He didn’t bring it up. He was responding to someone else who brought it up.
Maybe he’s scared to death he’ll pick up a woman for a date and she will turn out to have been “assigned male at birth”. At which point arguably it would be affecting him.
Of course, that can probably be avoided by not picking up complete strangers (get to know folks first, then get intimate) and making it clear on dating sites that transwomen do not appeal to him. I can’t imagine he’d be very appealing to them, either.
The point was mostly about the idea that my gender is, or should be, whatever I decide it is, apart from any physical characteristics (except, maybe, for theoretical brain structures). I think you would agree that intersex people are a subset of transgender people in general.
Estrogen treatments and hormone blockers and so forth are certainly going to affect athletic performance, and, as you mention in the article, are much more of a commitment than even a serious athlete is likely to take, just to win in the women’s divisions. But there are significant, non-culturally defined differences between men and women that are not affected by self-identification. Therefore it isn’t going to possible to treat everyone who self-identifies as “a man” or “a woman” the same.
What situations in which it is appropriate to say, “Sorry, one’s self-identification doesn’t change things” is the vexed question, of course.
Regards,
Shodan
It was in response to a question: “why do so many fixate on athletics?”
I don’t consider myself one of those “fixated” on athletics. I was just trying to share one perspective (out of many possible). Is that clearer?
ETA: and now on the next page I see Miller already answered this.
Remarks about a person’s appeal or attractiveness or lack thereof in this fashion are not appropriate for this forum.
[/moderating]
I agree. The original comment went back to an earlier one from a ‘conservative’ (at least somebody criticizing ‘liberals’) who said in effect gender and sex had always been the same thing until recently. Which is not literally true, but for the reason you say. The word gender wasn’t generally applied to people at all. In fact it does go back ages, not just since conservatives were taught in school, that there was no distinction between a person’s sex in terms of genitalia (or much later, chromosomes)…and any other definition of sexual identity. Men who liked to dress as women, etc, were just that.
It’s OK to push for a basically new concept of ‘gender’ (sexual identity) as distinct from sex. But implying it’s always been around is a stretch. And it’s absurd to maintain a nomenclature where gender=sex and then speak of OB/GYN’s ‘assigning’ it. Doctors don’t ‘assign’ anything, they see the physical evidence of sex. A nomenclature which distinguishes ‘sex’ and ‘gender’, by recruiting the latter term to mean ‘non-physical aspect of male/female sexuality identity’ might or might not be useful or valid, that’s to debate IMO. But a claim that the medical profession is ‘assigning’ anything by observing physical characteristics of an infant’s sex is risible.
to those arguing about taking hormones as a way for formerly-male-now-females to play female sports, sorry, but lipstick on a pig is ultimately still lipstick on a pig.
its not an obsession, but its a major flash point in the left’s effort to make all people who are part of a majority or advantaged group, such as whites, (cis)males, feel guilty, “check” privilege, and ultimately “give up” privilege. The result they seek, forced downwards equality rather than induced upwards equality, seems very similar to what Lenin and Mao tried (but with economic class). It didn’t work too well. An attempt to make us all into the Goobacks of South Park.
So, you’re unable to refute any of the points raised. Par for the course, but good to see you sum it up so succinctly.
Whether this is an intentionally hateful remark or just incredibly tone-deaf, it continues to demonstrate your lack of understanding of this issue. Though to discuss things like athletics, we first have to agree to treat transgender people with decency, dignity, and respect.
Not surprisingly, you misunderstand “the left”, in general, as well. None of this describes what transgender rights activists, or the left in general, advocate.
Wow, I don’t feel guilty about transsexuals, at all. So I’ve got that going for me. Maybe I don’t feel guilty because I haven’t done anything to feel guilty about?
The only part of the transgender movement that I can’t stand are all the people who call in to Dan Savage’s podcast who have to proclaim that they’re cisgendered. Is the fact that you’re cisgendered or transgendered relevant to your sex/relationship question? No? Then why are you bringing it up?
i’m sorry you feel this why, and i, as a cis-gendered white male my self do not wish to make you or anyone else feel guilty. i think for many of us this can be considered new information, so there should be no shame in our past mistakes.
and i may regret asking, but why do you feel that recognizing that there are different types of genders is “forced downward equity?”
mc
Double post – fuck.
I’m guessing some cis people do it out of some form of “solidarity” with transfolk, and others do it because they think it’s expected (particularly after hearing the first group). It’s like all the people who feel the need to announce that they’re “GGG” - we get it, you’re a wonderful person, your partner is lucky to have you, get to the point already.
However, being a transperson is often a significant factor in a relationship dynamic even for non-sexual questions and flagging this will inform Savage’s understanding of the situation at hand and what advice he gives.
What the fuck are “forced downwards equality” or “induced upwards equality”?
So basically instead it should be, “Be a good little trans and we’ll give you rights.” Uh huh.
(I think you also totally missed the point of that episode)
Not to speak for him (heaven forfend) but I suspect “forced downwards equality” is intended to mean some sort of Harrison Bergeronesque scenario where all are forced down to the level of the lowest common denominator, as opposed to the alternative where those lagging behind by whatever metric are induced in some way to raise their game.
Please note that that I do not in any way endorse DerekMichaels00’s views.
I can’t even figure out what that would look like. If I’m forced down to the level of trans people, what will that mean for me? Will I be given random doses of hormones by evil doctors? Will I have to change my name to a feminine name on alternate Tuesday? Will I start menstruating?
It’s a gibberish concept.
ok, lets not forget we’re in GD and not the pit.
and as i said, i may regret asking; but i really would like DerekMichaels00 to calmy and rationally explain why he thinks it would be a downward move to recognize the differences in others. as i think there may be others who feel this way and it would be unproductive to dismiss their views as gibberish.
mc
Perhaps he means that he believes liberals seek to make straight white cis males feel ashamed and inferior due to their heterosexuality and race and gender and gender identity in the same way that non-het, non-white, non-cis, non-male people have been made to feel ashamed and inferior historically. It’s equality of humiliation and shame for all! And also miniature American flags!
I know precisely where I am. There’s no injunction in GD to treat ideas with respect, unless I’ve vastly misunderstood the rules.
Sure, yeah, that’d be peachy, and I wish you the best of luck in obtaining a rational explanation. I think my daughter’s desire for a sparkly magical alicorn is equally likely to be fulfilled, for similar reasons.
sorry, i didnt mean to come across as a jr mod, i just always hope for respectful discourse. (and i realize you didnt start it)
and where could i get one of those alicorns?
mc