Once again I ask: what's the big deal about gender?

Someone just blocked me for pointing out a couple of facts regarding sex and gender (see below).

What I did not get an answer to, before being blocked, is why these facts are so aggravating to people who want to insist that there is only male sex / male gender and female sex / female gender, end of story.

If you and everyone you know are 100% male or 100% female then why would it bother you if other people see life differently? To the point of repeating over and over that such people don't exist or are mentally ill? (The rulers of the Soviet Union also labelled people they disagreed with as mentally ill...)

Sigh...

Fact # 1: Anatomically not everyone is male/XY or female/XX. Here's a rather neutral medical article about some of the many variations that exist: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm

Fact # 2: There isn't a simple one-on-one match between physical sex and psychological or social gender. We don't have to talk about current trends and controversies at all; this goes way back in time in many part of the world. In India,the Hijras have been recognized as a third gender for centuries. Physically, they include intersex people, castrated people, and others. In quite a number of Indigenous North American cultures, going way back, there were people who were seen as neither male nor female, or both at the same time. Often these people had special spiritual roles, which is also the case for the Hijras. Those are just a couple of examples I happen to know something about.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M

@SW-User

You are mixing together different issues here: what is offensive, how identity works, and how gender works.

I don't believe I am, I believe I am demonstrating the hypocrisy and double standards that are being promoted along with transgender rights.

Minority groups get to decide what is offensive to them. That's just basic fairness; otherwise you have a tyranny of the majority.

While I agree with this, I disagree with your earlier point that offense is decided collectively. That's simply not true. People can decide what is offensive individually. You don't personally have to agree on that offense, but you can't determine what an individual finds offensive.

As for identity, that is always an interplay between the individual's sense of self, and being accepted by a community. In the USA you cannot self-identify as Black if you don't have Black ancestry, as Rachel Dolezal found out to her sorrow

Hm, no sorry that is incorrect. People who don't have Black ancestry can and do claim they are black, as others will claim White or Native American heritage. The issue isn't claiming the identity, it's using it to gain special status and privilege in American society. That's what Rachel Dolenzal did. Had she just gone around just claiming she was black, nobody would have cared, but she had gotten scholarships and been elected or appointed to some role within the NAACP and that was the issue that got her sanctioned, not her actual claim of Black identity.

As for gender, again, cisgendered is just a neutral term for "not trans"

It isn't to me, because my only experience with it up to this point is to be labeled that by angry and belligerent trans activists who don't' care for my opinions, my age, my gender identity or my race.

There are trans people; therefore it's reasonable to have a collective term for everyone else.

Well reasonably, there already exists terms for me...man...male...why is the term cis gendered even needed?

The existence of trans people is undeniable; the fact that various cultures throughout history have included people with genders other than male and female is also just a fact

Hey, that's fine. Why does that fact mean I have to have my identity foisted upon me by a small minority of approximately 2% (at best) of the population?

Facts don't get decided by majority vote.

No they don't. But I have noted, again and again that trans activists and their allies desperately want to overlook that.

Your initial question was along the lines as to why people who aren't trans are so unreasonable about this issue:

If you and everyone you know are 100% male or 100% female then why would it bother you if other people see life differently?

I think this conversation is a great demonstration as to why.

I made a very valid, personal and reasonable explanation as to why I don't like to be called "cis gendered". You have argued with me on this point, argued with me that I don't get to chose what is offensive to me or my kind, argued with me about how my personal feelings aren't valid, and have made a massive hypocritical statement by saying that I should accept the label cis-genered because that's what is convenient for trans people, and apparently because they exist, I should just accept all this.

I would think this conversation is a great learning tool as to why there might be a significant difference of opinion, but also why you were blocked.

Who wants to talk to someone who can't even acknowledge basic human requests for how to be referred to or identified as? You seemingly want to argue that because trans people exist, and they need a word that helps them identify in the world, we should all accept that worldview and accept the label they want to apply to us.

Yet, the entire crux of trans people grievances is being forced to use labels that they don't feel properly identify them, they want their own way of identifying....yet they then want to turn around and demand a label for everyone else? And we have to accept that?

This is the reason why you aren't taken seriously.

Because you don't want tolerance. You want validation, you want celebration of your choices, and you want to foist those choices on the rest of us.

SW-User

@SumKindaMunster
Good points about Rachel Dolezal.

If your main point is simply that you don't like to be referred to as cisgendered, that's fine. You don't need to refer to yourself that way, and your friends won't either.

But you do not get to single-handedly declare that it is an offensive term.

Well reasonably, there already exists terms for me...man...male...why is the term cis gendered even needed?

Because those terms include trans men, and there are contexts where the distinction is significant.

It seems like you have had bad experiences with aggressive trans activists. That is disappointing but don't take it out on the rest of us here, who are not aggressive trans activists.

SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M

@SW-User

If your main point is simply that you don't like to be referred to as cisgendered, that's fine. You don't need to refer to yourself that way, and your friends won't either.

That's part of it, the other part is the rank hypocrisy I see from transgender activists on this where they push their worldview on others, and can't accept that they should give the same level of deference and respect to those that aren't on the gender spectrum as they are. It goes both ways.

Well reasonably, there already exists terms for me...man...male...why is the term cis gendered even needed?
Because those terms include trans men, and there are contexts where the distinction is significant.

Well I don't identify that way, for me, its quite simple, and again I expect my choices honored just like the next person.

It seems like you have had bad experiences with aggressive trans activists. That is disappointing but don't take it out on the rest of us here, who are not aggressive trans activists.

Well I don't think I am, I explained to you the why of my position and that was because of the hypocrisy I see foisted on me, but I am not upset or angered by that.

But I will argue against the hypocrisy I see, and unfortunately, you didn't seem to take me seriously on this until just these last few responses.

Not sure if it was due to my words or position, or that idiot Peckerwood childishly inserting himself into the "discussion", and attempting to hijack it with his nonsense.

SW-User

@SumKindaMunster OK here is an analogy to the position you seem to be taking on the term "cisgendered". I do not like being called "white". It is not something I identify with. If you ask me to describe myself in "racial" terms, I will say "of European descent".

Therefore it would be kind and appropriate for anyone who knows me well to not describe me as "white".

This does not make the term "white" offensive!!

SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M

@SW-User First, interesting...🤔 You don't like being called White...

I understand your position, and don't think the word White is offensive either. I think the nuance you are missing is that a person can take offense to anything and there is nothing you can do about that.

But I understand you feel there is more of a collective, agreed upon way to ascribe what is offensive or not.