GN Toilets

manbitesdog

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I still don’t know how anyone can be unsure of their gender. You only have to look down your jocks/knickers.

What goes on in those peoples heads is a whole different thing.

I’m absolutely shocked at the amount of people in this thread that think all of this is ok. It’s utter insanity.

Because gender has come to mean something distinct from sex. It’s how we talk about practices like dressing a baby blue or pink, wearing dresses or trousers, etc. Regardless of how you feel about transgender issues, does anyone actually dispute that there are gendered social and cultural phenomena that have no essential link with what people have between their legs?

antix80

manbitesdog wrote: »

Because gender has come to mean something distinct from sex.

Has it though - outside gender-studies and the "queer community"?

There is no real-world application of the prefix cis.
"He's a man." . Oh do you mean he's a cisman or is he genderqueer or trans.... Went no discussion ever.

And even if we did cede to "cis" being a thing, we'd still have the nutjobs telling us that some trans ppl are in fact cis, because trans is an identity that must be assumed. And in the same way a trans person can identify as cis. So most people are actually cis-cis-gender. As opposed to trans-cis-gender or trans-gender. Of course, this excludes cisciscisgender and its derivatives.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Not dumb, just unnecessary.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Or you could just say: Transgendered and non-transgendered. No need for cis.

That's like saying "hetrosexual" and "not heterosexual" - we don't need the word "homosexual"

Or "tall" and "not tall" - we don't need a word for small.

antix80

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's like saying "hetrosexual" and "not heterosexual" - we don't need the word "homosexual"

Wrong! Because bisexual, asexual.

As for tall, small... They're opposites. Im sure you can also be cis-height (oh wait!)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

antix80 wrote: »

Has it though - outside gender-studies and the "queer community"?

There is no real-world application of the prefix cis.
"He's a man." . Oh do you mean he's a cisman or is he genderqueer or trans.... Went no discussion ever.

And even if we did cede to "cis" being a thing, we'd still have the nutjobs telling us that some trans ppl are in fact cis, because trans is an identity that must be assumed. And in the same way a trans person can identify as cis. So most people are actually cis-cis-gender. As opposed to trans-cis-gender or trans-gender. Of course, this excludes cisciscisgender and its derivatives.

Well this depends - do you distinguish between "male" and "female"? Or maybe it;s just malemale and malefemale?

Do we even need the word "female"? Why not just say "not a man"?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

manbitesdog wrote: »

Because gender has come to mean something distinct from sex. It’s how we talk about practices like dressing a baby blue or pink, wearing dresses or trousers, etc. Regardless of how you feel about transgender issues, does anyone actually dispute that there are gendered social and cultural phenomena that have no essential link with what people have between their legs?

Has it now? And why’s it so different in 2019? Honestly who cares that girls are dressed in pink and boys blue. There’s a distinct difference between men and women. Stop trying to say their isn’t.

SoupMonster

manbitesdog wrote: »

Because gender has come to mean something distinct from sex. It’s how we talk about practices like dressing a baby blue or pink, wearing dresses or trousers, etc. Regardless of how you feel about transgender issues, does anyone actually dispute that there are gendered social and cultural phenomena that have no essential link with what people have between their legs?

Gender doesn't mean sex, it means adhering to sexist/sexy stereotypes that are used to signal sex.
Is that your personal understanding of 'gender'?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

antix80 wrote: »

Wrong! Because bisexual, asexual.

As for tall, small... They're opposites. Im sure you can also be cis-height (oh wait!)

... nonbinary, genderqueer, genderfluid...., your point being?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... nonbinary, genderqueer, genderfluid...., your point being?

Look, more things that don’t exist.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

You forgot the other 90 odd genders too.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Look, more things that don’t exist.

Neither do asexual, pansexual and so on, by the same logic.

splinter65

manbitesdog wrote: »

Ok, great. Can provide reasons why?

I didn’t know we had to explain ourselves. I see people saying “ I feel like a woman therefore I am a woman. End of story.”.
And that’s to be accepted without question or the questioner is labeled as transphobic.
So, I’m insulted by being referred to as a cis woman because I’m a woman end of story. I assume when the hate speech laws come in I will be able to complain to the Gardai if someone describes me as a cis woman, and action will be taken.

_Kaiser_

manbitesdog wrote: »

It’s a useful term in discussions about transgenderism, because otherwise we’d be distinguishing between women and transwomen all the time, which is not inclusive language.

manbitesdog wrote: »

The reason to use cis- is to avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as.

They're not - I'm sorry, but all the sensitivity in the world won't change that there are real differences between biological men/women and trans men/women and while these have no bearing in most everyday cases, there are some where it's important.

That's not to say that there's anything wrong with being trans - there isn't - but attempting to muddy the waters through language gymnastics and "feelings" doesn't change the facts.

splinter65

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... nonbinary, genderqueer, genderfluid...., your point being?

All made up stuff like Star Wars and Harry Potter.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

splinter65 wrote: »

All made up stuff like Star Wars and Harry Potter.

You've never seen anyone use elements of the alternative gender...? Ever?

Gynoid

The irony is that gender has come to mean some incontrovertible fact, such as a girl playing with trucks or a boy who wears dresses really IS the opposite gender, whereas biological sex is merely a state assigned at birth that is an uncertain reality. Gender identity which any arse knows is fluid in its expression is more real now. Thus give that child hormones to stop the menarche or spermarche and make them sterile and impotent. Savagery.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Neither do asexual, pansexual and so on, by the same logic.

I’m glad you agree with me.

All those things you mention fall under two words, “gender dysphoria”.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I’m glad you agree with me.

All those things you mention fall under two words, “gender dysphoria”.

What do you understand by the phrase "gender dysphoria"? Regardless of how real you believe it is or isn't?

antix80

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I’m glad you agree with me.

All those things you mention fall under two words, “gender dysphoria”.

Well.. No they're sexualities.. Doesn't mean all theoretical sexualities exist e.g the cnuts who say they're sapiosexual.. But they don't fall under gender dysphoria.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's like saying "hetrosexual" and "not heterosexual" - we don't need the word "homosexual"

Or "tall" and "not tall" - we don't need a word for small.

Not tall could imply someone is of an average height, when in fact they are of a below average height. Tall implies they are above average, small below average. It's not an apt comparison.

As for hetero, homo, some people are bi and asexual so again those words are required as not-heterosexual isn't an apt description.

This is not true of trans and non-trans.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well this depends - do you distinguish between "male" and "female"? Or maybe it;s just malemale and malefemale?

Do we even need the word "female"? Why not just say "not a man"?

Because a man is an adult human male. A female is a person with xx chromosomes, and can be a baby, child or adult. Again not an apt comparison.

manbitesdog

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Has it now? And why’s it so different in 2019? Honestly who cares that girls are dressed in pink and boys blue. There’s a distinct difference between men and women. Stop trying to say their isn’t.

It’s not about caring or not caring. It's a fact that boy are traditionally dressed in blue, girls in pink. The choice of colour has no essential link with any inherent biological characteristic of the child. It could just as easily be pink for boys and blue for girls—in fact, it once was.

And that’s what people are talking about when they talk about gender.

antix80

manbitesdog wrote: »

It’s not about caring or not caring. It's a fact that boy are traditionally dressed in blue, girls in pink. The choice of colour has no essential link with any inherent biological characteristic of the child. It could just as easily be pink for boys and blue for girls—in fact, it once was.

And that’s what people are talking about when they talk about gender.

It really isn't. It's a strawman argument.
To clarify.. To say gender is about immutable preferences, but the preference of blue for girls changed over time.. Therefore gender is a preference or an identity. Nope. That's the strawman. Fashions change. Gender = biological sex. It does not change. XX or XY. Of all the cells in your body, but wanting to change one chromosome in one cell and you simply cannot do it. It's easier to change the definition of what people mean by "man" or "woman".. Or abstract it to "gender".. Run campaigns. Doesn't matter.

We see what you're doing and it changes nothing.

Men are men. Women are women. Gender dysphoria is gender dysphoria and trannies are trannies.

manbitesdog

antix80 wrote: »

It really isn't. It's a strawman argument.
To clarify.. To say gender is about immutable preferences, but the preference of blue for girls changed over time.. Therefore gender is a preference or an identity. Nope. That's the strawman. Fashions change. Gender = biological sex. It does not change. XX or XY. Of all the cells in your body, but wanting to change one chromosome in one cell and you simply cannot do it. It's easier to change the definition of what people mean by "man" or "woman".. Or abstract it to "gender".. Run campaigns. Doesn't matter.

We see what you're doing and it changes nothing.

Men are men. Women are women. Gender dysphoria is gender dysphoria and trannies are trannies.

I suppose this isn’t transphobic.

Gender is not synonymous with sex in this usage; it is in some instances but it’s not unusual for one word to mean different things in different contexts. Facts don’t care about your feelings etc.

Gynoid

manbitesdog wrote: »

Facts don’t care about your feelings etc.

I think it was you who brought up hetero and homosexual. Would you say homosexual is same sex attraction or an attraction to the same gender identity?And further, do you think lesbians who do not want to have sex with penises on women are transphobic or homosexual men who do not wish to consort with men with vaginas, are they transphobic?

Is gender or sex the relevant point in homosexuality? Is there bigotry and phobia where people have preferences for their own biological sex?

manbitesdog

Gynoid wrote: »

I think it was you who brought up hetero and homosexual. Would you say homosexual is same sex attraction or an attraction to the same gender identity?And further, do you think lesbians who do not want to have sex with penises on women are transphobic or homosexual men who do not wish to consort with men with vaginas, are they transphobic?

Is gender or sex the relevant point in homosexuality? Is there bigotry and phobia where people have preferences for their own biological sex?

I think the existence of transpeople challenges a lot of deeply engrained notions about gender and sexuality, and that is why they encounter such hostility from some quarters, and mainstream society has only begun to grapple with those challenges.

People apparently had no need for the terms homo- and heterosexual until the 19th century. To be sure, there always have been some people exclusively attracted to others of the same sex, but people did not see fit to categorize sexual preferences before then. Homosexual acts were something a person did, but homosexual was not considered something you could be. They just didn’t think that way about sexuality.

So homosexuality, a historically contingent sexual identity has been understood to involve same sex attraction. Transgenderism is apparently difficult to reconcile with this homo- hetero-binary in some people’s views. If a man who has only exhibited heterosexual attraction starts dating a transwoman, is he somehow not still heterosexual? To me, heterosexual still seems appropriate.

I am pretty dismissive of questions of the form “are lesbians transphobic if they aren’t attracted to transwomen with penises.” People are attracted to whomever they are attracted to, and nobody should be with anyone they don’t want to be with.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

manbitesdog wrote: »

There is nothing insulting about the term cisgender.

I’m not insulted by being called a ciswoman. It wouldn’t anger me. But I prefer to be called a woman. That preference should be respected like any other, shouldn’t it?

Gynoid

manbitesdog wrote: »

I think the existence of transpeople challenges a lot of deeply engrained notions about gender and sexuality, and that is why they encounter such hostility from some quarters, and mainstream society has only begun to grapple with those challenges.

People apparently had no need for the terms homo- and heterosexual until the 19th century. To be sure, there always have been some people exclusively attracted to others of the same sex, but people did not see fit to categorize sexual preferences before then. Homosexual acts were something a person did, but homosexual was not considered something you could be. They just didn’t think that way about sexuality.

So homosexuality, a historically contingent sexual identity has been understood to involve same sex attraction. Transgenderism is apparently difficult to reconcile with this homo- hetero-binary in some people’s views. If a man who has only exhibited heterosexual attraction starts dating a transwoman, is he somehow not still heterosexual? To me, heterosexual still seems appropriate.

I am pretty dismissive of questions of the form “are lesbians transphobic if they aren’t attracted to transwomen with penises.” People are attracted to whomever they are attracted to, and nobody should be with anyone they don’t want to be with.

Yes, that is pretty dismissive alright. In that it does not answer the questions at all.
Tricky area though for allies. Because the vast majority of gay people only like people with the same genitals, ie people who are the same sex as them. Which completely goes against the ideology.

As for homosexuals and acts etc, I have never really understood the need for people to define themselves by an act ie who they have sex with - I would never think to tell someone I am heterosexual. What relevance does it have? Who cares? Why does homosexuality have to be such a big identity?

Mainstream society has known about the existence of transexual or third sex people since before old time. It was when trans activists starting insisting on subverting reason about biological reality that there has been a backlash - that and the savage mutilation of children. It was felt necessary for trans ideology to have some ''hard-wiring'' thesis to substantiate their claims - thus the born in the wrong body, assigned at birth, children expressing gender differently being actually a different sex malarkey. It was a terrible mistake to go down that road. The backlash is going to be shocking as more and more detransition and are left with horrific life limiting effects.

antix80

manbitesdog wrote: »

I think the existence of transpeople challenges a lot of deeply engrained notions about gender and sexuality, and that is why they encounter such hostility from some quarters, and mainstream society has only begun to grapple with those challenges.

The existence of transgender people to me is no different than the existence of delusional people, pedophiles, the feeble-minded, or any other people with mental problems. Some are a danger to themselves and some to others. Whether we tolerate them, treat them, incarcerate them.. It's typically at the mercy of society. We don't legislate to pander to the notions or inclinations of sick people. We don't need to grapple with these issues.

Gynoid

antix80 wrote: »

The existence of transgender people to me is no different than the existence of delusional people, pedophiles, the feeble-minded, or any other people with mental problems. Some are a danger to themselves and some to others. Whether we tolerate them, treat them, incarcerate them.. It's typically at the mercy of society. We don't legislate to pander to the notions or inclinations of sick people. We don't need to grapple with these issues.

I don't agree with this. There are people who have gender dysphoria and are perfectly entitled to do what they wish as adults to accommodate it. I think personally chemicals and surgery is a bad idea but mostly because of the terrible Ouch factor and the future dysfunction to the body. But people can express their masculinity and feminity however they wish. There are some quite happy transexuals I have listened to, very admirable fine people.