Problematic Stuff

[Cunt]

But women DON'T have penises...and there IS no scientific basis for an innate feeling of gender. If you take some of that horseshit on, before you know it, you have to refer to that asshole as 'Massah', because that is Massah's chosen pronoun...

[Hermit]

But women DON'T have penises...

Um. Yeah. That has been stated a sufficient number of times now.

...and there IS no scientific basis for an innate feeling of gender.

Do you really want to argue that innate feelings of gender have been scientifically proven to live in reproductive organs?

[pErvinalia]

But women DON'T have penises...

Transgender women can certainly have penises.

[L'Emmerdeur]

We could accept unsupported assertions, or we could attempt to determine if those assertions have any validity.

'Imaging studies and other research suggest that there is a biological basis for transgender identity'

'Between the (Gender) Lines: the Science of Transgender Identity'

'Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity'

[laklak]

That's Mr. Massah to you, Ms Cunt. I'm sorry, I assumed the "Ms", I should have asked first.

I never met a woman with a penis. I thought I'd met one in Bangkok, but she told me it was just a really big clit.

[Forty Two]

The funny part is that saying that women don't have penises is somehow viewed by some douchebags claiming to be "progressive" as worthy of these kinds of "consequences."

No. The funny part is how you left out the bit explaining why the slogan "Women don't have penises" is not as innocuous as you pretend it is even after I highlighted it. I'll try again: "Women don't have penises" is not merely an undeniable, neutral matter of fact.

I never claimed it's "undeniable" or "neutral." Hardly anything in the world is undeniable or neutral. It sure seems to me that there are plenty of folks claiming that "women can have penises..." is itself so undeniable that to deny it or even question it is tantamount to hate speech and "transphobia." My point was that to mete out "consequences" of the kind we've seen - attacking people's jobs, hounding them and harassing them, driving them from restaurants, etc. - for making the statement "women don't have penises" is not materially different than meting out the same consequences against people who say "women can have penises..." - I'm pointing out that the "consequences" are unjustified in a reasonable and tolerant society. Oh, don't get me wrong - people can go ahead and mete out the boycott, and get-him-fired type consequences all they want -- but, I would suggest that what may be good for a goose may also be good for a gander, and a certain point, both "sides" of an issue like this can mete out consequences, and the folks touting the benefits and validity of meting out "consequences" to others may well not like what happens when similar consequences are meted out against them.

The slogan is being used to deny transgenderism. The organisation that produced the "Women don't have penises" stickers makes the intent explicit and undeniable. From the website announcing and advertising the stickers: "There is no scientific basis for an innate feeling of gender." In other words, if you have a penis you cannot simply claim to be one because you identify as being one. Checkmate, transgender people.

Oh. My. GOD! Someone is denying transgenderism? That cannot be allowed in a civil society! Let's mete out some consequences! Who said that? Who said "women don't have penises?" Let's check if they're saying that for the right reason. If they're saying so because they want to deny transgenderism, then, fuck yeah, let's get some consequences on they ass right now!

I also heard that people are admitting transgenderism. That too is beyond the pale. Let's mete out consequences against them, too! Nobody should be allowed to deny or admit transgenderism! The issue just isn't up for discussion.

And, there is no scientific basis for an "innate feeling of gender," is there? Could it be possible, just possible, that there aren't 52 different genders (or more)? What's the limit above which we can deny the existence of a gender, but below which we have to accept it?

[Hermit]

I ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ... drip ...

Enough. I might retry reading your post another day. Might.

[Cunt]

But women DON'T have penises...

Um. Yeah. That has been stated a sufficient number of times now.

...and there IS no scientific basis for an innate feeling of gender.

Do you really want to argue that innate feelings of gender have been scientifically proven to live in reproductive organs?

No, I want to argue that no-one can show that they feel like a male or female (regardless of their real gender, sex or sexual behaviour)

People's feelings don't change their sex, it just changes their personal/sexual life. Why should it matter to anyone not fucking them?

If you want to know what is in someone's pants, or who they like to fuck, it seems very personal, and not at all the business of government, or the public.

Why insist that government or public life need to recognize more than one gender? I mean, unless you are hoping for special treatment for one group over another...

[Cunt]

And, there is no scientific basis for an "innate feeling of gender," is there? Could it be possible, just possible, that there aren't 52 different genders (or more)? What's the limit above which we can deny the existence of a gender, but below which we have to accept it?

I have yet to hear a good argument for the government, or public recognizing more than one gender.

As to pronouns, the owner is the one who uses them. I use them to indicate whether I see someone as male or female. This does sometimes align with the fact of their gender, but the important part is that it is MY choice. (well, not in Canada, but in a rational world)

[L'Emmerdeur]

Put plainly, the assertion that there is 'no scientific basis for an innate feeling of gender' is a lie. From the second link given above:

Science tells us that gender is certainly not binary; it may not even be a linear spectrum. Like many other facets of identity, it can operate on a broad range of levels and operate outside of many definitions. And it also appears that gender may not be as static as we assume. At the forefront of this, transgender identity is complex – it’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to attribute it to one neat, contained set of causes, and there is still much to be learned. But we know now that several of those causes are biological. These individuals are not suffering a mental illness, or capriciously “choosing” a different identity. The transgender identity is multi-dimensional – but it deserves no less recognition or respect than any other facet of humankind.

The sticker campaign promoted by willfully ignorant science-denying dingbats will gain supporters among the like-minded, but it's doomed to failure in the long run.

[Cunt]

The sticker campaign promoted by willfully ignorant science-denying dingbats will gain supporters among the like-minded, but it's doomed to failure in the long run.

Do you have a good reason for government, or the general public, to recognize more than one gender? Or a good reason for regular people to accept, as women, people who have penises?

I just can't see how it can matter, outside of a very intimate relationship.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The sticker campaign promoted by willfully ignorant science-denying dingbats will gain supporters among the like-minded, but it's doomed to failure in the long run.

Do you have a good reason for government, or the general public, to recognize more than one gender? Or a good reason for regular people to accept, as women, people who have penises?

I just can't see how it can matter, outside of a very intimate relationship.

Given that government does recognize gender, there is no good reason for it to deny recognition of transgender identities. Such recognition on the part of government will conform with reality, which I believe is generally a good thing in government. As for the general public, recognition that transgender identity is valid (as the relevant scientific studies show) will tend to diminish discrimination against and persecution of transgender individuals.

[Forty Two]

But women DON'T have penises...

Transgender women can certainly have penises.

That's one view of it, which depends on one's definition of sex, gender, and whether being "transgender" means that one is actually the sex or gender to which the transition is claimed.

If we were to accept that sex is biological and gender is something a person identifies as and can change/trans to (and can even be non-binary and change back and forth), then I would say it's very easy to argue that women don't have penis and transgender women aren't biologically women.

[Cunt]

The sticker campaign promoted by willfully ignorant science-denying dingbats will gain supporters among the like-minded, but it's doomed to failure in the long run.

Do you have a good reason for government, or the general public, to recognize more than one gender? Or a good reason for regular people to accept, as women, people who have penises?

I just can't see how it can matter, outside of a very intimate relationship.

Given that government does recognize gender, there is no good reason for it to deny recognition of transgender identities. Such recognition on the part of government will conform with reality, which I believe is generally a good thing in government. As for the general public, recognition that transgender identity is valid (as the relevant scientific studies show) will tend to diminish discrimination against and persecution of transgender individuals.

My government recognizes gender differences, and enforces compliance, so it doesn't matter what you think - you MUST respect my choice of pronouns in this country. So my pronoun is 'Massah', and you must bow your head a bit each time you use it, since the gesture is part of my pronoun choice.

So as to how many genders, why not make a case for government knowing or using gender at all? I think the government should never be allowed to ask your gender, sexual preference, or sex. Simplifies everything and forces a bit more fair treatment of people with regards to their sex or gender.

If you want the government to use more than one gender, why? Isn't it only important between the person who chooses a gender, and a person who will be involved with them in a genital way?

[Forty Two]

The sticker campaign promoted by willfully ignorant science-denying dingbats will gain supporters among the like-minded, but it's doomed to failure in the long run.

Do you have a good reason for government, or the general public, to recognize more than one gender? Or a good reason for regular people to accept, as women, people who have penises?

I just can't see how it can matter, outside of a very intimate relationship.

Given that government does recognize gender, there is no good reason for it to deny recognition of transgender identities. Such recognition on the part of government will conform with reality, which I believe is generally a good thing in government. As for the general public, recognition that transgender identity is valid (as the relevant scientific studies show) will tend to diminish discrimination against and persecution of transgender individuals.

I've never been asked by the government for my gender. I've been asked for my sex. My birth certificate didn't have a "gender" space when I was born. It asked for my sex, which was entered as male. The trend today is for people to conflate sex and gender and say that since the birth certificate said male, then I was improperly raised as gender male when I identify as female. Only, nobody knew when I was born what I would later identify as. They didn't care. My sex was male. I'm male. If identify as both male and female now - or a spectrum of gender identities from male to female - what does it matter from the standpoint of birth certificate? I'm male in any case. So what?

Same thing with my driver license - it doesn't tell my gender. It says "sex: M" -- I am "M." So what? If I want to identify as "nonbinary" why does that have to be on my driver license or birth certificate?

And, since the modern trans theory is that gender is fluid and can change from year to year, month to monty or even day to day - how can we put any designation on there, if it relates to gender? Just put the sex on there, and have done with it. Identify as whatever you want - a pygmy alien gay boy with a vagina that looks just like a penis - who cares?

How about if we have to put gender on things, we have space for sex and a space for gender? That way both bases are covered. Let people change the gender identity all they want, but the sex remain the same. Wouldn't that work?