defends Forstater.
I try to be polite to everyone but in a situation where a dictionary-definition male like Murray verbally attacks dictionary-definition women, my sympathies are limited, and I also find it remarkable how many so-called feminists and progressives side with the abusive male in cases like this.
…these are convenient talking points: but not an accurate description of what actually happened.
I’m actually with the courts on this one. They made the correct decision in my opinion. They got it exactly right.
Evidently, Murray called the woman a cunt and a TERF. Does cunt carry the same baggage in Scotland as it does in the US? How about TERF? I never heard the term until today.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, so Maya’s position isn’t improved. In any event, that’s just one of the several things that Maya did wrong.
Female/male are biological terms to describe a narrow aspect of the body, or in other words, our biological sex. Man/woman is a job description that is typically awarded based on your sex. Some male people decide they resign from the job of being a man, and vice versa.
Words mean things, true, but there’s no law that says you can’t mix and match your words to become the man or woman you want. You may always be male or female, but this need not govern whether you life as a man or woman.
Humans invented these terms. They’re dead. We’re alive. We can reinvent all of them.
But I wasn’t talking about his “non-binary” identity! I was speaking hypothetically. If a biological male that had a beard and mustache like Gregor called himself a “woman”, I would probably have to keep my eyes from rolling. Do you have something to say to this point other than accusing me of playing a game? I’m actually curious if you can at least understand why a person would have this negative reaction.
Because I will tell you something. I am bracing myself for what I fear is inevitable: Biological male Incel edgelords identifying themselves as women just to troll and disrupt. And we will have no way of talking about how to push back against this without people getting upset.
Do you understand why someone might have some unease about a conventionally masculine-presenting biological male calling himself a “woman”. Is this unease always a sign of transphobia? Or do you think it’s possible that someone could have reasonable concerns?
For the millionth time, I understand that isn’t what Gregor was trying to do. I don’t need you to keep beating me over the head with this fact.
Anyone who defines themselves as “non-binary” is “non-binary”, in my book. I don’t possibly see how it could be any other way and still be fair. If women are people who identify as women and men are people who identify as men, then logically it follows that non-binaries are people who identify as non-binaries. To treat non-binary folks any different is totally unfair, IMHO.
Is it possible for us to have a discussion that isn’t totally fixated on the specifics of this case? That’s what I’m dying to know.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn’t say the discussion of this topic was bizarre and irritating. What I said is I think questioning the relevance of my quibble over GreysonCarlise’s definition of “non-binary” is bizarre and irritating.
I agree with everything you wrote, but I think Maya would have gotten fired even if she had said “Males can’t become females.” People are gradually coming around to understanding that gender and sex are different things, but it seems to me they tend to be used interchangably in the context of transgenderism. And that is hella confusing (at least to me).
I am OK with gender and sex being granted their own degree of fluidity. I’m biologically left-handed, but I’m functionally right-handed through conversion, so I’m OK with calling myself (and others like me) “righties”. So I’m also OK with calling a person who transforms her penis to a vagina a female. And I’m OK with “woman” being a big umbrella for a diversity of phenotypes and expressions.
But if a person doesn’t present as a “female” in any apparent way, is it wrong to say they aren’t female? Is having a negative reaction to a masculine biological male talking about his “womanhood” an indication of inner transphobia? Or it just innocent bewilderment mixed with exasperation? I don’t know the answers to these questions. I hope someone can see their way to responding to them without jumping down my throat or asking how they are relevant to the discussion.
I am no expert and very new on this journey with my middle child. There stereotype is of an obviously girl trapped inside a boys body (or vice versa), playing with dolls, other typical femininity things, etc.
FWIW, What I learned very recently at the gender clinic is that a significant portion of transgendered folks come to that realization with puberty. The gender dysphoria kicks in and/or they can’t accept/don’t want to be yoked to society’s treatment of their birth identity.
Middle child was not stereotypically a boy trapped in a girls body growing up. Middle child was absolutely not been comfortable with the changes that accompanied puberty, and now presents as male. It’s a journey, I support him on that journey, and don’t know where it will eventually lead…
Why? This thread is about this case. Why not start a new thread for your generalized “hypothetical” discussion?