Jump to content
270soft Forum

Women* Game Jam Canada e-mail


Anthony_270
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, lizphairphreak said:

there are more than just "the 2 sexes" that are discussed

My point is that this is not *new*. The concept of a 'hermaphrodite' is very old, and quite well known. The technical debate, I suppose, is over whether each developmental abnormality which is classified as 'intersex' is a new 'sex' in some proper sense. My guess is the answer typically would be 'no'.

Regardless, most debates aren't about this. They are about people who are, say, clearly biologically male but want to use the female change room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, admin_270 said:

My point is that this is not *new*. The concept of a 'hermaphrodite' is very old, and quite well known. The technical debate, I suppose, is over whether each development abnormality which is classified as 'intersex' is a new 'sex' in some proper sense. My guess is the answer typically would be 'no'.

Regardless, most debates aren't about this. They are about people who are, say, clearly biologically male but want to use the female change room.

It strikes me as much, much more complex and involved than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Patine said:

It strikes me as much, much more complex and involved than that.

Not really, my dear Socratic interlocutor. The major flash-points are examples just like that, and indeed, that is a major one in the last while (biological males in female change rooms).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, admin_270 said:

My point is that this is not *new*.

At what point did I imply any of this was new? Part of what I was saying is that Intersex people have always existed.

13 hours ago, admin_270 said:

My guess is the answer typically would be 'no'.

Again, a guess isn't an argument, it's an admittance of your own biases.

13 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Regardless, most debates aren't about this.

You're right, however, most of the biases of anti-transgender arguments tend to stem from the flawed understanding of biological sex that most people have, which is why I brought this topic in.

10 hours ago, Patine said:

It strikes me as much, much more complex and involved than that.

It is, of course, but I get what admin_270 is trying to say, in that the debate aspect of it does usually get distilled down into some more jarring/challenging scenarios (like public bathrooms and changing rooms,) in no small part because it makes people uncomfortable. It's also problematic, considering that there are really no instances of transgender women assaulting cisgender women in bathrooms,/locker rooms, and there are numerous examples of cisgender people (mostly men) assaulting transgender people in bathrooms (be they transgender women or transgender men.) But "men invading women's rooms to hurt women!" is a talking point that sticks... and has across many 'debates' about marginalized groups over the years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, lizphairphreak said:

At what point did I imply any of this was new? Part of what I was saying is that Intersex people have always existed.

Again, a guess isn't an argument, it's an admittance of your own biases.

You're right, however, most of the biases of anti-transgender arguments tend to stem from the flawed understanding of biological sex that most people have, which is why I brought this topic in.

It is, of course, but I get what admin_270 is trying to say, in that the debate aspect of it does usually get distilled down into some more jarring/challenging scenarios (like public bathrooms and changing rooms,) in no small part because it makes people uncomfortable. It's also problematic, considering that there are really no instances of transgender women assaulting cisgender women in bathrooms,/locker rooms, and there are numerous examples of cisgender people (mostly men) assaulting transgender people in bathrooms (be they transgender women or transgender men.) But "men invading women's rooms to hurt women!" is a talking point that sticks... and has across many 'debates' about marginalized groups over the years.

You were referring to the most recent science, suggesting this was about recent discoveries. It's not - the existence of 'hermaphrodites' is age old, and basically anyone making an argument based on the idea of 2 sexes will be aware of it. They would probably say a 'true hermaphrodite' is a mix of the 2 sexes, not a new sex. At this point, you would get into the weeds about how to properly define 'sex'. 

Regardless, the point about 2 sexes is true for the vast majority of cases, and 'gender identity' is often orthogonal to the issue of how many biological sexes there are, as most people who are transgender are clearly biologically male or female (despite surgeries or exogenous hormones).

As to your last point, I don't think your characterization is quite right. Most people are happy to live and let live, and don't care much about these issues. The exception is where the issue impinges upon their own perceived security or freedoms in the world (security in the bathroom or change room, freedom to compete without biological males). You absolutely might be right that the concerns about these things are misplaced, but it's these sorts of concerns that are motivating the debates, not a 'let's stick it to a marginalized group!' psychology, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

You were referring to the most recent science, suggesting this was about recent discoveries. It's not - the existence of 'hermaphrodites' is age old, and basically anyone making an argument based on the idea of 2 sexes will be aware of it. They would probably say a 'true hermaphrodite' is a mix of the 2 sexes, not a new sex. At this point, you would get into the weeds about how to properly define 'sex'. 

Regardless, the point about 2 sexes is true for the vast majority of cases, and 'gender identity' is often orthogonal to the issue of how many biological sexes there are, as most people who are transgender are clearly biologically male or female (despite surgeries or exogenous hormones).

The only new discussion I brought in is that Intersex is now being used (by actual people who are Intersex) and that the term 'hermaphrodite,' at least for human identity, is outdated and often considered offensive. Your insistence on continuing to use it seems like a fixation to me.
You're right about defining sex being an issue that is nebulous and hard to pin down... which is why it's strange to me that you're insisting on trying to draw out this discussion and, in turn, minimizing certain biological characteristics and occurrences because they don't match your point that seeks to uphold sex as binary. I'd recommend talking with people who are Intersex and learning about Intersex organizations, since it's always better to learn from people who share an identity than not (and, personally, I am not Intersex myself.)

8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

As to your last point, I don't think your characterization is quite right. Most people are happy to live and let live, and don't care much about these issues. The exception is where the issue impinges upon their own perceived security or freedoms in the world (security in the bathroom or change room, freedom to compete without biological males). You absolutely might be right that the concerns about these things are misplaced, but it's these sorts of concerns that are motivating the debates, not a 'let's stick it to a marginalized group!' psychology, I think.

The correlation I was drawing is that dominant social groups (in our case, cisgender white men with money) often go to describing members of marginalized groups as being sexually violent (ie, Black men will sexually abuse white women, refugees and immigrants from Latin American and Muslim countries will invade and beat and rape women, ...transgender women will go into bathrooms to assault little girls.) Do you see how these are similar arguments that target marginalized identities? And none of them necessarily are coming from "we hate ___" but rather from "we need to feel safe and _____ people challenge that safety." And, again, these arguments stick and they color how people view marginalized groups, despite being baseless. If I was unclear about the correlation I was drawing, my apologies. Unfortunately, for people who are marginalized, the impacts of negative beliefs that stem from innocence are the same as if they were to stem from outright antagonism and hatred.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lizphairphreak said:

because they don't match your point that seeks to uphold sex as binary

I don't know if the proper view is that biological sex in humans is two-fold, or if it is more appropriate to hold to 3 (or more). My guess in the end is little depends on this distinction, TBH.

I am just explaining to you a viewpoint in which people say there are two sexes. You seem to misunderstand the view, and think people who make the argument don't realize there are 'true hermaphrodites'. Of course they realize this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2020 at 5:12 PM, lizphairphreak said:

when a child knows from a young age that they do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth

But I still think that is pretty rare. I don't think that a child can reasonably be expected to be aware of things such as sexuality, their own or someone else's. Nor should they. I'm hearing reports, even from my own state, of school districts, particularly in Seattle, bringing sex education down to even kindergarten. That's just too early I think. I had no sense of sexual awareness of any kind until I was 13. Let them go through puberty first, rather than make a potentially irreversible decision based on what could just be a phase. I honestly think that any type of potentially permanent gender transition (hormones, surgery, etc.) should be banned for anyone under 16. Let them role play. If a boy feels like a girl, let him express it the way they want to. That's not to say some of these children may have genuine feelings of not belonging in their biological sex. But these situations need to be treated very carefully with intensive psychological evaluation by more than one expert before even considering such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, lizphairphreak said:

but rather from "we need to feel safe and _____ people challenge that safety.

This is where we may differ a bit more. The transgender movement starts to lose me when they use language such as "we feel unsafe" or "having our existence erased." If there's a physical lack of safety I'd be interested in seeing the data before passing judgement. I think that, gender identity and sexual orientation aside, I feel much safer walking into a restroom with other men than a women's room where I'm the only male there. I certainly won't feel safe if others feel I'm infringing on their privacy. If I encounter 3 other guys in a mens room, I don't know who they are, what their orientation or identity is. And frankly I don't care, it's the last thing on my mind. I'm in there to take care of business and get out. The least interaction I have with anyone else the better. Among guys, even starting a conversation in a mens room with someone you don't know is a complete taboo.  Don't look at anyone or talk to anyone, just do what you have to do and leave. If a person walks in who, unbeknownst to me, happens to be transgender and is only using that room because the rules say they have to... I wouldn't tell the difference and couldn't care less. So I have to see someone make the case that a male using a bathroom or changing room with other males somehow affects their physical safety. It just makes no sense to me. In fact, it seems like quite the opposite. By contrast, if I walk into a women's locker room, whether it be an identity issue or just pure accident, I'm not going to feel very safe there because I know most of them don't want me there. In a men's room, they don't know who I am or what I am, nor do they even care.

I like the back and forth we're having here. I'm a very open person and despite my overall conservatism am very socially progressive and am very willing to make some concessions if, as is happening here, we both approach the topic from a place of reason and mutual respect. The problem I have is if someone (and I don't think you're doing this btw) treats disagreement about bathrooms, pronouns, etc. by saying that a differing opinion makes them physically unsafe or "erases their existence," that's going to put me on the defensive and I have a hard time coming to the table when that's how the conversation starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...