That's an incredibly tiny number of people - so small that the ONS don't even produce a number on it for fear of making it possible for individual records to be identified.
Don’t see why not? The idea is that it’s basically role playing. Those roles can be self-assigned or assigned to you by society.
So because you personally don’t think it’s enough people (roughly 11 million alive right now from some beer mat maths) then it can’t possibly be a reason?
I gotta say I've learned a lot about this topic just be reading others discuss it, so I think it's worth it to engage. To a certain point of course.
I don't know if roles can be self-assigned if it's 100% socially constructed. If gender is self-determined then other aspects of your 'self' must be influencing it, including your sex.
Yeah, I agree with that. I think the social construct stuff is more about how you express that gender. Behaving in a way that would be more traditionally seen as masculine or feminine.
I feel dirty for biting, but here goes…
Or the "left" take of sending death threats and rape threats to women online, insisting on biological males in women sports, putting biological males in women's prisons (including male sex offenders), insisting on biological males right to use women's communal changing rooms, allowing biological males to appropriate the term lesbian and labelling same-sex attracted lesbians "transphobic," "terfs" and "genital fetishists" if they don't want to sleep with biological males. Did we miss the women's march in Manchester the other week where trans activists showed up in balaclavas to intimidate women in public?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This new tactic of yours is pretty strange. While vile, you know that this kind of abuse is also received by trans people online, both from terfs and anti-trans people who aren't radical feminists. Yet, if I were to post a tweet like this, "highlighting the life of a trans person online" (maybe a TIM, which is the flavour of the month term in terf circles it seems), you would object heavily if I implied that this said something general about your fellow travelers.
As deplorable as all of this is, are you going to deny that, for example, Ash Sarkar isn’t subjected to the exact same?
You do know that trans women are subjected to exactly the same, right? It's vile regardless of who it's done to. But, what I described is the current tactic deployed by the American right against LGBQTIA+ people as a whole, while what you're describing are the actions of a minority. The fact that you're trying to handwave away the literal politics of a major party by referring to the actions of a small group of shitty idiots says a lot about you. As does the rest of your post. Try to be less of a vile person.
Well, the TRA position is that gender is a social construct and simultaneously, people are born transgender.. If you're born transgender, gender is surely biological, not a social construct? If by their own admission, gender does not exist outside of social and cultural influence, of which a new born baby has never experienced, then how could a baby have been born transgender? Going even further, presumably a baby still in the womb at 9 months is transgender? Even though gender is a social construct. That's kind of the issue with gender ideology, it's full of logical fallacies and contradictions. If gender is a social construct, you open yourself up to the idea that transgenderism has a social contagion aspect to it, which they would never want to acknowledge.
Always knew he was a commie.
Maybe in the early 1990s!But it's only the "Terfs" that are labelled as a hate-group. Feminists receiving thousands upon thousands of death threats and rape threats is simply seen a collateral damage, but it's "Terfs" who are seen as the dangerous and hateful ones.
You talk about taking away rights. That's exactly what the radfems who are being threatened and intimidated daily feel is happening to them. In many places they have lost their right to single-sex communal changing rooms, single-sex prisons, single-sex sports, the right to use a term that means same-sex attraction. They are fighting for what they believe should be their rights. Your attempts to claim one side is "the whole right wing" and the other "just a few idiots" is incredibly disingenuous. Radfems will claim the left's policies of their major parties are infringing on their rights, and they have all experienced persecution, stirring up hatred, and taking away rights from people the left. Maybe misogynists like yourself should be more concerned about supporting legislation to protect biological women rather than biological males?
Leaving aside everything else you've said here, I've long thought this was an excellent point and seems to me like a fundamental flaw in the trans-rights movement. In my mind, the goal is for everyone to be able to act/present however 'masculine' or 'feminine' they want, and the problem is that gender implicates how one is supposed to act, and gender norms generally get placed upon people based on their biological sex. But I feel like the way to solve the problem and reach the goal is not to create numerous new gender identities, but rather to work towards eliminate the importance society places on the construct of gender. Creating new gender identities seems to actually reinforce traditional societal gender norms - the need for people to redefine their own gender identities simply increases the perceived importance of gender roles in society, when really I think the goal should be eliminating all conceptions of gender norms and just let people act/be how they want to act/be.
TRA's I believe have at least partly realised this flaw in the ideology in that they are reducing womanhood to a bunch of stereotypes. In reaction to this a lot of them have tried to disconnect gender identity from gender itself.
1. You gave only a qualified answer to the question, with a qualification that has nothing to do with the question itself. In any case there are no lesbian groups that I know of that don't recognise or acknowledge at least some rights of trans people - e.g. the the right to be treated courteously, just like anybody else. So your position seems to be that they are part of a "hate" group unless they accept every last bit of the absolutist form of trans-ideology, including the magical thinking that self-chosen gender identity renders irrelevant all genetic, physiological and life-experience aspects of womanhood.
Good post.
Go do one, yeah?
That immediately came to mind to me.
People like that work off a script, they always do. About a year ago it was "we have to look at this issue from the perspective of lesbians, because when men talk about this issue they're automatically labeled as transphobic", even though he was entering a thread that had been going for loads of pages without that happening, and was also talking about how labeling people as -phobic is just shutting down discussion. Then, recently the tactic changed. He was going off in the Ricky Gervais thread because people were making fun of Gervais for being an unoriginal bore, calling people misogynists and lesbophobics left and right, if I remember correctly he even worked racism in. A completly new tactic and change of pace, not because of evolving views but because it suited the way to push his agenda.
Pogue is what now?
Of course. You immediately resorted to calling me a "vile person" and when the script was flipped you don't like it.
Just stop, and go care about something that actually matters
This is complete rubbish. Society and social relations - and thus social constructs - existed long before genetics was even a part of scientific knowledge.
Because taking a fringe, minority view and presenting it as a mainstream idea on the left to counter the very real fact that a huge chunk of the American political establishment is waging open war on LGBQTIA+ people, whit a specific focus on trans people, is something a vile person would do.
Perfect
Once again, I love that you're on this particular side, Glaston. Please never stop posting, it's only a matter of time until you convert the whole world into "trans-ideology absolutists".
If you disagree with the definition of social constructivism given by Wiki, then take it up with the editors of Wiki. I'm sure they'll be interested in your objection to their definition, especially when you explain that you don't like it because it blows apart your claim that social constructs take full account of scientific facts like those concerning genetic make-up and biology.
You're saying that it's a response to Ayn Rand. Listen to yourself. You don't believe what you're saying, you cannot possibly. How do you even propose that this happened?
