All: If you were put in charge of deciding policies surrounding sex/gender identity in your state/province/country/whatever, what would you implement?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (17 children)

I refuse to name all of them under a single group because they don't want to be named under a single group and I will respect each groups choices.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Imagine the sheer level of narcissism required to refuse to name the half of the human population capable of pregnancy because it might hurt the feelings of a minuscule minority.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

That is not narcissism. Look up NPD. Most people who are capable of pregnancy are women. If you want to be called a woman, fine. If you don't want to be called a woman, fine. I will respect whatever gender you identify as.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most people who are capable of pregnancy are women

A lot of people who become pregnant are girls, actually. But your crusade to appear Woke means you won't name the thing that is the reason for this.

You can call people whatever you like on top of female, but if you refuse to acknowledge that everyone who is capable of becoming pregnant is female and that no male is capable of becoming pregnant then you are a science denier on par with anti vaxxers and flat earthers, science denialism is classic narcissism.

But anyway:

That is not narcissism. Look up NPD.

Narcissism is not the same as NPD. I wouldn't armchair diagnose you with an actual disorder, even if I had my suspicions.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of people who become pregnant are girls, actually.

Thank you for mentioning that. WHO says that nearly 800,000 girls under age 15 give birth each year in developing countries. Another 21 million girls and young women aged 15-19 get pregnant each year, and 12 million end up giving birth. Which is why complications of pregnancy, abortion and childbirth are the leading cause of death for teenage girls globally.

One of youngest girls known to have become pregnant and given birth in recorded history is Lina Marcela Medina de Jurado of Peru, who is now 87. When she gave birth in 1939, she was 5 years, 7 months, and 21 days old.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Narcissistic behaviour can exist without having npd. The concept existed well before the disorder was classified. Narcissist in this context means someone acting as though the needs of others are below their own whims in importance. If anybody here means npd when using the term narcissistic, they will clarify the disorder.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And how do you expect people talk about pregnancy without using the word female? And what about animals? Are you fine using a biological definition of female and male when talking about them? Or do we have to worry about animals' "gender identities" too?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would also like to know the answer to this. How do you define words like female and male in relation to animals or plants, u/genderbender?

[–]Spikygrasspod 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You're framing it as calling people whatever they want to be called. But this entails a redefinition of 'woman' away from 'female person' to 'someone who wants to be called a woman'. The ability to name and define ourselves affects all women, so you can't please everyone by just using the words they prefer. It isn't respectful to go along with men's attempts to redefine womanhood as a personal identity and to poach woman centric language for themselves.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

It isn't respectful to go along with men's attempts to redefine womanhood as a personal identity and to poach woman centric language for themselves.

In this case, it is indeed men (trans men) attempting to re-define womanhood. I have no issues with it. Cis women are still welcome to call themselves women and tie their own pregnancies to being female.

[–]Spikygrasspod 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yes, yes, you can misconstrue what I meant by using your redefinitions of my words. Very helpful.

We may be welcome to call ourselves "women" but you and others are working on changing the definition of woman. It's not about making certain sounds or syllables with our mouths, you know. It's about shared meaning, and you and others are attempting to take words that are already in use, and redefining them so they lose that original shared meaning and, if you are successful, have a new meaning, while the old meaning becomes more difficult to express. It reminds me of when Mary Daly said she defined lesbian as women-identified feminists, and the people previously known as lesbians were mere homosexual women. It's linguistic poaching. Besides, if "women" did mean people with a feminine gender identity, I would not count this term as applying to myself. So again, you cannot respect everyone by just calling them whatever they want. If you're part of the attempts to poach sex based language from women/female people, in order that men/male people can use said language as fuel for their personal identities, you are not respecting women/female people.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, yes, you can misconstrue what I meant by using your redefinitions of my words. Very helpful.

I did not misconstrue what you meant. You said it is men who are attempting to redefine womanhood, and I affirmed that. Unless by "men" you meant trans women. In this case the conversation was about trans men, not trans women. Trans women and those AMAB are not the ones saying pregnancy and periods should not be tied to womanhood, unless they are sticking up for their trans brothers. It's mainly those who are AFAB but not women requesting these terms be used. Trans people AFAB are also pushing for laws allowing them to use men's restrooms and changing rooms. They are a part of the trans rights movement as much as trans people AMAB. GCs frequently complain trans men are invisible in the trans movement, yet you didn't take notice that the conversation was about trans men.

[–]Spikygrasspod 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, when I say men I mean all and only male people. And yes, I think male people have been at the front of the movement to redefine womanhood to include themselves for decades, and that non female people have joined in, in smaller numbers at first and in greater numbers more recently. That isn't what I want to talk about, though.

The conversation I want to have is about you calling people whatever they want to be called, as you say you do, and whether that's respectful and harmless. I want you to address the charge of linguistic poaching that I made in the last two comments. I want to know if you can actually see the conflict and the harm in taking and redefining language other people use to define themselves.

Was it good, or harmless, for Mary Daly to redefine "lesbian" to mean "women-identified feminists" while downgrading actual lesbians to mere "gay women"? What if straight feminists took all those words (lesbian, gay, homosexual) to refer to themselves, too, and said the people previously known as lesbians were a mere subcategory of feminists, and as a result the people previously known as lesbians had to scrape for new terminology to organise events and spaces for themselves (which they would still need because their reality hadn't changed)? Or suppose I see a subculture that I like, but I'm not part of it. Would it be okay for me and a lot of others who feel the same way to redefine their language to include and refer to myself, even if that erodes the meanings of the language over time?

What I'm asking is do you understand the concept I'm trying to illustrate with linguistic poaching, and do you see how it could be harmful? Can you understand why I don't take it as a respectful gesture when you write that you'll call me "woman" if that's what I want, while at the same time you're engaged in the project of stripping the old meaning (female person) from the word "woman" and giving it a new meaning (person with a feminine gender identity) that does not apply to me and is of no use to me?

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which means that talking about biological sex would be impossible if everyone followed your lead. But make not mistake, it will be females (the kind who are born as such and can get pregnant) who will lose if sex is erased as concept. Sex and sex differences will keep existing even if we hadn't words to talk about it. And, in spite of their claims to the contrary, men (the kind who can impregnate) will keep being able to know to whom send rape threaths and many other things.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Didn’t you say on your own post that you understand the differences between the sexes (You did. I read it)?

And didn’t you specifically mention “aFaB” people and their reproductive concerns in that same post (You did. I read it)?

So why the refusal to acknowledge that all the people who can get pregnant share the same sex (female), on this post?

“Sex isn’t the same as gender”, right? So admitting that tm and the enbies who can get pregnant share that ability because they are female shouldn’t invalidate/trigger them or weaken your argument.

I don’t understand how acknowledging an incredibly basic fact is disrespectful to their choices.