Mad stuff, dafuq is the world coming to?
There is no twisting of facts. There is no discussion about social transitioning with children. You have been unable to show me where the guidance recommends discussing social transitioning with children. You are wrong.
If gender identity was about stereotypes then "camp" men and "butch" women would automatically be trans.
Nobody thinks that.
It doesn't matter what labels you think we "need". We have separate labels for non masculine men and trans women.
Because everyone (except you it seems) recognises that they are two completely different things.
Nope. I just suspect that the Stonewall-advised guidance claims to be "challenging gender stereotypes" on the surface so as to be palatable, while recommending book with such regressively stereotypical ideas as a "girl brain".
Oh, well look at that! That is precisely what it does.
A girl brain is not a stereotype. A brain is a physical object. Unless the book says a girl brain means she must be into stereotypically girl behaviours then the book isn't resorting to stereotypes.
And there should be no issue with trans girls being into stereotypically girl behaviours. Many cis girls are into them because of socialisation.
He didn't say anything about "discussing social transitioning". You did. Gatling said that the guidance recommends facilitating social transitioning. Which it does.
Cool cool.
What is a girl brain?
How can a girl brain find itself inside the body of a male child?
And many gay people have been shown to have some degree of neurological overlap with this "girl brain".
Does that mean gay people are "half-girls" in terms of sex?
Of course not.
Just like you cannot have a girl lung, girl heart, or girl small intestine - you cannot have a specific "girl brain".
You mean why are some people trans? No idea. You could ask the same questions about gay people. We don't know why some people are gay and we don't know why some people are trans. It doesn't mean that kids should be prevented from reading about gay or trans people's life experiences.
I’ll make this incredibly simple for you -
I have never suggested that your advocating for what you call trans rights compels me to do anything. The point I’m making is that I know already it doesn’t, and I cannot be compelled to adhere to your ideology. I know that much already. That’s why as far as I’m concerned there isn’t even an argument to be had.
That’s why I pointed out to you that while anyone has the right to refer to themselves how they wish, they do not have the right to compel anyone else to refer to them how they wish. Your human rights are not affected, nor are mine in not referring to anyone how they wish to be referred to.
Anyone is more than welcome to jog on if they imagine their human rights are somehow being violated by the inability to compel people to refer to them how they wish to be referred to. That’s why I explained to you that I ignore activists, because I can, because I cannot be compelled to take them seriously either.
"You mean why are some people trans?"
No. We can take it in stages if you like.
What is a "girl brain"?
The brain is completely different than other organs.
Do you believe all differences in stereotypicap male/female behaviour comes from socialisation. For example , many believe that men (in general) desire sex from multiple partners to an extent that women (in general) don't.
Do you believe the above statement is true and if so is it 100% due to socialisation?
A brain that forms a mind (by a process we do not understand) that identifies as a girl.
Define "girl" please.
The group consisting of cis girls and trans girls.
Self-referential definitions do not work.
Can you define "girl"?
What if the same person never encountered a girl. How would they independently know they were a girl?
Can you?
XX chromosomes.
We don't know what would happen if a child grew up in 100% isolation. It's not realistic and not illuminating.
For example children can tell that there are people and animals and they are a person and not an animal.
If animals didn't exist would they still be able.to?
I have no idea. Do you?
So what's the difference between a girl and a woman? That would be a crucial part of the defintion
A woman is an adult human female, so anything approximating toward 18 sounds about right.
Approximating? Not very scientific. Your definition does not tell me whether a 17 year old female is a girl or a woman. I'm going to hold you to the same standards you hold me. I will need a perfect definition of "girl" that allows me to distinguish with perfect precision the group of individuals who are girls and the group of individuals who are women. Please and thank you.
It's a social description. It could be 17, it could be 20. It could even be determined on the basis of maturity. There is no one answer.
What society has decided is that around the 18 mark is, roughly speaking, an acceptable limit to separate teenagers from adults.
Same way that alcohol limits are arbitrary but we must draw them at a reasonable point.
What we do know, for certain, is that both girls and women have the same XX chromosomes throughout their entire life.
Now, what is your definition of woman?
Why have you switched from girl to woman? You still have the same issues. Your definition of woman was ADULT human female. Can you please define ADULT perfectly. Unless you can then you don't have a perfect definition of woman and have no business asking me to.
Let's simply say that both (girls / women) are 'vehicles for XX chromosomes'.
That's my definition of what constitutes female. An adult human female is a woman. A child is not an adult human female. Both are female, both are vehicles for XX chromosomes. The precise point at which a girl is called an adult is not day and time specific. As a society, we have agreed 18. Some people call 16 and 17 year olds "young women".
Your attempt at obfuscation is clear as a means to distract from answering the following question:
Can you provide us with your definition of a woman?
You're allowing yourself to be pushed away from the biological differences and allowing the social/cultural to take greater importance (which aids LLMMLL in any trans debate because science is no longer a major qualifier). The traditional perspective of becoming a man or woman was based on puberty, and the ability to have children. The social perspective is when people should have children not when they can have children.
In any case, the issue isn't a distinction between a woman and a girl. It's the difference between a boy and a girl... or a man and a woman. If gender can be changed, those differences become meaningless, because the following expectation is that trans people should be treated/accepted the same as the biological sex, both socially, and legally.
There is no obfuscation.
Your definition which you claim to be scientific mixes a scientific category (those with XX chromosomes) and a social one. Yet you want to pretend your definition is scientific.
It's not.
The moment you added a social/fuzzy/non-scientific aspect to your definition, it was no longer scientific.
If you can use vague concepts such as adult then why are you restricting me to perfectly precise scientific definitions?
True, so perhaps a more accurate question for @LLMMLL is: what do you believe is the difference between a woman and a man?
I've nailed my colours to the mast and have doubled down on XX and XY chromosomes, respectively.
@LLMMLL - what do you believe the definitions to be?
A woman is a member of the group consisting of cisnwomen and transwomen. A man is a member of the group consisting of cis men and trans men.
BTW we had this debate already on the previous thread and i will ask you the same question i asked you there.
By my definition (even though we all accept that you do not agree with it) is Hilary Clinton a woman. By my definition is Caitlyn Jenner a woman?
When your dealing with the idea that trans women (men who self identify as women ) some how become a subset women , despite being a actual subset of men ,
You won't get ever get a straight or coherent answer