MoD language guide

Sorry, but your examples demonstrate exactly the issue here. The definition of "man" did not / does not rely on or imply sexuality. The definition of "Scotsman" did not / does not rely on or imply race or skin colour.
Perhaps I've heard too many homophobes or racists, then... because they disagreed with you.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Perhaps I've heard too many homophobes or racists, then... because they disagreed with you.
Individuals may vary; society did not. Calling gay men "women" clearly happened/s. But the same people didn't insist gay men showered and toileted with their wives. The judge who condemned Turing didn't send him to a woman's prison. The societal definitions and treatments applied to gay men treated them as male.

Similarly, I grew up for a time in Scotland, and I totally know Scottish nationalist racism exists. But the term "Scotsman" is primarily a family and citizenship issue, and if you fitted those two criteria, nobody seriously contested that you weren't Scots. Nobody tried to take away passports. Nobody enforced deed polls to change clan surnames.

So regardless of the fact there was individual variation among racists and homophobes, even at its most homophobic and racist, society did not act as if your statements were correct.

Society does act as if women are defined by female sex characteristics.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
How should society deal with someone who is gender-dysphoric, who has started on hormone treatment, but who has not undergone surgery? Should we react to them with sympathy and understanding, or cruelty and snide comments about how they aren't "real"?
This is either a strawman or addressing the worst form of the other side. Can I just point that out, and to prevent a page of back and forth, pre-condemn anyone you can quote who has suggested we should do that. I must have missed it on this thread if they have, however...

Again I'd be more interested in hearing your take on the non-strawmen I and some others have presented over the past couple of pages. The points made by David Bell and confirmed by the High Court for example: why is this not a child safeguarding issue, why is it just a trans rights issue?
 
Individuals may vary; society did not. Calling gay men "women" clearly happened/s. But the same people didn't insist gay men showered and toileted with their wives. The judge who condemned Turing didn't send him to a woman's prison. The societal definitions and treatments applied to gay men treated them as male.

Similarly, I grew up for a time in Scotland, and I totally know Scottish nationalist racism exists. But the term "Scotsman" is primarily a family and citizenship issue, and if you fitted those two criteria, nobody seriously contested that you weren't Scots. Nobody tried to take away passports. Nobody enforced deed polls to change clan surnames.

So regardless of the fact there was individual variation among racists and homophobes, even at its most homophobic and racist, society did not act as if your statements were correct.

Society does act as if women are defined by female sex characteristics.
Is that, though, because women have become more outspoken in recent decades?
All those demands for equality with men, admirable as they are, doesn't appear to have raised their status.
Equality was reached, at least a couple of decades ago, and women suddenly realised that trying to meet the same criteria as men, in emplpyment for example, is actually rather unpleasant.
Discovering that for equal pay means working equal hours with equal responsibilities and equal indifference, from employers, that the kids have a dental appointment.

The historic, practical distribution of tribal work, where men did the hunting and building, women did the gathering, child rearing, etc didn't really mind a little flexibility across roles or genders.

Today, I don't see any great need for a. n. other minority to require " rights" that already exist. Most people tolerate most variations, indeed probably don't even notice such among friends, family and colleagues.
 
I tried, in Post #311 - but it occurs to me that my definition included trans men, so I'll try again:

From my perspective, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's "congratulations, you're XX". In a few cases, it's "you're not XX, but you've always been treated that way, and you have most of the body parts". In even fewer cases still, it's "you used to present as a man, but transitioned". It doesn't include those similarly few cases of "you're XX, but now present as a man, having transitioned".
Thank you.

I'm lamentably poorly read on this, so thank you for bearing with me. If I'm reading your post correctly, you've implied chromosomes are the only specifically measurable criteria for gender identity as "presenting as" is open to significant interpretation.

Given those "in transition" can't have the chromosomes of the gender they believe reflects their identity, what do you believe qualifies them to unequivocally adopt their destination category? i.e. what are they transitioning to that would represent full equivalence to genetic gender identity?

Per my post, I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts why we shouldn't accommodate more than two gender categories to reflect genetic & non-genetic contributions to gender, insofar as they can be dominant rather than sole determinants in any given individual's case. Two seems rather absolute given the complexities you've persuasively alluded to.

Please accept my good faith on this! I agree with "sympathy & understanding" as a good starting point for many, if not most, things - I'm not looking for ways to bash or undermine any group.
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
I am uneasy with the whole idea of puberty blockers as, from what I understand, they must be administered early and have irreversible effects. I spend my working life with 11-16 year olds and most of them I wouldn't trust to put their own clothes on in the morning.

I have absolutely no issue with treating them as they ask ie. name changes, pronouns, clothing, different changing rooms and toilets etc. but there is something disconcerting about the idea of pharmaceutically disrupting puberty. With those changes there is no long term damage if it does go wrong but the same cannot be said for puberty blocking drugs.

Just for context, in the last decade I can think of 1 transgender child I have been aware of. In the last year I can name another 4 and I know there are more that haven't openly said anything. Either that level of gender dysphoria has always been present but hidden much better or some of them are confusing normal hormonal and emotional changes for gender dysphoria.

I appreciate that sounds a lot like your exclusionist's logic but it comes from wanting to avoid unncessary harm rather than trying to make gender transition more painful.
GnRH analogues are entirely reversible , they are much more frequently given to cisgender children much younger than 11 to precocious puberty .

there is a lot of deliberate mis representation e.g. bone density increases more slowly when puberty is suppressed but once puberty starts it is made up rapidly regardless of which hormone dominates the puberty

transphobia that puberty suppression is continued to 16 and the lies aobut Gillick competence but by XRW stooge Paul Conranthe in the Bell case have been overturend
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
Is that, though, because women have become more outspoken in recent decades?
All those demands for equality with men, admirable as they are, doesn't appear to have raised their status.
Equality was reached, at least a couple of decades ago, and women suddenly realised that trying to meet the same criteria as men, in emplpyment for example, is actually rather unpleasant.
Discovering that for equal pay means working equal hours with equal responsibilities and equal indifference, from employers, that the kids have a dental appointment.

The historic, practical distribution of tribal work, where men did the hunting and building, women did the gathering, child rearing, etc didn't really mind a little flexibility across roles or genders.

Today, I don't see any great need for a. n. other minority to require " rights" that already exist. Most people tolerate most variations, indeed probably don't even notice such among friends, family and colleagues.
thank you for demonstrating that not only are ignorant on physiologcal sex and gender identity you are ignorant on the societal constructs around gender roles
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
Thank you.

I'm lamentably poorly read on this, so thank you for bearing with me. If I'm reading your post correctly, you've implied chromosomes are the only specifically measurable criteria for gender identity as "presenting as" is open to significant interpretation.

Given those "in transition" can't have the chromosomes of the gender they believe reflects their identity, what do you believe qualifies them to unequivocally adopt their destination category? i.e. what are they transitioning to that would represent full equivalence to genetic gender identity?

Per my post, I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts why we shouldn't accommodate more than two gender categories to reflect genetic & non-genetic contributions to gender, insofar as they can be dominant rather than sole determinants in any given individual's case. Two seems rather absolute given the complexities you've persuasively alluded to.

Please accept my good faith on this! I agree with "sympathy & understanding" as a good starting point for many, if not most, things - I'm not looking for ways to bash or undermine any group.
chromosomes are frankly , irrelevant except a pointer to whare the SRY gene is normally found and irrelevant with regard to the dozens of other factors that relate to physiologicla sex, gender identity and their congruence or otherwise
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
Well, in a scientific way, a female is one who is born with ovaries, fallopian tubes, the ability to grow eggs in the aforementioned ovaries, mammary glands that one day may make milk in response to all the hormones released in pregnancy and tend to grow much bigger than in an adult male, the prospect of menstruation on a monthly basis from puberty until menopause if not pregnant, a vulva, a womb, various sets of lips in the vulva region, a clitoris, a clitoral hood, with odds of growing wider hips than a male adult, no prominent adam's apple after puberty, and finally in response to sexual arousal the ability to secrete natural lubrication.

Until medical science advances enough that full genital swaps or replacement genitals can be made from the person's own DNA, and put in place where the original equipment was stored, that's how I define a female of the human species. If that's seen as a morally wrong thing to say in today's climate, I really don't care, and I object to the fact that people will try to make me.
you are incorrect

you are legally incorrect

you are clinically incorrect

you have also called a significant number of cisgender men 'not female' , arguably due to your ignorance of basic biology you have claimed all females are not female are not not 'produced' or 'grown ' as oocytes form atthe point of gonadal differentiation
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
By definition, " most" is what reproduces and passes on genes.
You can have minor differences or variations, but over time they die out if they're of no benefit to survival.
Arguing the toss about a tiny percentage of variants today, after millenia to get here, is an arrogance that a few peoples' whingeing about their nomenclature makes any difference.
Unless trans somehow develop an ability to breed, they'll become extinct in a generation.
yet through human history in all societies there are records of whatever form of both homosexual cisgender people and gender incongruent / transgender people

thake your 'Natural laws' back to the abuse cult they came from
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
I tried, in Post #311 - but it occurs to me that my definition included trans men, so I'll try again:

From my perspective, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's "congratulations, you're XX". In a few cases, it's "you're not XX, but you've always been treated that way, and you have most of the body parts". In even fewer cases still, it's "you used to present as a man, but transitioned". It doesn't include those similarly few cases of "you're XX, but now present as a man, having transitioned".

That period of transition is awkward, AIUI. The medical profession tries to ensure that someone is genuinely suffering from gender dysphoria; and so after (eventually*) getting a consultation, there is a waiting period of a couple of years where they ask their patient to dress and act as their identified gender, while starting hormone treatment. This also includes the time it takes to sort out identity documents, bank details, and all of the admin nausea that comes with changing key details in your various records.

How should society deal with someone who is gender-dysphoric, who has started on hormone treatment, but who has not undergone surgery? Should we react to them with sympathy and understanding, or cruelty and snide comments about how they aren't "real"?

How should we react to soldiers who suffer from mental health issues that aren't gender dysphoria? Should we react with sympathy and understanding, or cruelty and snide comments about how they're "broken-brained"?

* Massive waiting lists, AIUI nowhere near enough resources to deal with the cases presented, years of delay.
again a vaild and pertinent post , even if your description of transition seem to have realised waiting times have increaased massively , but you describe the care pathway as seen in 1981
 

TamH70

MIA
you are incorrect

you are legally incorrect

you are clinically incorrect

you have also called a significant number of cisgender men 'not female' , arguably due to your ignorance of basic biology you have claimed all females are not female are not not 'produced' or 'grown ' as oocytes form atthe point of gonadal differentiation

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
 
I'm lamentably poorly read on this, so thank you for bearing with me. If I'm reading your post correctly, you've implied chromosomes are the only specifically measurable criteria for gender identity as "presenting as" is open to significant interpretation.

I'm not much better off than you, unfortunately - the site had an expert, who isn't around so much. What I know, I learned from her blog of being an SNCO in transition; from seeing a clubmate announce her transition; and from trying to read up on the subject so as not to be an accidental tw*t (given that I have an absolute gift for putting my foot in my mouth).

I'm not an expert; I may not even be correct in my explanation or understanding. I just picked chromosomes as what seemed like a starting point for a definition that would cause the least hurt, because anything that implies "able to have children" is going to exclude an awful lot of women. I've had friends go through miscarriages, through IVF, and my filter is "would I say this in their presence".

Given those "in transition" can't have the chromosomes of the gender they believe reflects their identity, what do you believe qualifies them to unequivocally adopt their destination category? i.e. what are they transitioning to that would represent full equivalence to genetic gender identity?
The point for me is that the medical profession recognises and accepts the condition of "being trapped in the wrong body" - medics are big on ethical considerations, they don't/can't do this for sh!ts and giggles. They also appear to be very careful about not accepting self-diagnosis, nor wanting to allow irreversible steps because of the risk of error. That's not to say that they succeed in every case, but AIUI they mostly get it right.

Per my post, I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts why we shouldn't accommodate more than two gender categories to reflect genetic & non-genetic contributions to gender, insofar as they can be dominant rather than sole determinants in any given individual's case. Two seems rather absolute given the complexities you've persuasively alluded to.
I suspect that someone who is trapped in the wrong body, would prefer complete reassignment to partial; although that's very much a choice for the individual (the surgical outcomes aren't guaranteed, and are bloody painful - which is why AIUI some people stick at the hormones / top surgery). Remember that I'm not an expert, but it seems strange to say in effect "No! You will NEVER be good enough!"

If correctly diagnosed, they believe that they're now a woman (or man). The law says that they're a woman (or man); as does their documentation. The medical profession believes that they're now a woman (or man), they have the hormonal profile of a woman (or man), and they may have had as much reassignment surgery as possible at the state of the art.

Like it or not, the UK infrastructure is largely built for two sets of toilets (granted, the Pentagon was built for four... yes, really, just think about it). Our office block at work has a mix of single-gender and unisex cubicles; I've even worked in a building that only had individual unisex toilets (it didn't take long before all the male engineers learned to lift the seats if they stood, and put them down afterwards).

Now think about all the cases you've seen where a dad has taken a pre-school daughter into the male changing room at a swimming pool; or a mum taken her pre-school son into the womens' changing room. There are already exceptions, and people work around it.

Things pretty much work, because most people are considerate and tolerant.

It does look (to me) as if things were slowly working towards wider and deeper acceptance - five years ago, no-one really bothered, and the heat and light around the debate just wasn't there. But then, political activism decided to use it as a recruitment tool; presumably it's the reactionaries who just "want the world to be simple like it was back when People. Knew. Their. Place.". It's rather like those Facebook posts that ask "who's brave enough to repost this statement about poppies for all the soldiers who died!?" which come from right-wingers. I don't seem to get many "who's brave enough to repost this statement about starving Yemeni/Palestinians bombed by ... etc, etc", so the algorithms have obviously written me off as a left-wing recruitment target...
 
Last edited:
Individuals may vary; society did not... Society does act as if women are defined by female sex characteristics.
Does it? Because most people are rather tolerant of transgender men and women, and try to accept them. The medical profession accepts them. The law accepts them. The defining female characteristics are the externally-visible-while-clothed ones.

That would rather suggest that society is acting in acceptance, rather than rejection (although some people would dearly love for it to swing more towards the latter).
 
Last edited:
thank you for demonstrating that not only are ignorant on physiologcal sex and gender identity you are ignorant on the societal constructs around gender roles
And yet here I am, in my sixth decade of such ignorance, having lived a full, fairly successful and happy life, with a couple of offspring to carry on the genetic line if they so choose.
Which seems preferable to your apparent life of arrogance and perpetual whining, parading your misery while attempting to belittle others' opinions.
You repeatedly refer to xrw in a condemnatory style, a common fault of those trying to close down debate.
Do grow up, accept that others' opinions, though different to yours, are just as valid. You do your cause no favours by trying to belittle anyone disagreeing with your new orthodoxy.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
@enpointe Your blanket dumb-ing has still missed out several of my posts. Attention to detail please.
 

Chef

LE
I have kept out of this thread pretty much as I have enough knowledge to know how little I know.

What I have noticed is that there seems to be a three sided debate and argument going on: one side is posting lengthy, reasoned posts in response to the other's posts. The third side is posting soundbites with no real attempt to persuade or enlighten.

A bit from Monty Python suns it up:
Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
What I have noticed is that there seems to be a three sided debate and argument going on: one side is posting lengthy, reasoned posts in response to the other's posts. The third side is posting soundbites with no real attempt to persuade or enlighten.
There is a name for this, it's called "the internet".
 

Chef

LE
There is a name for this, it's called "the internet".
There ought to be an 'Excellent, laughing and crying' button.

I learn a lot about all sorts but, by the cringe, there are some tunnel visioned tub thumpers on the internet.
 
There ought to be an 'Excellent, laughing and crying' button.

I learn a lot about all sorts but, by the cringe, there are some tunnel visioned tub thumpers on the internet.
That's more than half the problem today, every idiot and his dog can publish their thoughts, online, at minimal cost. Unfortunately some then believe that their pet subject is of importance to everybody, when it isn't.
 

Latest Threads

Top