Gender Fluid etc, Opinions?

[ENG601PM]

Using the looser term "women" can be seen a rearguard defence of misunderstanding sex and gender.

[Branyy]

 

What a ridiculous statement. If you insist that post op TG women are in fact men then I'll consider you a bigot.

 

But what does "in fact" means? Genetic tests would reveal male sex. That's a fact.

[Guest makapaka]

Perhaps you've confused gender and sex?

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 08:24 ----------

 

 

Yes of course, it's entirely possible for people to be in a minority themselves and still to be bigots.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 08:27 ----------

 

 

 

 

If you like GG insist that post operative TG women aren't in fact women, then you aren't respecting their right to live as women are you.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 08:32 ----------

 

 

What a ridiculous statement. If you insist that post op TG women are in fact men then I'll consider you a bigot.

 

Well they would still be men biologically wouldn't they. It would only be bigoted to refuse to accept their right to identify as women.

[melthebell]

What’s wrong with witches?

absolutely nothing..........compared to bigots

[Cyclone]

Well they would still be men biologically wouldn't they. It would only be bigoted to refuse to accept their right to identify as women.

 

No, accepting someones 'right to identify' is not the same as accepting that they are to all intents and purposes that gender. It's a bit of doublespeak really isn't.

 

"I accept your right to identify as a woman, but you're not one really are you".

 

Within that sentence they claim to accept it but then immediately deny it, and that's why it's bigoted.

It's the equivalent of saying

 

"I accept peoples right to be gay, but it's wrong isn't it"

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 15:15 ----------

 

But what does "in fact" means? Genetic tests would reveal male sex. That's a fact.

 

You can remove "in fact" from my statement if it helps you.

 

If you insist that post op TG women are men then I'll consider you a bigot.

[Guest makapaka]

No, accepting someones 'right to identify' is not the same as accepting that they are to all intents and purposes that gender. It's a bit of doublespeak really isn't.

 

"I accept your right to identify as a woman, but you're not one really are you".

 

Within that sentence they claim to accept it but then immediately deny it, and that's why it's bigoted.

It's the equivalent of saying

 

"I accept peoples right to be gay, but it's wrong isn't it"

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 15:15 ----------

 

 

You can remove "in fact" from my statement if it helps you.

 

If you insist that post op TG women are men then I'll consider you a bigot.

 

No that example doesn’t apply. They’re not claiming to accept that a man is now a biological woman and then denying it.

 

They can identify as a woman, they can alter looks to appear externally a woman, they can refer to them as women -none of that changes the fact that the person is biologically female.

 

If you don’t accept that - you’re basically saying we are not just gender fluid as a species but also sexless as a species.

[Cyclone]

They might use the qualifier 'biological' although I'd have to go back to check, but they quite clearly mean to reject that the person is a woman, despite claiming to accept that the person identifies as a woman.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 15:53 ----------

 

They are still male - they just don’t have male sexual organs anymore.

 

In fact this was you. No mention of biologically.

It's just a denial of their being female, so you don't actually accept that they identify as a woman, it's classic double speak.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 15:54 ----------

 

Does this operation remove the Y chromosome?

 

And whilst Alan uses his basic knowledge of biology to dress it up, it's just a justification for denying that someone is a woman after claiming to accept that they can identify as a woman.

 

You're all as transparent as a window.

[Guest makapaka]

They might use the qualifier 'biological' although I'd have to go back to check, but they quite clearly mean to reject that the person is a woman, despite claiming to accept that the person identifies as a woman.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 15:53 ----------

 

 

In fact this was you. No mention of biologically.

It's just a denial of their being female, so you don't actually accept that they identify as a woman, it's classic double speak.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 15:54 ----------

 

 

And whilst Alan uses his basic knowledge of biology to dress it up, it's just a justification for denying that someone is a woman after claiming to accept that they can identify as a woman.

 

You're all as transparent as a window.

 

I can’t speak for others but it’s not double speak - a phrase by the way that only reinforces my views that George Orwell’s was a prophet of doom.....

 

A dictionary definition of sex change is;

 

the alteration, by surgery and hormone treatments, of a person's physical sex characteristics to approximate those of the opposite sex.

 

Definition of Approximate is;

 

come close or be similar to something in quality, nature, or quantity.

 

close to the actual, but not completely accurate or exact.

 

It’s not to become the same as a female - because that’s not possible.

 

So I accept someone identifying as a female entirely and don’t appreciate your insinuation otherwise - but if someone says they are now physically a female that isn’t correct.

[Guest]

 

And whilst Alan uses his basic knowledge of biology to dress it up, it's just a justification for denying that someone is a woman after claiming to accept that they can identify as a woman.

 

You're all as transparent as a window.

 

I don't know what you're struggling with. If someone, even someone I know, was to suddenly decide that they identify as the opposite sex, I wouldn't think any less of them or treat them any differently, but that doesn't mean that I literally believe that they have actually changed sex's/genders.

[Halibut]

I don't know what you're struggling with. If someone, even someone I know, was to suddenly decide that they identify as the opposite sex, I wouldn't think any less of them or treat them any differently, but that doesn't mean that I literally believe that they have actually changed sex's/genders.

 

So if a bloke you knew - let's call him Steve, had reassignment surgery and hormone treatment, the full works and decides to change his name to Susan, you'd still call her Steve? That doesn't sound very accepting to me.