transgender again ...

secretsqirrel

DeVlaeminck said:

secretsqirrel said:

First.Aspect said:

pep.fermi said:

Do we as a society really have to have to concept of gender at all?

Some people have certain chromosomes and bodies, and the other half have other chromosome and other bodies.
End of all?

Er, what about MY right to identify as male?

Other than that, stop being ridiculous and naive.

Gender = masculine or feminine
Sex = male or female

But the definitions are getting blurred, which may or may not be a good thing.

Masculine being defined with reference to what - typical behaviours of men and women in that society ? Yes - typical as defined in that society/culture.

A stereotypical butch lesbian might/would probably display more masculine behaviours than feminine but that wouldn't mean she self defined or was defined by others as male. - Absolutely agree.

So I'm not sure using masculine and feminine as an identifier of gender really works - I don't think trying to separate gender from sex really works. - Even though you provided a good example in your previous sentence?

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

FWIW, I think you have misunderstood what Rick is saying and phrases like "little wokey soldier" just make you look silly. If there wasn't a conflict between two competing sets of rights nobody would be discussing the issue. There is nothing that says professional sport *has* to be a test of innate genetic adaptation x quality of training; that's just been the collective assumption until faced with having to think about it. It's pretty arbitrary that being born at the far end of the physiological bell curve or having the financial backing to devote your life to a sport is considered fair but competing as a trans woman is not. If that's the collective decision, then fine but let's not dress it up as some fundamental truth.

Eh? Did I miss something?

When did eligibility to participate in professional sport suddenly become a “right”?

Pro sport exists solely and entirely as a commercial enterprise to provide entertainment to consumers. That’s it. The activities are meaningless, the rules are arbitrary, the outcomes are essentially worthless beyond the revenues generated from selling tickets, merchandise and TV rights.

If you don’t like the rules and/or meet the eligibility conditions attached to pro sport, go get a real job.

If it's a commercial enterprise then the athletes are employees and have some rights as such. No different from anyone else working in entertainment.

Jezyboy

If the person identified as a lesbian... then they presumably identify as a woman albeit a "butch" one. Similar for more sensitive males etc.

First.Aspect

I think maybe now the thread might be entering territory not best suited to middle aged men.

ddraver

Called it...

briantrumpet

Jezyboy said:

If the person identified as a lesbian... then they presumably identify as a woman albeit a "butch" one. Similar for more sensitive males etc.

I think you might have embarrassed yourself there. Next you'll be saying homosexual men are "camp". No? Then I'd steer away from stereotyping lesbians.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

Jezyboy said:

If the person identified as a lesbian... then they presumably identify as a woman albeit a "butch" one. Similar for more sensitive males etc.

I think you might have embarrassed yourself there. Next you'll be saying homosexual men are "camp". No? Then I'd steer away from stereotyping lesbians.

I'm assuming as a teacher Brian you have to attend seminars on what not to say?

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

Jezyboy said:

If the person identified as a lesbian... then they presumably identify as a woman albeit a "butch" one. Similar for more sensitive males etc.

I think you might have embarrassed yourself there. Next you'll be saying homosexual men are "camp". No? Then I'd steer away from stereotyping lesbians.

I'm assuming as a teacher Brian you have to attend seminars on what not to say?

The school certainly has detailed policies on inappropriate langage, and teachers are told to challenge contraventions (e.g. using 'gay' as a pejorative term, and all the obvious racial/sexual etc. slurs). But, of course, you can't legislate for every possible language misuse, and there has to be a degree of trusting people's intelligence. (Yes, I know.)

As someone who is rather sensitive to linguistics/language, I think I tend to be more aware of what I and others say (a for instance, I squirm if I find myself that someone "has" or "suffers from" dyslexia, like it's a disease... and I've been known to ask a young pupil if he knew the derivation of the word 'flid').

One of my hobbyhorses is how it's up to each one of us to realise that the goalposts are continually moving, and we have to keep questioning our own language habits as the goalposts move. If it weren't for 'political correctness', we'd still be using the language of 'Till Death Us Do Part' or 'Love Thy Neighbour'.

First.Aspect

I can't believe anyone still uses flid. What a joey.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

I can't believe anyone still uses flid. What a joey.

Must admit I was surprised by its afterlife, and the pupil had no idea where it came from, and wasn't going to need any more persuasion not to use it again. I vividly remember going out from primary school in the 70s and meeting various thalidomide victims and seeing how they had to adapt. Thank goodness that was at the tail end of the scandal.

Must admit, I knew nothing about 'joey'. I do now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Deacon

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

I can't believe anyone still uses flid. What a joey.

Must admit I was surprised by its afterlife, and the pupil had no idea where it came from, and wasn't going to need any more persuasion not to use it again. I vividly remember going out from primary school in the 70s and meeting various thalidomide victims and seeing how they had to adapt. Thank goodness that was at the tail end of the scandal.

Must admit, I knew nothing about 'joey'. I do now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Deacon

Kids will be kids.

Where I grew up we had for some reason several of what were loosely termed in the 70s and 80s "mental hospitals". Meaning people with developmental problems. Mental, right?.

In the 80s under Thatch these transitioned to care in the community because its cheaper, for anyone who was ambulatory and could safely use a pedestrian crossing. So it became commonplace to see poorly dressed lost souls wandering around town with nothing to do.

Needless to say, all the kids came up with our own very particular jargon.

"Ebba" was one. As in, noun descriptive of a resident of, or with any attributes associated with a resident of, St Ebba's Hospital. This could be readily applied to one's hair, clothing, glasses or intelligence.

Oh how I loved UK back then.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

I can't believe anyone still uses flid. What a joey.

Must admit I was surprised by its afterlife, and the pupil had no idea where it came from, and wasn't going to need any more persuasion not to use it again. I vividly remember going out from primary school in the 70s and meeting various thalidomide victims and seeing how they had to adapt. Thank goodness that was at the tail end of the scandal.

Must admit, I knew nothing about 'joey'. I do now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Deacon

Kids will be kids.

Where I grew up we had for some reason several of what were loosely termed in the 70s and 80s "mental hospitals". Meaning people with developmental problems. Mental, right?.

In the 80s under Thatch these transitioned to care in the community because its cheaper, for anyone who was ambulatory and could safely use a pedestrian crossing. So it became commonplace to see poorly dressed lost souls wandering around town with nothing to do.

Needless to say, all the kids came up with our own very particular jargon.

"Ebba" was one. As in, noun descriptive of a resident of, or with any attributes associated with a resident of, St Ebba's Hospital. This could be readily applied to one's hair, clothing, glasses or intelligence.

Oh how I loved UK back then.

Tangent - years ago there was a fascinating programme about the closing of the 'asylums' (and yes, I saw the inside of a few in Bristol, when small groups of my primary school's musicians were taken to play carols to the 'inmates'.) The programme was made by someone who clearly disliked Thatcher intensely, but the programme posited that although the asylums/hospitals were closed for (mostly) the wrong reason (cost saving), the outcome was a welcome revolution in how we deal with people with mental disorders.

And yes, children can be utterly cruel in what they say. Thankfully, quite a lot of them develop a degree of empathy and sensitivity, and tame their abusive language. Others don't.

First.Aspect

A stopped watch is right twice a day. I classify thatchers treatment of the disabled in that way. The swinging cuts to other parts of the care system more than compensated for any accidental societal normalisation of the disabled.

DeVlaeminck

secretsqirrel said:

DeVlaeminck said:

secretsqirrel said:

First.Aspect said:

pep.fermi said:

Do we as a society really have to have to concept of gender at all?

Some people have certain chromosomes and bodies, and the other half have other chromosome and other bodies.
End of all?

Er, what about MY right to identify as male?

Other than that, stop being ridiculous and naive.

Gender = masculine or feminine
Sex = male or female

But the definitions are getting blurred, which may or may not be a good thing.

Masculine being defined with reference to what - typical behaviours of men and women in that society ? Yes - typical as defined in that society/culture.

A stereotypical butch lesbian might/would probably display more masculine behaviours than feminine but that wouldn't mean she self defined or was defined by others as male. - Absolutely agree.

So I'm not sure using masculine and feminine as an identifier of gender really works - I don't think trying to separate gender from sex really works. - Even though you provided a good example in your previous sentence?

You'll have to elaborate as I don't accept that is what I've done.

secretsqirrel

DeVlaeminck said:

secretsqirrel said:

DeVlaeminck said:

secretsqirrel said:

First.Aspect said:

pep.fermi said:

Do we as a society really have to have to concept of gender at all?

Some people have certain chromosomes and bodies, and the other half have other chromosome and other bodies.
End of all?

Er, what about MY right to identify as male?

Other than that, stop being ridiculous and naive.

Gender = masculine or feminine
Sex = male or female

But the definitions are getting blurred, which may or may not be a good thing.

Masculine being defined with reference to what - typical behaviours of men and women in that society ? Yes - typical as defined in that society/culture.

A stereotypical butch lesbian might/would probably display more masculine behaviours than feminine but that wouldn't mean she self defined or was defined by others as male. - Absolutely agree.

So I'm not sure using masculine and feminine as an identifier of gender really works - I don't think trying to separate gender from sex really works. - Even though you provided a good example in your previous sentence?

You'll have to elaborate as I don't accept that is what I've done.

I thought you were saying that a woman with masculine characteristics is still defined as female? Thereby separating gender from sex.

Apologies if I mis-interpreted.

Jezyboy

briantrumpet said:

Jezyboy said:

If the person identified as a lesbian... then they presumably identify as a woman albeit a "butch" one. Similar for more sensitive males etc.

I think you might have embarrassed yourself there. Next you'll be saying homosexual men are "camp". No? Then I'd steer away from stereotyping lesbians.

It was in response to the hypothetical example in DeVlaeminck/Secretsqirrel discussion.

If we're separating gender identity and sex, then that's fine. However, it seems to me that much of what seems to make up the definition of gender, is simply a bunch of gendered stereotypes. I'd say bin many of those stereotypes.

As for whether a group of "middle aged" men should be discussing it, it seems bizzare that you'd exclude a group of people who are reasonably likely to be fathers of teenagers from the discussion.

DeVlaeminck

secretsqirrel said:

DeVlaeminck said:

secretsqirrel said:

DeVlaeminck said:

secretsqirrel said:

First.Aspect said:

pep.fermi said:

Do we as a society really have to have to concept of gender at all?

Some people have certain chromosomes and bodies, and the other half have other chromosome and other bodies.
End of all?

Er, what about MY right to identify as male?

Other than that, stop being ridiculous and naive.

Gender = masculine or feminine
Sex = male or female

But the definitions are getting blurred, which may or may not be a good thing.

Masculine being defined with reference to what - typical behaviours of men and women in that society ? Yes - typical as defined in that society/culture.

A stereotypical butch lesbian might/would probably display more masculine behaviours than feminine but that wouldn't mean she self defined or was defined by others as male. - Absolutely agree.

So I'm not sure using masculine and feminine as an identifier of gender really works - I don't think trying to separate gender from sex really works. - Even though you provided a good example in your previous sentence?

You'll have to elaborate as I don't accept that is what I've done.

I thought you were saying that a woman with masculine characteristics is still defined as female? Thereby separating gender from sex.

Apologies if I mis-interpreted.

No worries I wasn't sure that's all.

I was replying to the post that I interpreted (perhaps incorrectly) as saying gender was a matter of masculine or feminine (presumably characteristics /behaviours ), so if you were masculine your gender would be male.

I thought that doesn't really work as you could be very masculine but still identify and be identified as a woman or be very feminine and still identify /be identified as a man.

And I'm actually leaning towards the position that you can't really separate sex and gender we just use gender in certain contexts such as talking about behaviours - you can have men who take on traditionally female gender roles or behaviours but that doesn't make them women - it makes them men taking on female gender roles.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

I can't believe anyone still uses flid. What a joey.

Must admit I was surprised by its afterlife, and the pupil had no idea where it came from, and wasn't going to need any more persuasion not to use it again. I vividly remember going out from primary school in the 70s and meeting various thalidomide victims and seeing how they had to adapt. Thank goodness that was at the tail end of the scandal.

Must admit, I knew nothing about 'joey'. I do now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Deacon

Kids will be kids.

On the other hand they seem to be able to deal with gender issues without half the fuss of us grownups.

webboo

My limited experience whilst working in the Mental health services and meeting several males who had trans to female, they were not very happy with the outcome. Hence their involvement with the mental health services.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

I can't believe anyone still uses flid. What a joey.

Must admit I was surprised by its afterlife, and the pupil had no idea where it came from, and wasn't going to need any more persuasion not to use it again. I vividly remember going out from primary school in the 70s and meeting various thalidomide victims and seeing how they had to adapt. Thank goodness that was at the tail end of the scandal.

Must admit, I knew nothing about 'joey'. I do now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Deacon

Kids will be kids.

On the other hand they seem to be able to deal with gender issues without half the fuss of us grownups.

Not sure what age the right to be offended kicks in?

briantrumpet

webboo said:

My limited experience whilst working in the Mental health services and meeting several males who had trans to female, they were not very happy with the outcome. Hence their involvement with the mental health services.

Not very meaningful without any % context, and in comparison with people who have mental health problems because they feel trapped inside the wrong body. And I guess that, in any case, you didn't meet the ones who were happy with the outcomes.

Mind you, I've got no insight on it at all, and can't imagine myself in another body. I can't even imagine myself in a properly obese body... I literally can't imagine what it feels like, and that's without any sort of hormonal change to deal with.

webboo

That’s why I said in my limited experience. I don’t know if it’s the case now but 20 years ago, you had to be assessed by a Psychiatrist before you could be referred for gender reassignment surgery.

Wheelspinner

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

FWIW, I think you have misunderstood what Rick is saying and phrases like "little wokey soldier" just make you look silly. If there wasn't a conflict between two competing sets of rights nobody would be discussing the issue. There is nothing that says professional sport *has* to be a test of innate genetic adaptation x quality of training; that's just been the collective assumption until faced with having to think about it. It's pretty arbitrary that being born at the far end of the physiological bell curve or having the financial backing to devote your life to a sport is considered fair but competing as a trans woman is not. If that's the collective decision, then fine but let's not dress it up as some fundamental truth.

Eh? Did I miss something?

When did eligibility to participate in professional sport suddenly become a “right”?

Pro sport exists solely and entirely as a commercial enterprise to provide entertainment to consumers. That’s it. The activities are meaningless, the rules are arbitrary, the outcomes are essentially worthless beyond the revenues generated from selling tickets, merchandise and TV rights.

If you don’t like the rules and/or meet the eligibility conditions attached to pro sport, go get a real job.

If it's a commercial enterprise then the athletes are employees and have some rights as such. No different from anyone else working in entertainment.

Sure, once you actually have the job, then you have some legal rights as the employee. That’s entirely separate from whether you meet the (arbitrary) criteria to be selected to do the job in the first place.

pinno

Is this the thread where everyone is in agreement essentially but there are a few protagonists who are desperately clinging on to the hope of a actual argument?

First.Aspect

pinno said:

Is this the thread where everyone is in agreement essentially but there are a few protagonists who are desperately clinging on to the hope of a actual argument?

No it isn't.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pinno said:

Is this the thread where everyone is in agreement essentially but there are a few protagonists who are desperately clinging on to the hope of a actual argument?

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

pinno

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pinno said:

Is this the thread where everyone is in agreement essentially but there are a few protagonists who are desperately clinging on to the hope of a actual argument?

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Keep your bloody nose out of this will you.

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

FWIW, I think you have misunderstood what Rick is saying and phrases like "little wokey soldier" just make you look silly. If there wasn't a conflict between two competing sets of rights nobody would be discussing the issue. There is nothing that says professional sport *has* to be a test of innate genetic adaptation x quality of training; that's just been the collective assumption until faced with having to think about it. It's pretty arbitrary that being born at the far end of the physiological bell curve or having the financial backing to devote your life to a sport is considered fair but competing as a trans woman is not. If that's the collective decision, then fine but let's not dress it up as some fundamental truth.

Eh? Did I miss something?

When did eligibility to participate in professional sport suddenly become a “right”?

Pro sport exists solely and entirely as a commercial enterprise to provide entertainment to consumers. That’s it. The activities are meaningless, the rules are arbitrary, the outcomes are essentially worthless beyond the revenues generated from selling tickets, merchandise and TV rights.

If you don’t like the rules and/or meet the eligibility conditions attached to pro sport, go get a real job.

If it's a commercial enterprise then the athletes are employees and have some rights as such. No different from anyone else working in entertainment.

Sure, once you actually have the job, then you have some legal rights as the employee. That’s entirely separate from whether you meet the (arbitrary) criteria to be selected to do the job in the first place.

In the original post, rights was maybe not the best word, but it's an interesting point. I don't think there are many jobs where as an employer you could say the position is only open to cis women or men without getting yourself into difficulties.

I can certainly see why FINA have come to the conclusion they have, and I don't think it is completely unreasonable, but I think it is worth continuing to see if that solution can be improved upon.

rjsterry

pinno said:

Is this the thread where everyone is in agreement essentially but there are a few protagonists who are desperately clinging on to the hope of a actual argument?

I was wondering if anyone else would notice how many people had posted essentially the same thing.

pblakeney

pinno said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pinno said:

Is this the thread where everyone is in agreement essentially but there are a few protagonists who are desperately clinging on to the hope of a actual argument?

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Keep your bloody nose out of this will you.

You looking at my nose?