Debates over sex and gender

Amanda Jackson5 said:Are you even familiar with the concept of butch women or effeminate men?

So, we are looking at physical reality first, followed by psychological perception?

Sam Martinez9 said:I find myself wondering why such a tiny percentage of the population—whether it's a few percent or just a fraction of a percent, I haven't bothered to check because frankly, I don't care—attracts so much intense focus from people who are perfectly comfortable with their own gender.

Let me offer another comparison—think about people who, due to some accident, lose both legs and have to rely on wheelchairs. How often do those of us with functioning legs actually dwell on them or obsess over their struggles? Sure, the legislature can pass laws to make mobility easier or help them live more independently, but most of us rarely give it a second thought.

Personally, I find this entire topic rather uninteresting. What I've just noted applies to *average* people who seem strangely preoccupied with transgender individuals.

Beyond that, I don't believe meaningful debates regarding gender should be built upon edge cases.

A few things.

Personally, I don't really have an issue with people expressing their gender however they want—whether they identify as hetero, trans, asexual, or whatever else—or if they just... well, you know. It’s fine by me.
I don't know—maybe she just has this weird, unexplained thing for trees.
I mean, honestly—it’s their call to make. Their choice, really.

I guess it’s a bit of a headache when the LGBTQ community—or at least certain segments of it—starts aggressively pushing specific agendas and blurring all the definitions around. It kind of muddies the waters, if you know what I mean.
It’s kind of like that YouTuber Jamie says—you know, that line where they claim trans women are just women who happen to be trans. It’s a bit of a circular way to put it, I guess.
So, if someone claims that things are laid out strictly as X-Y-Z—and they’re acting like there isn't any other way the world works—I guess it's worth poking at that. It might be worth checking if that logic actually holds up, or if maybe, just maybe, the whole setup looks more like A-B-C.

So, how exactly does it "happen" for someone to become trans? I mean, if you look at it from a certain angle—and I’m just speculating here, obviously—nobody is actually born "trans." People are born either male or female, right? Or so it seems, anyway.
I mean, I guess you could say being trans becomes this sort of defined process—you know, through things like hormone therapy or surgery—but it’s probably more layered than that. It's just one way to look at it, I suppose.

So, I guess the way you look at it—if you want to get technical about it—is that a trans person is someone who feels a clear, definite drive to transition. It’s about that internal intent to change their sex, whether they've already gone through the whole process—you know, the medical stuff like hormone therapy, physical changes, or surgeries—or if they're still in the middle of it. It's really just about aligning their body and how they present themselves with who they actually are inside, their gender identity and that overall sense of self. Or maybe that's just one way to frame it, anyway.

Gender transition is this long, often pretty uncomfortable slog—it’s not exactly a quick fix. To even get started with hormone therapy or any kind of genital surgery, a trans person basically has to be officially diagnosed with "gender identity disorder" first. Then, the psychiatric establishment usually steps in and insists they spend at least a year living as the "opposite sex"—you know, the whole routine of wearing specific clothes and adjusting their gender expression just to prove they're "ready" for surgery. It can be an incredibly awkward process for the individual involved. Honestly, many in the trans community see these requirements as pretty discriminatory, maybe even borderline violent, because the idea that someone should have the authority to dictate how another person expresses their gender feels wrong. I guess the biggest gripe people have with psychiatry here is that it forces these old-school, stereotypical gender binaries back onto people (check out that first image for context). So, you might have a trans woman who's trying to navigate this transition, but to get the green light from her doctor, she's suddenly expected to wear skirts, heels, dye her hair, or put on makeup—even if that doesn't actually fit her vibe or how she wants to present herself as a woman. It's a lot to ask, really.

You’ll also run into these abbreviations like M2F—which basically refers to someone assigned male at birth who identifies as female—and F2M, where someone assigned female at birth is transitioning to male. Though, I guess if you actually talk to people in the community, they don't usually go around labeling themselves with those technical terms. Most just identify as a man or a woman... sort of treating the whole transition thing as just one chapter in their lives rather than a permanent label. Maybe that's just how it works.

So, I was thinking about how gender-affirming medical stuff works—it’s a bit more complicated than most people realize, I guess. Like, many trans people actually skip out on genital surgery because, well, it can mess with sexual pleasure, which is a pretty big deal. Then there's the hormone thing—you're basically on them for life since the body doesn't just spontaneously start producing the "other" sex's hormones on its own. They help develop secondary characteristics, but you can't exactly hit an undo button once they show up. So, trans men might need surgery to remove breasts, while trans women mostly have to deal with voice training—which, let's be honest, is a whole different kind of struggle. Since most folks start transitioning well after puberty—once those physical traits are already set in stone—some things just stay, regardless of what the hormones are doing. We're talking height, broad shoulders, long feet, or a prominent Adam's apple for trans women; or narrow shoulders, wider hips, and shorter feet for trans men. It’s just biology, I suppose. The hormones do change things, though. Trans men usually see more body hair, changes in voice pitch, and sometimes the clitoris grows to a point where it's practically a small penis. For trans women, it’s more about the hips, breasts, and less body hair. And there's this huge misconception about surgery—like, when a trans woman has genital surgery, it isn't some "removal" or castration thing, which is a common myth. It’s more like the tissue is reshaped and tucked, almost like a sock being pulled inside out. On the flip side, hormone therapy can cause a trans man's penis to grow slightly, maybe just a couple of centimeters above that standard medical baseline. Medical tech is always moving forward, and there are definitely alternative solutions popping up, but nothing really stands out as a gold standard yet. It's all very much a work in progress, I guess.

Wiki

So...
Quincy:

A transgender person is someone who identifies as trans and has a clear desire and intention to change their sex...

Quincy:

Hormones are taken permanently because the body can't just produce enough of the hormones characteristic of the "opposite sex" on its own. They work by helping one acquire secondary sex characteristics, though they can't really undo them once they're there. Link

Also, regarding the etymology of the prefix:

Quincy:

trans- is a word-forming element meaning "across, beyond, through, on the other side of, to go beyond," coming from the Latin trans (prep.) "across, over, beyond," which was probably originally a present participle of a verb *trare-, meaning "to cross"... Link

Trans—to cross over (to change).

Jose Edwards16 said:A few things.

Personally, I don't really have an issue with people expressing their gender however they want—whether they identify as hetero, trans, asexual, or whatever else—or if they just... well, you know. It’s fine by me.
I don't know—maybe she just has this weird, unexplained thing for trees.
I mean, honestly—it’s their call to make. Their choice, really.

I guess it’s a bit of a headache when the LGBTQ community—or at least certain segments of it—starts aggressively pushing specific agendas and blurring all the definitions around. It kind of muddies the waters, if you know what I mean.
It’s kind of like that YouTuber Jamie says—you know, that line where they claim trans women are just women who happen to be trans. It’s a bit of a circular way to put it, I guess.
So, if someone claims that things are laid out strictly as X-Y-Z—and they’re acting like there isn't any other way the world works—I guess it's worth poking at that. It might be worth checking if that logic actually holds up, or if maybe, just maybe, the whole setup looks more like A-B-C.

So, how exactly does it "happen" for someone to become trans? I mean, if you look at it from a certain angle—and I’m just speculating here, obviously—nobody is actually born "trans." People are born either male or female, right? Or so it seems, anyway.
I mean, I guess you could say being trans becomes this sort of defined process—you know, through things like hormone therapy or surgery—but it’s probably more layered than that. It's just one way to look at it, I suppose.

So, I guess the way you look at it—if you want to get technical about it—is that a trans person is someone who feels a clear, definite drive to transition. It’s about that internal intent to change their sex, whether they've already gone through the whole process—you know, the medical stuff like hormone therapy, physical changes, or surgeries—or if they're still in the middle of it. It's really just about aligning their body and how they present themselves with who they actually are inside, their gender identity and that overall sense of self. Or maybe that's just one way to frame it, anyway.

Gender transition is this long, often pretty uncomfortable slog—it’s not exactly a quick fix. To even get started with hormone therapy or any kind of genital surgery, a trans person basically has to be officially diagnosed with "gender identity disorder" first. Then, the psychiatric establishment usually steps in and insists they spend at least a year living as the "opposite sex"—you know, the whole routine of wearing specific clothes and adjusting their gender expression just to prove they're "ready" for surgery. It can be an incredibly awkward process for the individual involved. Honestly, many in the trans community see these requirements as pretty discriminatory, maybe even borderline violent, because the idea that someone should have the authority to dictate how another person expresses their gender feels wrong. I guess the biggest gripe people have with psychiatry here is that it forces these old-school, stereotypical gender binaries back onto people (check out that first image for context). So, you might have a trans woman who's trying to navigate this transition, but to get the green light from her doctor, she's suddenly expected to wear skirts, heels, dye her hair, or put on makeup—even if that doesn't actually fit her vibe or how she wants to present herself as a woman. It's a lot to ask, really.

You’ll also run into these abbreviations like M2F—which basically refers to someone assigned male at birth who identifies as female—and F2M, where someone assigned female at birth is transitioning to male. Though, I guess if you actually talk to people in the community, they don't usually go around labeling themselves with those technical terms. Most just identify as a man or a woman... sort of treating the whole transition thing as just one chapter in their lives rather than a permanent label. Maybe that's just how it works.

So, I was thinking about how gender-affirming medical stuff works—it’s a bit more complicated than most people realize, I guess. Like, many trans people actually skip out on genital surgery because, well, it can mess with sexual pleasure, which is a pretty big deal. Then there's the hormone thing—you're basically on them for life since the body doesn't just spontaneously start producing the "other" sex's hormones on its own. They help develop secondary characteristics, but you can't exactly hit an undo button once they show up. So, trans men might need surgery to remove breasts, while trans women mostly have to deal with voice training—which, let's be honest, is a whole different kind of struggle. Since most folks start transitioning well after puberty—once those physical traits are already set in stone—some things just stay, regardless of what the hormones are doing. We're talking height, broad shoulders, long feet, or a prominent Adam's apple for trans women; or narrow shoulders, wider hips, and shorter feet for trans men. It’s just biology, I suppose. The hormones do change things, though. Trans men usually see more body hair, changes in voice pitch, and sometimes the clitoris grows to a point where it's practically a small penis. For trans women, it’s more about the hips, breasts, and less body hair. And there's this huge misconception about surgery—like, when a trans woman has genital surgery, it isn't some "removal" or castration thing, which is a common myth. It’s more like the tissue is reshaped and tucked, almost like a sock being pulled inside out. On the flip side, hormone therapy can cause a trans man's penis to grow slightly, maybe just a couple of centimeters above that standard medical baseline. Medical tech is always moving forward, and there are definitely alternative solutions popping up, but nothing really stands out as a gold standard yet. It's all very much a work in progress, I guess.

Wiki

So...
Quincy:

A transgender person is someone who identifies as trans and has a clear desire and intention to change their sex...

Quincy:

Hormones are taken permanently because the body can't just produce enough of the hormones characteristic of the "opposite sex" on its own. They work by helping one acquire secondary sex characteristics, though they can't really undo them once they're there. Link

Also, regarding the etymology of the prefix:

Quincy:

trans- is a word-forming element meaning "across, beyond, through, on the other side of, to go beyond," coming from the Latin trans (prep.) "across, over, beyond," which was probably originally a present participle of a verb *trare-, meaning "to cross"... Link

Trans—to cross over (to change).

However, if you want to know what the LGBTQ community is pushing, you actually have to take an interest in it. Personally, I haven't the slightest clue what their specific talking points are; at most, I might glance at a headline about a parade in New York City and leave it at that.

In the same vein, I don't follow fashion. I have no idea what’s considered "in" right now, nor do I intend to spend my time scrolling through websites or flipping through magazines to see what the trends are for this season.

Sam Martinez9 said:However, if you want to know what the LGBTQ community is pushing, you actually have to take an interest in it. Personally, I haven't the slightest clue what their specific talking points are; at most, I might glance at a headline about a parade in New York City and leave it at that.

In the same vein, I don't follow fashion. I have no idea what’s considered "in" right now, nor do I intend to spend my time scrolling through websites or flipping through magazines to see what the trends are for this season.

I'm guessing you don't watch much modern film or TV. Honestly, that's probably for the best. 👍 It's much better to stick to books than to consume all that garbage on screen. Maybe I should follow your lead and cut back on the streaming too, lol.

Sam Martinez9 said:However, if you want to know what the LGBTQ community is pushing, you actually have to take an interest in it. Personally, I haven't the slightest clue what their specific talking points are; at most, I might glance at a headline about a parade in New York City and leave it at that.

In the same vein, I don't follow fashion. I have no idea what’s considered "in" right now, nor do I intend to spend my time scrolling through websites or flipping through magazines to see what the trends are for this season.

If we follow that logic, we could spend all day arguing whether chess is technically a sport or not, since most people define "sport" by physical exertion—you know, things like running.
And if chess counts as a sport, then why isn't dominoes or even Sorry! considered a sport? They're just games, right?

This whole idea—isn't it just a circular argument? It seems like a logical fallacy being peddled by that YouTuber Jamie:
Transwomen are not men who become women - they are women who happened to be trans.

Basically:
Trans women are just women who are trans.

I actually have this little booklet in my library that lists different logical fallacies, and I'm pretty sure that sentence fits the bill perfectly.

Plus, the part about how someone "becomes" trans is still a bit fuzzy, which was sort of my point in my previous post, I guess.☕

Honestly, I think Walsh, who critiques various LGBTQ viewpoints, actually puts together much tighter and more coherent arguments than the ones he's taking aim at.

Jose Edwards16 said:If we follow that logic, we could spend all day arguing whether chess is technically a sport or not, since most people define "sport" by physical exertion—you know, things like running.
And if chess counts as a sport, then why isn't dominoes or even Sorry! considered a sport? They're just games, right?

This whole idea—isn't it just a circular argument? It seems like a logical fallacy being peddled by that YouTuber Jamie:
Transwomen are not men who become women - they are women who happened to be trans.

Basically:
Trans women are just women who are trans.

I actually have this little booklet in my library that lists different logical fallacies, and I'm pretty sure that sentence fits the bill perfectly.

Plus, the part about how someone "becomes" trans is still a bit fuzzy, which was sort of my point in my previous post, I guess.☕

Honestly, I think Walsh, who critiques various LGBTQ viewpoints, actually puts together much tighter and more coherent arguments than the ones he's taking aim at.

I’m not quite sure why you’re directing this at me, considering I already mentioned that I don't have much interest in the transgender community.

What I am interested in is why *average* people are making such a massive fuss over a group that accounts for a tiny fraction of one percent of the population. Since you clearly find the subject so fascinating, perhaps you could provide an answer to that question.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Are you even familiar with the concept of butch women or effeminate men?

Sure, I know the terms—but honestly, I don't see where this is going. If we're calling tomboys or effeminate guys "extreme cases," then logically, I should be seeing traces of femininity in most men and traces of masculinity in most women. But that assumes there’s some universal checklist to separate "male" traits from "female" ones. In reality, most human qualities are just... human. They apply to everyone. When I'm comparing guys to guys, or women to women, I never think about how much "masculinity" or "femininity" they're displaying. It doesn't occur to me to call a laid-back guy "feminized" or a tough-as-nails woman "masculine." Usually, "masculine" traits are just whatever women happen to find attractive, and vice versa for men. But here's the catch: most women actually want a mix of typical and atypical traits in a man, and it works the same way for men looking at women. So, if everything is a blend, how are we even supposed to tell sex apart from gender?

Sam Martinez9 said:I’m not quite sure why you’re directing this at me, considering I already mentioned that I don't have much interest in the transgender community.

What I am interested in is why *average* people are making such a massive fuss over a group that accounts for a tiny fraction of one percent of the population. Since you clearly find the subject so fascinating, perhaps you could provide an answer to that question.

I mean, I enjoy a good debate.

We're just talking about different things and looking at the same stuff through different lenses, I suppose.

I could probably bring up something from the Myth of Sisyphus, since that's basically the core philosophical issue here.
But besides that main point, there's plenty of other stuff to argue about.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, I know the terms—but honestly, I don't see where this is going. If we're calling tomboys or effeminate guys "extreme cases," then logically, I should be seeing traces of femininity in most men and traces of masculinity in most women. But that assumes there’s some universal checklist to separate "male" traits from "female" ones. In reality, most human qualities are just... human. They apply to everyone. When I'm comparing guys to guys, or women to women, I never think about how much "masculinity" or "femininity" they're displaying. It doesn't occur to me to call a laid-back guy "feminized" or a tough-as-nails woman "masculine." Usually, "masculine" traits are just whatever women happen to find attractive, and vice versa for men. But here's the catch: most women actually want a mix of typical and atypical traits in a man, and it works the same way for men looking at women. So, if everything is a blend, how are we even supposed to tell sex apart from gender?

Then there's androgyny.

Quincy:

androginost Androgyny (from the Greek *androgynos*) refers to a woman or man displaying both feminine and masculine characteristics—basically those traits that society doesn't typically expect from someone of a certain sex, or things usually attributed to the opposite sex. Some modern psychologists actually view androgyny as a positive thing; it might make us more capable of navigating life in general because it breaks down those rigid social stereotypes about what men or women "should" be like. Link

Take, for instance, a woman with very short hair who's really into sports; she might be perceived as androgynous.
Usually, women wear their hair long, whereas—as we've touched on before—long hair on men used to be a sign of rebellion. Nowadays, I guess most heavy metal fans have long hair.

Sam Martinez9 said:I’m not quite sure why you’re directing this at me, considering I already mentioned that I don't have much interest in the transgender community.

What I am interested in is why *average* people are making such a massive fuss over a group that accounts for a tiny fraction of one percent of the population. Since you clearly find the subject so fascinating, perhaps you could provide an answer to that question.

Well, I guess you could say I have a bit of a thing for a good debate. Or maybe I just enjoy the chaos—it’s hard to tell sometimes. Either way, I'm all for it.
We’re just out here talking about all sorts of random stuff—nothing too crazy, I guess. Just a mix of things.

What if gender just... isn't actually a thing? Like, maybe we could all just agree that the whole male/female binary is kind of a myth—that there isn't really an M or an F, but instead we're all just, I don't know, fluid? Or maybe "omnisexual"? Just a thought, I guess.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, I know the terms—but honestly, I don't see where this is going. If we're calling tomboys or effeminate guys "extreme cases," then logically, I should be seeing traces of femininity in most men and traces of masculinity in most women. But that assumes there’s some universal checklist to separate "male" traits from "female" ones. In reality, most human qualities are just... human. They apply to everyone. When I'm comparing guys to guys, or women to women, I never think about how much "masculinity" or "femininity" they're displaying. It doesn't occur to me to call a laid-back guy "feminized" or a tough-as-nails woman "masculine." Usually, "masculine" traits are just whatever women happen to find attractive, and vice versa for men. But here's the catch: most women actually want a mix of typical and atypical traits in a man, and it works the same way for men looking at women. So, if everything is a blend, how are we even supposed to tell sex apart from gender?

Then there's the whole androgyny thing—not that I'm saying it's everything, but it’s definitely a factor in the mix.

Androgyny—it’s one of those topics that people love to get worked up about, I guess. It’s sort of this fluid middle ground that doesn't really fit into the neat little boxes society tries to build for us—though, let's be honest, those boxes are getting a bit more crowded lately. It's just about blurring those lines between masculine and feminine, which some people find revolutionary and others... well, others find confusing. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective, but it feels like we're all just trying to figure out where we land on the spectrum without making a scene. Or maybe we are making a scene. Hard to say.
Androgyny—which comes from that Greek term *androgynos*, if you want to get technical—is basically just that blend where someone displays both masculine and feminine traits. It’s about those qualities that society usually doesn't expect from a specific gender, or the stuff we traditionally pin on the opposite sex. I guess it's just breaking those rigid little boxes we build for ourselves. Some modern psychologists actually argue that being androgynous is a pretty positive thing—maybe even a strength—because it makes us more capable of handling life in its entirety by smashing those tired old stereotypes about how men or women "should" act. Or maybe it just makes things less predictable. Who knows.

I don't really know what you want me to do with this—there isn't actually a link here, I guess. Maybe it didn't paste right, or maybe it was just a typo? Either way, if there was supposed to be a link, it's missing. Just a thought.

So, I guess you could say if a woman has really short hair and is, say, super into sports—that kind of vibe—she might be perceived as androgynous. It’s just one of those things, maybe—it depends on how people see it, I suppose.
Usually, women go for longer hair—it's just the standard thing—but if you look back at some of those older threads, long hair on guys was always this big statement of rebellion. I guess nowadays, it’s just become the default look for heavy metal fans. It's kind of funny how things shift like that—one day it's an act of defiance, and the next, it's just what you expect to see at a concert. Maybe everything just becomes a trope eventually.

mart28 said:I don't really care about them either, but...
I guess if you look at how things work in the US Congress—you know, where they have those discussions about gender quotas and representation—it’s never exactly a smooth ride. I mean, having two women in leadership roles specifically to meet certain parity goals? It's probably going to ruffle some feathers. People always seem to have an opinion on it, and let's be honest, it's rarely a unanimous thumbs-up from everyone in the room. It's just one of those things that tends to stir up debate, I suppose.
Or, you know, maybe trans women just call themselves feminists and decide to jump into that scene—I guess.
Can a trans woman have the same physical experiences—or just general life experiences, I guess—as a cisgender woman, and can she truly be considered a "voice" for women in general?

I guess there’s always going to be that ongoing debate about whether trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports categories—it's one of those topics that just keeps circling back around, isn't it? It feels like every time you turn around, people are arguing over the fairness of it all, though I suppose it's more complicated than just a simple yes or no. There are so many different angles to consider, and honestly, it seems like everyone has an opinion on it lately.
The whole issue boils down to the fact that someone born male who then transitions into a woman might end up with more developed muscle mass or different physical traits—basically, things like lung capacity or endurance—which could give them an edge over biological women in athletic competitions.

The Leader on American television, Pierce Morgan, also holds views that tend to rub the LGBTQ community the wrong way—he once joked, for instance, that if there really are that many different gender identities out there, he might just call himself a 'two-spirited penguin.'
Yt

And, predictably, Morgan ends up getting accused of being transphobic. There were even calls—petitions, actually—to get him fired, and all because of his comment about not agreeing with the idea that there are 'hundreds of genders.'
I prefer to debate and argue with people I disagree with rather than demanding they lose their jobs, Morgan points out.
He also mentioned in this video that the Grammy Awards have moved away from male/female categories toward being gender-neutral, and he argues that this move actually does more harm than good for women.☕

Jose Edwards16 said:Well, I guess you could say I have a bit of a thing for a good debate. Or maybe I just enjoy the chaos—it’s hard to tell sometimes. Either way, I'm all for it.
We’re just out here talking about all sorts of random stuff—nothing too crazy, I guess. Just a mix of things.

What if gender just... isn't actually a thing? Like, maybe we could all just agree that the whole male/female binary is kind of a myth—that there isn't really an M or an F, but instead we're all just, I don't know, fluid? Or maybe "omnisexual"? Just a thought, I guess.

Then there's the whole androgyny thing—not that I'm saying it's everything, but it’s definitely a factor in the mix.

Androgyny—it’s one of those topics that people love to get worked up about, I guess. It’s sort of this fluid middle ground that doesn't really fit into the neat little boxes society tries to build for us—though, let's be honest, those boxes are getting a bit more crowded lately. It's just about blurring those lines between masculine and feminine, which some people find revolutionary and others... well, others find confusing. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective, but it feels like we're all just trying to figure out where we land on the spectrum without making a scene. Or maybe we are making a scene. Hard to say.
Androgyny—which comes from that Greek term *androgynos*, if you want to get technical—is basically just that blend where someone displays both masculine and feminine traits. It’s about those qualities that society usually doesn't expect from a specific gender, or the stuff we traditionally pin on the opposite sex. I guess it's just breaking those rigid little boxes we build for ourselves. Some modern psychologists actually argue that being androgynous is a pretty positive thing—maybe even a strength—because it makes us more capable of handling life in its entirety by smashing those tired old stereotypes about how men or women "should" act. Or maybe it just makes things less predictable. Who knows.

I don't really know what you want me to do with this—there isn't actually a link here, I guess. Maybe it didn't paste right, or maybe it was just a typo? Either way, if there was supposed to be a link, it's missing. Just a thought.

So, I guess you could say if a woman has really short hair and is, say, super into sports—that kind of vibe—she might be perceived as androgynous. It’s just one of those things, maybe—it depends on how people see it, I suppose.
Usually, women go for longer hair—it's just the standard thing—but if you look back at some of those older threads, long hair on guys was always this big statement of rebellion. I guess nowadays, it’s just become the default look for heavy metal fans. It's kind of funny how things shift like that—one day it's an act of defiance, and the next, it's just what you expect to see at a concert. Maybe everything just becomes a trope eventually.

I guess there’s always going to be that ongoing debate about whether trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports categories—it's one of those topics that just keeps circling back around, isn't it? It feels like every time you turn around, people are arguing over the fairness of it all, though I suppose it's more complicated than just a simple yes or no. There are so many different angles to consider, and honestly, it seems like everyone has an opinion on it lately.
The whole issue boils down to the fact that someone born male who then transitions into a woman might end up with more developed muscle mass or different physical traits—basically, things like lung capacity or endurance—which could give them an edge over biological women in athletic competitions.

The Leader on American television, Pierce Morgan, also holds views that tend to rub the LGBTQ community the wrong way—he once joked, for instance, that if there really are that many different gender identities out there, he might just call himself a 'two-spirited penguin.'
Yt

And, predictably, Morgan ends up getting accused of being transphobic. There were even calls—petitions, actually—to get him fired, and all because of his comment about not agreeing with the idea that there are 'hundreds of genders.'
I prefer to debate and argue with people I disagree with rather than demanding they lose their jobs, Morgan points out.
He also mentioned in this video that the Grammy Awards have moved away from male/female categories toward being gender-neutral, and he argues that this move actually does more harm than good for women.☕

I’d never call that woman androgynous—she’s just a woman with short hair who likes sports. Simple as that. It’s the same logic I use when I call myself a man, even though I don't care about sports. At the end of the day, hair length and hobbies are just personal choices—they have zero bearing on gender. The only thing that actually defines gender is how you carry yourself in relation to the opposite sex.

lonetrucker4 said:Pretty much, yeah. But there's more to it. I started growing my hair out when I hit high school back in '72. (Clothes-wise, I always played it safe). Back then, at 15, I was short and had a pretty face—could've passed for a girl with some makeup and the right outfit, but that wasn't the point. That phase ended pretty quick.

It was basically just pure anti-establishment rebellion, just like those kids in the '60s who started the whole long-hair craze. By '72, it was somewhat acceptable, but just a few years prior, some high school principals were actually banning long-haired kids (and girls in miniskirts) from campus. It was even tougher in the small towns—I remember reading about a case where cops hauled in two long-haired kids and forcibly buzzed their heads at the station.

Beyond the rebellion, it was a rejection of that forced "manliness" everyone pushed. "Manliness" isn't biology; it's a social construct designed to make you fit a mold. Check my posts #86 and 87 for my take on that.

By most standards, I'm a "typical guy," though plenty of people would disagree.

Some folks pushed the whole androgyny thing, but honestly, that's just another rigid box to live in.

Long hair back then was a middle finger to the "ideal teenager" image, much like the mini-skirt or wearing makeup. It's all social conditioning: if you lived in a society where Viking braids were the norm, there wouldn't be any rebellion in it.

I kept the long hair for decades; it used to reach mid-back when I was younger. Eventually, it stopped being a social protest and just became my way of being myself. It wasn't about wanting to be a woman—long hair on guys is standard now anyway. Last year, with a long beard and flowing hair, someone told me I looked like an old-school hippie biker.😁 Now, I'm keeping it short and grooming the beard. At 65, the long look just made me look messy and unkempt.

Shaving your head can be a rebellion too, or maybe just conforming to a specific group. I knew a couple of women who shaved their heads specifically to dodge that pressure to look "feminine" or "pretty" (whether that worked is debatable; personally, I still thought one of them was attractive).

Honestly, I’ve never wasted a second wondering if I fit the mold of a "typical man" or not. That’s a question for women anyway.

ruggedraven36 said:Honestly, I’ve never wasted a second wondering if I fit the mold of a "typical man" or not. That’s a question for women anyway.

Yeah, pretty much. That kind of self-reflection is usually reserved for women, I suppose. 😁

Feminism has always just sort of ridden the wave of whatever philosophical trend happens to be in vogue. Every time the zeitgeist shifts, the narrative gets retold. First it was existentialism, then Marxism, then psychoanalysis, then all that ethnic-mythological stuff about the Great Goddess, and so on. Now, I guess, we’ve reached this latest attempt at a sort of syncretism—a messy patchwork of discourse theory, performative speech acts, psychoanalysis, and social constructivism. It’s a bit of a second-rate Frankenstein’s monster, but somehow its radicalism managed to colonize the humanities departments. Judith Butler became the pop star of feminist philosophy; her *Gender Trouble* essentially became the "communist manifesto" of feminism—something nobody actually read, but which became a massive political project through various NGO channels. The whole "radical" idea was that the "woman problem" should be solved by essentially abolishing the woman, dematerializing the body into raw material for discourse. In this view, a woman is just a construct of power structures she needs to escape. Genders are supposed to be irritated until they’re unrecognizable, which is why they’ve grabbed gender dysphoria and waved it around like a flag. Svenja flaßpöhler, the editor-in-chief of the popular German magazine *Philosophy Magazine*, claims that she and her entire generation of female students were so hypnotized by Butler's *Gender Trouble* that she personally tried to enter lesbian relationships despite having zero lesbian inclinations, simply because she didn't want to submit to "heteronormative" pressure. It failed immediately, of course, because biology is apparently stronger than an ideological construct. Postmodern feminists like Butler argue that nothing about a person is inherently gendered—they even claim genitals are just "gendered." I’d argue the exact opposite: that genitals unconsciously gender the entire person. A human being is physiologically outlined by their sexual anatomy: on one side, you have a tense, directed fullness; on the other, a gaping but productive void. You have epithelium exposed here, something hidden in moisture there; an organ occupying space in one instance, and space occupying an organ in the other; one part is external, protruding, and aiming outward, while the other is internal. When blood flows to these organs, the penis achieves a certain "combat readiness"—it becomes firm, unyielding, and ready to penetrate. When blood flows to the vagina, it gains the opposite quality: a softness that absorbs the collateral damage of penetration. It serves as the receiver, opening up and becoming yielding, providing what one might call "petals" to invite a pollinator. This polar anatomy creates a polarity in the sexual act characterized by a lack of reciprocity. The participants don't fit together like puzzle pieces; rather, one simply enters the other. The male penis occupies someone else's space. It enters a foreign home without even taking off its boots, while the vagina prepares for the intrusion with secretions and elasticity. But Mr. Penis isn't satisfied with just occupying space; he finishes with a shot deep inside the woman. And quite a shot it is. If conception occurs, it completely disrupts the woman’s life, while the man elegantly exits the reproductive process. For him, the moment of sowing his contribution is the finish line, allowing him to withdraw and return to other activities. The woman is left in this extraordinary biological mode where she transforms almost like a werewolf to sustain new life. Her small, pear-shaped uterine muscle stretches to a hundred times its size without bursting; her pelvis shifts and expands, creaking like an old ship. The entire body swells with water and oils, blood thins, the milk factory starts production, and the endocrine and immune systems undergo a total overhaul. Even the psyche isn't spared; the production of hormones like oxytocin puts her into a trance-like state of total care for the fetus. One could say that a woman, during and after pregnancy—and even before—is biologically tuned toward the fetus through her hormonal cycles, the way she carries and nourishes the child, and the subsequent production of hormones and food.
Just as a woman is biologically left alone with her offspring, she is also sociologically isolated when it comes to organizing life—following that old, essentialist formula where the man is out in the world and the woman stays inside. This whole sense of female elasticity—whether we’re talking about intercourse or pregnancy—seems to be a defining characteristic. A woman's readiness (to surrender, to make herself available) isn't just seen in the submissive role during sex when her physical space is occupied, or during pregnancy when another life takes over her body; it's even present in her egg, which waits patiently in isolation for its sperm "Olympic champion" to travel that 400 mm track and fuse with it. You could argue that biology suggests women are inherently designed to provide space for others, while male biology points toward a sort of fascist with an imperial mission—someone who occupies external spaces and handles the rougher edges of existence. As a member of a pack, a male has to "penetrate" the territories of other packs to fight for resources, and as an individual, he has to "penetrate" members of his own group to access quality sexual resources and impress females with his victories. That way, the female gets the most dominant, most penetrating specimen—quality genes that promise the survival of her own lineage. The male is clearly a creature of will, and that will only finds purpose when it is "erect"—when it penetrates by overcoming resistance, whether internal or external. Abstractly speaking, these are always forces of will colliding; one side "hardens" or "protrudes" to triumph, while the other gives way—either by surrendering, essentially "signing the surrender papers" and becoming soft and yielding, or by retreating and ceding space to the aggressor. Historically, this has been true of humans in all their cultural expressions, even when raw biology was heavily masked by layers of culture, albeit in a more sublime way. Even in warfare, it isn't just about occupying a woman's space, but a man's too. For him, terms like being "exposed," "fucked," or "screwed" aren't just random vulgarities; they are linguistic truths born from intuitive analogy. The characterology of our anatomy is obvious in our language: it’s no coincidence we call people "rigid" when they won't bend, or "penetrating" when they are ready for collision; or "soft" when they let someone else's will manifest at their own expense. We call a man with a soft, defensive nature a "pussy," or "limp-dick." Conversely, we call someone with an offensive guard "cocky," or say they are trying to act like a "tough guy." The same aggressive drive exists sublimely in the act of seduction; a primal, healthy woman values persistence and penetrance (alongside some baseline attractiveness). This is the "erection"—the persistence that "opens" her up, causing her to become softer and more receptive, or to put it bluntly, to "wet" herself for the man's erect posture. Many decent men complain that those highly penetrative types have better luck with girls. Well, it’s probably your fault if you're "limp." A woman is arguably a better human being than a man; she is affirmative toward the other through care, social connection, and empathy, and she doesn't struggle with self-sacrifice—which is really just looking at oneself from the outside. While he wants to leave his mark out there, she wants the mark made within.
The man is a high-risk gambler; the woman is a safe investor. Men are inspired, or perhaps "erected," by situations that test their resolve, where huge sums are put on the line. Stock markets are basically men's clubs, especially where people use margin and leverage. Women, on the contrary, tend to experience indecision proportional to the size of the potential loss or the amount of skin in the game, particularly in situations requiring decisive action or responsibility. Take traffic, for example. Out of ten people signing up for driving courses intended to overcome driving trauma or to help those who can't bring themselves to hit the road after passing their test, nine of them are women.

Jose Edwards16 said:If we follow that logic, we could spend all day arguing whether chess is technically a sport or not, since most people define "sport" by physical exertion—you know, things like running.
And if chess counts as a sport, then why isn't dominoes or even Sorry! considered a sport? They're just games, right?

This whole idea—isn't it just a circular argument? It seems like a logical fallacy being peddled by that YouTuber Jamie:
Transwomen are not men who become women - they are women who happened to be trans.

Basically:
Trans women are just women who are trans.

I actually have this little booklet in my library that lists different logical fallacies, and I'm pretty sure that sentence fits the bill perfectly.

Plus, the part about how someone "becomes" trans is still a bit fuzzy, which was sort of my point in my previous post, I guess.☕

Honestly, I think Walsh, who critiques various LGBTQ viewpoints, actually puts together much tighter and more coherent arguments than the ones he's taking aim at.

The International Olympic Committee actually recognizes "mind sports." They've got chess, Go, bridge—maybe checkers too.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/is-chess-a-sport

So if chess counts, why isn't dominoes or Sorry! considered a sport? Why are they just games?

Because luck is a huge factor in those. Same goes for most card games, except maybe bridge. To be called a sport, the outcome basically has to depend on pure skill, not just rolling dice or drawing lucky cards.

Then you've got those edge-case sports where things get blurry, like figure skating, where looks and aesthetics play a part.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, I know the terms—but honestly, I don't see where this is going. If we're calling tomboys or effeminate guys "extreme cases," then logically, I should be seeing traces of femininity in most men and traces of masculinity in most women. But that assumes there’s some universal checklist to separate "male" traits from "female" ones. In reality, most human qualities are just... human. They apply to everyone. When I'm comparing guys to guys, or women to women, I never think about how much "masculinity" or "femininity" they're displaying. It doesn't occur to me to call a laid-back guy "feminized" or a tough-as-nails woman "masculine." Usually, "masculine" traits are just whatever women happen to find attractive, and vice versa for men. But here's the catch: most women actually want a mix of typical and atypical traits in a man, and it works the same way for men looking at women. So, if everything is a blend, how are we even supposed to tell sex apart from gender?

I wouldn't call tomboys or effeminate men extreme cases; they're really just mild instances of things not quite lining up. We have gender-specific traits that are shaped by biology, and others that are purely products of our culture. Then you have the whole concept of male or female identity, which hinges on those specific traits. Sexual orientation is one of those factors, but it's certainly not the only one. Think of sex as the biological phenotype—the physical reality—while gender is how that aligns with identity. Sometimes, those two don't match up, and that’s precisely why we need to distinguish between the two. For instance, someone might be biologically male but possess gender-specific traits typically associated with women, which can include being attracted to men. For some, this is subtle, and for others, it's much more pronounced. In the cases where the disconnect is intense, we use the term transgender because their internal identity aligns with the opposite sex; essentially, there's a significant incongruence between their biology and their gender. On top of that, you even have biological ambiguity, like intersex conditions. Does that help clarify why separating sex from gender is actually necessary?

Drew Parker2 said:Feminism has always just sort of ridden the wave of whatever philosophical trend happens to be in vogue. Every time the zeitgeist shifts, the narrative gets retold. First it was existentialism, then Marxism, then psychoanalysis, then all that ethnic-mythological stuff about the Great Goddess, and so on. Now, I guess, we’ve reached this latest attempt at a sort of syncretism—a messy patchwork of discourse theory, performative speech acts, psychoanalysis, and social constructivism. It’s a bit of a second-rate Frankenstein’s monster, but somehow its radicalism managed to colonize the humanities departments. Judith Butler became the pop star of feminist philosophy; her *Gender Trouble* essentially became the "communist manifesto" of feminism—something nobody actually read, but which became a massive political project through various NGO channels. The whole "radical" idea was that the "woman problem" should be solved by essentially abolishing the woman, dematerializing the body into raw material for discourse. In this view, a woman is just a construct of power structures she needs to escape. Genders are supposed to be irritated until they’re unrecognizable, which is why they’ve grabbed gender dysphoria and waved it around like a flag. Svenja flaßpöhler, the editor-in-chief of the popular German magazine *Philosophy Magazine*, claims that she and her entire generation of female students were so hypnotized by Butler's *Gender Trouble* that she personally tried to enter lesbian relationships despite having zero lesbian inclinations, simply because she didn't want to submit to "heteronormative" pressure. It failed immediately, of course, because biology is apparently stronger than an ideological construct. Postmodern feminists like Butler argue that nothing about a person is inherently gendered—they even claim genitals are just "gendered." I’d argue the exact opposite: that genitals unconsciously gender the entire person. A human being is physiologically outlined by their sexual anatomy: on one side, you have a tense, directed fullness; on the other, a gaping but productive void. You have epithelium exposed here, something hidden in moisture there; an organ occupying space in one instance, and space occupying an organ in the other; one part is external, protruding, and aiming outward, while the other is internal. When blood flows to these organs, the penis achieves a certain "combat readiness"—it becomes firm, unyielding, and ready to penetrate. When blood flows to the vagina, it gains the opposite quality: a softness that absorbs the collateral damage of penetration. It serves as the receiver, opening up and becoming yielding, providing what one might call "petals" to invite a pollinator. This polar anatomy creates a polarity in the sexual act characterized by a lack of reciprocity. The participants don't fit together like puzzle pieces; rather, one simply enters the other. The male penis occupies someone else's space. It enters a foreign home without even taking off its boots, while the vagina prepares for the intrusion with secretions and elasticity. But Mr. Penis isn't satisfied with just occupying space; he finishes with a shot deep inside the woman. And quite a shot it is. If conception occurs, it completely disrupts the woman’s life, while the man elegantly exits the reproductive process. For him, the moment of sowing his contribution is the finish line, allowing him to withdraw and return to other activities. The woman is left in this extraordinary biological mode where she transforms almost like a werewolf to sustain new life. Her small, pear-shaped uterine muscle stretches to a hundred times its size without bursting; her pelvis shifts and expands, creaking like an old ship. The entire body swells with water and oils, blood thins, the milk factory starts production, and the endocrine and immune systems undergo a total overhaul. Even the psyche isn't spared; the production of hormones like oxytocin puts her into a trance-like state of total care for the fetus. One could say that a woman, during and after pregnancy—and even before—is biologically tuned toward the fetus through her hormonal cycles, the way she carries and nourishes the child, and the subsequent production of hormones and food.
Just as a woman is biologically left alone with her offspring, she is also sociologically isolated when it comes to organizing life—following that old, essentialist formula where the man is out in the world and the woman stays inside. This whole sense of female elasticity—whether we’re talking about intercourse or pregnancy—seems to be a defining characteristic. A woman's readiness (to surrender, to make herself available) isn't just seen in the submissive role during sex when her physical space is occupied, or during pregnancy when another life takes over her body; it's even present in her egg, which waits patiently in isolation for its sperm "Olympic champion" to travel that 400 mm track and fuse with it. You could argue that biology suggests women are inherently designed to provide space for others, while male biology points toward a sort of fascist with an imperial mission—someone who occupies external spaces and handles the rougher edges of existence. As a member of a pack, a male has to "penetrate" the territories of other packs to fight for resources, and as an individual, he has to "penetrate" members of his own group to access quality sexual resources and impress females with his victories. That way, the female gets the most dominant, most penetrating specimen—quality genes that promise the survival of her own lineage. The male is clearly a creature of will, and that will only finds purpose when it is "erect"—when it penetrates by overcoming resistance, whether internal or external. Abstractly speaking, these are always forces of will colliding; one side "hardens" or "protrudes" to triumph, while the other gives way—either by surrendering, essentially "signing the surrender papers" and becoming soft and yielding, or by retreating and ceding space to the aggressor. Historically, this has been true of humans in all their cultural expressions, even when raw biology was heavily masked by layers of culture, albeit in a more sublime way. Even in warfare, it isn't just about occupying a woman's space, but a man's too. For him, terms like being "exposed," "fucked," or "screwed" aren't just random vulgarities; they are linguistic truths born from intuitive analogy. The characterology of our anatomy is obvious in our language: it’s no coincidence we call people "rigid" when they won't bend, or "penetrating" when they are ready for collision; or "soft" when they let someone else's will manifest at their own expense. We call a man with a soft, defensive nature a "pussy," or "limp-dick." Conversely, we call someone with an offensive guard "cocky," or say they are trying to act like a "tough guy." The same aggressive drive exists sublimely in the act of seduction; a primal, healthy woman values persistence and penetrance (alongside some baseline attractiveness). This is the "erection"—the persistence that "opens" her up, causing her to become softer and more receptive, or to put it bluntly, to "wet" herself for the man's erect posture. Many decent men complain that those highly penetrative types have better luck with girls. Well, it’s probably your fault if you're "limp." A woman is arguably a better human being than a man; she is affirmative toward the other through care, social connection, and empathy, and she doesn't struggle with self-sacrifice—which is really just looking at oneself from the outside. While he wants to leave his mark out there, she wants the mark made within.
The man is a high-risk gambler; the woman is a safe investor. Men are inspired, or perhaps "erected," by situations that test their resolve, where huge sums are put on the line. Stock markets are basically men's clubs, especially where people use margin and leverage. Women, on the contrary, tend to experience indecision proportional to the size of the potential loss or the amount of skin in the game, particularly in situations requiring decisive action or responsibility. Take traffic, for example. Out of ten people signing up for driving courses intended to overcome driving trauma or to help those who can't bring themselves to hit the road after passing their test, nine of them are women.

I’m sorry, but this just doesn't align with how life actually works.

As a woman running my own business, I keep my surplus capital in mutual funds. Most of the men I know—neighbors, friends, etc.—aren't entrepreneurs, and if they have any savings at all, it's sitting in a standard bank account; most of them are actually overdrawn on their checking accounts. The entrepreneurs I work with typically *invest* their extra cash into a nice car or perhaps some real estate. In my view, real estate is the ultimate safe bet. Honestly, most of them haven't even heard of something like a 401(k), which is also a very secure way to invest.

It's not as if I was born uniquely brilliant, superior, or braver than everyone else... nor did I set out with some innate "entrepreneurial spirit." Life circumstances pushed me toward entrepreneurship and shaped me into who I am today. This isn't about my "female nature"; rather, it's about how I formed myself within the context of my society.

The men and women in my circle were shaped differently because their family backgrounds and social opportunities were different.

Amanda Jackson5 said:I wouldn't call tomboys or effeminate men extreme cases; they're really just mild instances of things not quite lining up. We have gender-specific traits that are shaped by biology, and others that are purely products of our culture. Then you have the whole concept of male or female identity, which hinges on those specific traits. Sexual orientation is one of those factors, but it's certainly not the only one. Think of sex as the biological phenotype—the physical reality—while gender is how that aligns with identity. Sometimes, those two don't match up, and that’s precisely why we need to distinguish between the two. For instance, someone might be biologically male but possess gender-specific traits typically associated with women, which can include being attracted to men. For some, this is subtle, and for others, it's much more pronounced. In the cases where the disconnect is intense, we use the term transgender because their internal identity aligns with the opposite sex; essentially, there's a significant incongruence between their biology and their gender. On top of that, you even have biological ambiguity, like intersex conditions. Does that help clarify why separating sex from gender is actually necessary?

I think I follow—you laid out the distinction pretty clearly. I'm guessing the real headache comes during the actual analysis—which is probably why everyone fights about it constantly—like trying to pin down whether a specific trait is actually gendered, or if it's biological versus cultural. But here's the kicker: People aren't born just as men or women; they're born as humans. Throughout life, they don't just build a gender identity, they build a human identity. Everything works fine until one starts erasing the other. Human dignity shouldn't hinge on gender identity, but at the same time, we have to realize that denying someone's gender identity is effectively denying their human dignity.

ruggedraven36 said:I think I follow—you laid out the distinction pretty clearly. I'm guessing the real headache comes during the actual analysis—which is probably why everyone fights about it constantly—like trying to pin down whether a specific trait is actually gendered, or if it's biological versus cultural. But here's the kicker: People aren't born just as men or women; they're born as humans. Throughout life, they don't just build a gender identity, they build a human identity. Everything works fine until one starts erasing the other. Human dignity shouldn't hinge on gender identity, but at the same time, we have to realize that denying someone's gender identity is effectively denying their human dignity.

You've hit the nail on the head. 🎉

ruggedraven36 said:I think I follow—you laid out the distinction pretty clearly. I'm guessing the real headache comes during the actual analysis—which is probably why everyone fights about it constantly—like trying to pin down whether a specific trait is actually gendered, or if it's biological versus cultural. But here's the kicker: People aren't born just as men or women; they're born as humans. Throughout life, they don't just build a gender identity, they build a human identity. Everything works fine until one starts erasing the other. Human dignity shouldn't hinge on gender identity, but at the same time, we have to realize that denying someone's gender identity is effectively denying their human dignity.

Exactly.

Sigmunde, I'm honestly not sure if I misunderstood you, or if you've just gotten your wires crossed.

The existence of "tomboyish women," or atypical men and atypical women, isn't up for debate. I don't believe all women "have" to be identical or follow some rigid, stereotypical feminine blueprint. I have nothing against a man being interested in things that might statistically lean more toward female interests, and vice versa.

The mere fact that such people exist—those where there's a visible "mismatch" between biological reality and certain typical interests or psychological traits (what people today call "gender identity")—isn't what I'm disputing. Here is the actual point of contention:

How *should* society react? How should we treat this self-proclaimed identity when it doesn't align with objective, natural reality? Should society prioritize objective facts, or someone's subjective, self-constructed "identity"?

So, let me present Exhibit "A" again: Bruce Jenner, Olympic decathlon winner.

That individual now claims to be a "woman." I’m simply asking: what exactly makes that person a woman? Is it just because he decided he "feels like a woman" (or "identifies" as one, whatever that entails)? If that person ends up in prison for a crime, should they be housed with the women, or how would you handle that? What logic dictates that society should publicly recognize this *man* as a "woman," lol? Or on a personal level—if you were privately discussing Jenner with your own wife at home, would you use female pronouns? (Caitlyn Jenner won Olympic gold in the decathlon...) If you would, why exactly?

I don't really follow your talk about "dignity" either. The person mentioned above is a man. I'm not stripping him of his "human dignity" by refusing to view him as a woman, simply because he isn't one. Period. I am looking at the term "woman" through an objective, biological lens. That's the core of it: this attempt by the transgender movement to redefine the word "woman" so that it no longer describes a natural fact, but instead refers to a person's "gender identity." By that logic, anyone could just stand up and declare, "I am a woman," and instantly *become* one—because there is no way for us to actually "measure" someone's identity.