FediForum Has Been Canceled
-
Sex isn’t a “gender orientation” it is really simple biology.
Gamete size – its really simple.
Congratulations infertile people, you are now officially sexless.
That is usually how males and females of a species are differentiated in general: males have the small gamete and females have the large one. (As you said, some individuals may not produce gametes so it only applies in general).
Of course humans are a lot more complicated. We have a concept of gender which doesn't necessarily align with biological sex, and many people modify their sex characteristics to match their gender, so applying generalizations blindly gets you nowhere.
-
none of these transphobic losers who use autism to attack trans people even gives a flip about autistic people
none of these transphobic losers who use autism to attack trans people even gives a flip about people
Ftfy
-
That is usually how males and females of a species are differentiated in general: males have the small gamete and females have the large one. (As you said, some individuals may not produce gametes so it only applies in general).
Of course humans are a lot more complicated. We have a concept of gender which doesn't necessarily align with biological sex, and many people modify their sex characteristics to match their gender, so applying generalizations blindly gets you nowhere.
Indeed, just as gender is a spectrum so is sex. I love when someone says "Its basic biology" because the best response is "and this is intermediate biology".
-
In light of recent controversy and its handling, the twice-a-year FediForum unconference for April 1st and 2nd has been canceled by its organizer.
I don't understand why people don't keep such comments to their anonymous, unofficial accounts. You can hold such views in private and still treat people with respect, but saying these things officially changes everything. The co-organiser is in a space where she should know better. She then even doubled down
When asked whether she still held her more problematic views in a follow-up comment, Young responded ambiguously with “I fully stand by the statement you are commenting on.”
In for a penny, in for a pound, eh?
-
I don't understand why people don't keep such comments to their anonymous, unofficial accounts. You can hold such views in private and still treat people with respect, but saying these things officially changes everything. The co-organiser is in a space where she should know better. She then even doubled down
When asked whether she still held her more problematic views in a follow-up comment, Young responded ambiguously with “I fully stand by the statement you are commenting on.”
In for a penny, in for a pound, eh?
In pshych 101 they teach that sex and gender are two different things.
-
In pshych 101 they teach that sex and gender are two different things.
That's great. Since when and does everybody take psych 101?
And just to give a wider perspective (regardless of her origins), not every language makes the distinction and some up until recently did not. Look at the translations on (wiktionary). Many of them are transliterations of the English word. Which is not a surprise since the concept of gender is quite recent (1950-1960s) and was most likely very US-centric.
-
Would you if it's something you care about and want to be vocal about? I'd rather know that she's full of shit and now out of the whole thing than supporting someone who spews against trans people on a secret identity.
-
That's great. Since when and does everybody take psych 101?
And just to give a wider perspective (regardless of her origins), not every language makes the distinction and some up until recently did not. Look at the translations on (wiktionary). Many of them are transliterations of the English word. Which is not a surprise since the concept of gender is quite recent (1950-1960s) and was most likely very US-centric.
We didn't make a distinction in english until about ten? years ago. Most people used the terms interchangeably. That's part of why people got so pissed off about the whole thing. Suddenly they were being screamed at by a militant tumbler user for using the wrong word when they were using it that way their whole life.
-
I'm a bit confused about this, isn't the whole lgbtq movement advocating for the distinction between terms "sex" and "gender" exactly the same way as those quotes do? Or do lgbtq people advocate for equating "sex" to "gender"? Honestly, this whole thing is always a huge mindfuck to try to comprehend.
I was a bit confused too, but OPs answer to your comment clarified it quite well.
And after thinking a bit on it, and from my very basic knowledge of lgbt movment, here's what i think they advocate for (pls correct me if i say bs) : sex and gender are indeed different, they aee not necessarily connected and both are spectrums rather than binary options. This means you could have a lot of options between what sex you are (male/female/intersex), what gender you are (a lot of options) and what gender you were assigned at birth (generally either male or female). Some trans people need their "physical" sex identity to match their gender, other don't.
The problem in this case seems to me that she advocates for a strict binary conception of sex identity and that she pushed for it to be more important than gender in social situations such as sport. Part of the confusion also comes from the fact that she acknowledges parts of what the lgbt movment fights for but she fights against the rest, which happens frequently in TERF rethorics afaik
-
Would you if it's something you care about and want to be vocal about? I'd rather know that she's full of shit and now out of the whole thing than supporting someone who spews against trans people on a secret identity.
Would you if it's something you care about
Did you forget a word?
I'm having trouble with the rest of your post too. Autocorrect must've struck or something.
-
Would you if it's something you care about
Did you forget a word?
I'm having trouble with the rest of your post too. Autocorrect must've struck or something.
Sorry, English is not my first language, bit I thought the post is somewhat clear?
I didn't forget a word, maybe a comma - in the given context, the meaning is "Would you keep your opinion for yourself if it's something you care about?" as the post I replied to suggested exactly that.
-
Indeed, just as gender is a spectrum so is sex. I love when someone says "Its basic biology" because the best response is "and this is intermediate biology".
With all due respect, sex is not a spectrum.
It's a clearly a binary. Yes, there are many exceptions and edge cases, but they are all based around a universal binary biological structure.
You don't have say three distinct sexes required for reproduction outside of sci-fi. It is a binary with some edge cases and variations in how exactly the two parts of the binary interact.
-
Sorry, English is not my first language, bit I thought the post is somewhat clear?
I didn't forget a word, maybe a comma - in the given context, the meaning is "Would you keep your opinion for yourself if it's something you care about?" as the post I replied to suggested exactly that.
No worries, as a European, English isn't my first language either
And as a response: if my job depended on being on the "right side of things" I wouldn't make such controversial statements. Not only is it dumb in the moment, but also for the future. People are very polarised and even if she had changed her mind by now, there'd still be outrage "omg, look at what she said years ago! I don't trust that she changed!". Of course she supposedly doubled down, which is even dumber IMO, but you get the point.
I use this anonymous account because what the opinions I express here will probably evolve and I don't want any future employer putting me into a box due to a comment made in jest, rage, or whatever. Revealing your identity online for anything other than business is just asking for trouble.
-
With all due respect, sex is not a spectrum.
It's a clearly a binary. Yes, there are many exceptions and edge cases, but they are all based around a universal binary biological structure.
You don't have say three distinct sexes required for reproduction outside of sci-fi. It is a binary with some edge cases and variations in how exactly the two parts of the binary interact.
It is a binary with some edge cases
So on other words, not a binary? What you're describing is more accurately described as a bimodal distribution.
-
It is a binary with some edge cases
So on other words, not a binary? What you're describing is more accurately described as a bimodal distribution.
It's far closer to a binary distribution than a bi-modal distribution. You can be pedantic, but that's not a real arguement. I admitted there are edge cases.
This is not tied to pure outcomes and is derived from actual earth bio-chemistry.
There is no triple helix or quadruple helix as a foundational system of genetic bio-chemical reproduction.
When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.
-
It's far closer to a binary distribution than a bi-modal distribution. You can be pedantic, but that's not a real arguement. I admitted there are edge cases.
This is not tied to pure outcomes and is derived from actual earth bio-chemistry.
There is no triple helix or quadruple helix as a foundational system of genetic bio-chemical reproduction.
When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.
I admitted there are edge cases.
Then it's not binary.
When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.
Absolutely. For day to day life, "there are two outcomes" is safe way to describe coin flips. But given that a coin landing on its side can happen, it's not a binary system. It only becomes binary when we ignore the edge cases. Just like sex...
And that's before we get to the point that there isn't even a single definition of sex that accounts for all scenarios. People can change their legal sex, people can change their morphological sex, "genetic sex" isn't foolproof, as it doesn't always correlate with morphological sexual characteristics, or even gamete production.
Calling sex binary is either a generalisation, or something you want to be true. At no point is it reality of the situation though...
-
I admitted there are edge cases.
Then it's not binary.
When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.
Absolutely. For day to day life, "there are two outcomes" is safe way to describe coin flips. But given that a coin landing on its side can happen, it's not a binary system. It only becomes binary when we ignore the edge cases. Just like sex...
And that's before we get to the point that there isn't even a single definition of sex that accounts for all scenarios. People can change their legal sex, people can change their morphological sex, "genetic sex" isn't foolproof, as it doesn't always correlate with morphological sexual characteristics, or even gamete production.
Calling sex binary is either a generalisation, or something you want to be true. At no point is it reality of the situation though...
I strongly disagree. I am only happy for people to be the best version of themselves and to feel comfortable in their skin.
Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.
I already mentioned that there are edge cases. Edge cases do not discredit foundational frameworks that define reality.
The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework. This has been true for hundreds of millions of years. There is no such things as a triple helix or quadruple helix in terms of reproduction. Even trees and plants have a binary sex.
You claim that this is something I want to be true. I would argue the same (on a vice versa basis) for you and that you're framing the discussion using irrelevant examples (how is a morphological change in sex even relevant to what we are discussing).
-
I strongly disagree. I am only happy for people to be the best version of themselves and to feel comfortable in their skin.
Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.
I already mentioned that there are edge cases. Edge cases do not discredit foundational frameworks that define reality.
The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework. This has been true for hundreds of millions of years. There is no such things as a triple helix or quadruple helix in terms of reproduction. Even trees and plants have a binary sex.
You claim that this is something I want to be true. I would argue the same (on a vice versa basis) for you and that you're framing the discussion using irrelevant examples (how is a morphological change in sex even relevant to what we are discussing).
Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.
Of course they're relevant. I'm trans, and I'm cis passing. Sex being immutable, easy to define and binary is at the core of the tactics that transphobes use to exclude and legislate against trans folk.
So the fact that it's not easy to define, has multiple definitions in different contexts, and has no single definition that works in all instances is very relevant.
You talked about "genetic bio-chemical reproduction" earlier. There are women who have literally given birth, who have XY chromosomes. Similarly, there are XX men with SRY genes. Using your "genetic sex is the truth" approach, they are both folks with a different genetic sex to their physical and legal sex. A transphobe would catch those people and throw them under the bus too whilst they target trans people.
The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework
Yep. I'll agree with that. But the framework it is built on is not the end result. There is no meaning or intent behind the framework. There is nothing about it that is more "real".
The real part isn't the genetic plan that was used to create someone. The real part is the body they're actually walking around in.
To you, this is all an interesting argument. You're arguing about things in black and white, because none of it actually matters to you. So you can argue for how you think things should work.
The very same arguments you are using are being weaponised and turned against gender diverse folk and intersex folk. Your re-use of them, arguing about some sort of ideal that exists only in your head isn't harmless. The fact that sex is nuanced, that gender is nuanced, that they both have multiple, contradicting definitions, and neither have a single definition that is more true than the others is incredibly important, because the only reason to ignore that is either to hurt people, or because you're so far removed from the reality of what's happening, that you place a higher priority on things being neat and tidy than on the people that false belief hurts.
-
Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.
Of course they're relevant. I'm trans, and I'm cis passing. Sex being immutable, easy to define and binary is at the core of the tactics that transphobes use to exclude and legislate against trans folk.
So the fact that it's not easy to define, has multiple definitions in different contexts, and has no single definition that works in all instances is very relevant.
You talked about "genetic bio-chemical reproduction" earlier. There are women who have literally given birth, who have XY chromosomes. Similarly, there are XX men with SRY genes. Using your "genetic sex is the truth" approach, they are both folks with a different genetic sex to their physical and legal sex. A transphobe would catch those people and throw them under the bus too whilst they target trans people.
The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework
Yep. I'll agree with that. But the framework it is built on is not the end result. There is no meaning or intent behind the framework. There is nothing about it that is more "real".
The real part isn't the genetic plan that was used to create someone. The real part is the body they're actually walking around in.
To you, this is all an interesting argument. You're arguing about things in black and white, because none of it actually matters to you. So you can argue for how you think things should work.
The very same arguments you are using are being weaponised and turned against gender diverse folk and intersex folk. Your re-use of them, arguing about some sort of ideal that exists only in your head isn't harmless. The fact that sex is nuanced, that gender is nuanced, that they both have multiple, contradicting definitions, and neither have a single definition that is more true than the others is incredibly important, because the only reason to ignore that is either to hurt people, or because you're so far removed from the reality of what's happening, that you place a higher priority on things being neat and tidy than on the people that false belief hurts.
Let me take a step back for a second.
We are not discussing the strategies used by the far right to demonize trans folk (or anyone else). We are discussing something completely different that has no bearing on the strategies used by the far right. What will me moving away from what you call "my ideal" change in this world?
Let's say we have some deus ex machina method to close the discussion around the nature of sex and make everyone believe that sex is a spectrum.
Do you really think this will magically get rid of transphobia? I would even go as far as saying a lot of the people who claim to be concerned about "trans issues" don't actually care about them and they are simply being led by oligarch propaganda. And oligarch propaganda will leverage anything that they think will have an impact.
So how will me rejecting my understanding of genetic bio-chemical reproduction (as is proven by hundreds of millions of years of life on earth and the a reproductive framework that span millions of species) change anything?
Do you see what I am getting at?
-
I agree but also very unlikely it would make a difference if they were only sharing from their personal account.
