Debunking 'Gender is a social contruct.'

Post Reply New Topic

How is it progress to promote the idea that anatomy isn't male or female -- "It just is" -- then claim that it's "transphobic" to suggest otherwise? That's exactly what Planned Parenthood is doing. How it progress to encourage a young boy to transition into a girl simply because he exhibits feminine behavior, when more likely the case is he is gay?

But hey, I guess if you question any of that you're a "reactionary" who is trying to "counteract progress." Jesus!

I don’t think people are going to transition unless they are transgender. It’s not an easy or cheap experience from what I’ve heard.

Not applying labels to anatomy doesn’t change the function of that anatomy, so I’m not sure where the problem is here.

Using an example from one of your older posts on this thread of midwives using gender neutral terminology in their practices, I’m having trouble following how that is anti-woman. Speaking as an old world mother who breastfed and couldn’t stand to have my baby all the way in the stroller so he was always next to me in a baby carrier until he outgrew it, such things wouldn’t change my personal experience of labor and delivery, and being a mother and a woman.

Not that people of various gender identities can’t have a similar experience, but giving other people a voice (especially those who are still marginalized in many respects depending on their location), doesn’t change my voice in any way. It adds to it, I think. I’m authentically me. There’s less of a push for an ideal that I’m supposed to aspire to.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 04 Jun 2019, 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If there’s this irrational fear that “womanhood” is going to be lost, it makes me very curious about how you (or anyone) would define it. What specifically do some fear is going to be lost?

No, you haven't. You've waffled about "conspiracies" and vague allusions to "lost womanhood" and something, something "Think of the children!!" Oh, and that cishet people are in danger of losing their rights.

From what I've seen, you haven't done much towards making any solid points at all beyond you're worried about some transsexual boogeyman making you uncomfortable.

I not saying that "womanhood" is going to be lost; just that it seems ridiculous to erase terms like "female" and "motherhood" based on the notion that it might make transgenders uncomfortable. Honestly, why would such terms make them uncomfortable? I don't get that. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me -- and I mean that sincerely.

It's really not my place to define the term "womanhood," I guess. I'll leave that up to women.

Well, you are entitled to your misconceptions about my talking points. No, I never said anything about a conspiracy. Formal conspiracies are rare; however, monetary gain can drive a lot of bad ideas. Can you honestly claim that the Planned Parenthood mission statement on this issue isn't utterly absurd?

Anyway, if you're going to continue to be snarky, I won't reply to any more of your posts.

But since you are the one that mentioned that it might be lost, you must have some specific way you’re defining it.

I believe I alluded to my friend's assertion that the movement was "anti-woman," and then added that they seem to want to erase the idea of "womanhood." No, I'm defining it any specific way at all. Even among women who identify as women, you wouldn't get one answer, any more then you'd one answer from those who identify as men. I certainly don't identify as the stereotypical male. I just want to know why the push to eliminate these terms.

By eliminating the terms "Man" and "Woman", people's minds are forced to not consider men and women as different. This way, all people will treat each other equally.

Sort of like when parents forbid their kids from saying "f**k" in the hope that their kids will never think of sex.

You're making some quite extraordinary claims here. I don't think they have any grounding in reality, although I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Can you cite any sources which support your claims that:

1) There is less evidence to support diagnoses of gender dysphoria than there is to support diagnoses of autism?
2) Medical professionals encourage people to transition based on the behaviour they exhibit?

On point 2), I feel obliged to point out that it is notoriously difficult for trans individuals to access the medical support that they desire. In most countries there are serious issues with medical gatekeeping - for example, read about them in the US here: http://salenaaraya.com/wp-content/uploa ... aAraya.pdf

In the UK this treatment is provided for free on the NHS, which makes it much easier to access for most people than in the USA. Here is how it is accessed: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dy ... treatment/

Some lines that are particularly worth noting:
"If your child is under 18 and thought to have gender dysphoria, they'll usually be referred to a specialist child and adolescent Gender Identity Clinic (GIC)."

"Your child’s treatment should be arranged with a multi-disciplinary team (MDT). This is a group of different healthcare professionals working together, which may include specialists such as mental health professionals and paediatric endocrinologists (specialists in hormone conditions in children)."

"Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological, rather than medical or surgical. This is because the majority of children with suspected gender dysphoria don't have the condition once they reach puberty. Psychological support offers young people and their families a chance to discuss their thoughts and receive support to help them cope with the emotional distress of the condition, without rushing into more drastic treatments."

"GnRH analogues will only be considered for your child if assessments have found they're experiencing clear distress and have a strong desire to live as their gender identity."

Then in adults (who also have to jump through the "psychological treatments first" hoop):
"If you want to have genital reconstructive surgery, you'll usually first need to live in your preferred gender identity full time for at least a year."

"Once you've completed your social gender role transition and you and your care team feels you're ready, you may decide to have surgery to permanently alter your sex."

"After surgery, most trans women and men are happy with their new sex and feel comfortable with their gender identity. One review of a number of studies that were carried out over a 20-year period found that 96% of people who had genital reconstructive surgery were satisfied."

So, in order for trans people to get treatment, they have to speak to several medical professionals who all have the power to deny them treatment. They usually have to undergo psychological treatments before they are allowed to take hormone treatments. If they're under 17 then they have to take fully-reversible puberty blockers (and only after the onset of irreversible puberty) rather than replacement hormones. And if they want surgery then they have to live as their target gender for over a year.

The picture you're painting of a big rush to get anyone who strays from the ultra-masculine or ultra-feminine to transition is simply a fabrication.

I, like you, believe the female body is beautiful. In another thread, you questioned and disagreed with another member who said he thought female genitalia was "icky" if I recall correctly.

May I ask why a male body in an of itself is unappealing to you?

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax-
Of Cabbages—and kings—-
And why the sea is boiling hot—-
And whether pigs have wings.”

Lewis Carroll - from The Walrus and the Carpenter

Sorry, the poetry reference is lost on me.

I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want to be confrontational. I was just asking my question because the other member having his opinion about a part of the female body was questioned by you and I may have misinterpreted, but my perception was that you thought his opinion was bad or wrong. Your comment about disliking the male body save for a specific set of circumstances seemed to be a double standard to me.

There’s a difference. If a guy always thinks that those parts of the female body are gross, then that would greatly inhibit his partner’s enjoyment when he’s in a relationship.

If I’m in a loving relationship, I won’t find my lover’s body repulsive, so I won’t have that problem.

The science on transgenderism is in its infancy compared to autism. That seems simple enough. I've seen any scientific data that is overwhelming conclusive. What's alarming is the lack of research about the possible dangers of puberty blockers in children. That fact alone leads me to believe that my concerns about this are anything but fabricated.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/arti ... g-evidence

I'm interested to hear your take on the overhaul of language and the deconstruction of basic terms of biology. Nobody has yet presented a reasonable defense of this.

Excerpt from an article that was passed along to me -- a woman's perspective.

I believe that women have the right of self-determination, and this right includes the absolute right to exclude males from our sex group.

I believe the definition of woman (adult female) is crucial to guarantee rights to women that are inextricably linked to our embodied experience as females. This is not biological essentialism, as faux-progressives and faux-feminists will say: the oppression of women as a class is intimately grounded in our biology, and to deny biology is to deny and erase our oppression, and allow males to colonise the very idea of female.

I believe gender is a collection of stereotypes, and I refuse to be reduced to my ‘gender’ (this yes a form of essentialism).

I believe sex is a biological fact and gender a social construct, and not the other way around.

I believe the penis is a male organ and the claim that transwomen are born in the wrong body and at the same time that the penis is female is the height of absurdity, and that this sort of illogical gibberish would get you kicked out of any university department, were it not that it has to do with gender theory.

I believe gender theory is the rancid by-product of neo-liberal academia and unsurprisingly it is funded by big Pharma.

I believe that the millions donated to academics and NGOs by right wing Republican Jennifer Pritzker, a man until the age of 63, have corrupted academic and public discourse.

I believe that women are women, and do not need a prefix to define themselves. I believe the people who ask us not to call ourselves women, lest we offend trans people, are engaging in a form of cultural genocide.

I believe asking women to refer to sex offenders as women is a form of group libel and to force victims to do so a further, extreme violence. Women do not rape. Women engage in sexual offences, especially against children, in extremely small numbers. Sexual violence is male violence, and 35% of women around the world are victims of it (and this is probably a conservative number) and have the absolute right to call it out for what it is.

I believe women have an absolute right to female-only spaces, and males have no right to try to invade those spaces on the basis of feelings. Woman is something you are, not something you feel. More girls died of female infanticide than people died in World War II (UN data) and they died because being female is something you do not choose.


https://uncommongroundmedia.com/woman-t ... 6Nc-DpSA_E