Submitted by BudsKind802 t3_1133zhb in vermont
ThirdFirstName t1_j8rxiwg wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Northfield's Police Chief Takes Flak for His Provocative Public Stances by BudsKind802
I may be mistaken but I don’t think you understand what male/female means. And I can absolutely guarantee that you don’t understand it on a biological level. I think your point is ignorant not bigoted because bigoted would suggest understanding.
[deleted] t1_j8s61y7 wrote
lmao you didn't even make any attempt to respond to a legitimate question that you invited.
Don't say "I'm happy to help if you want!" when you don't mean it at all.
If someone feels there are circumstances where male/female exclusive spaces have value, is that an inherently bigoted position?
And yes, I mean male and female. I know the definitions of words I use.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8s7f8u wrote
And I’m responding to your question with the reality that what you asked isn’t a black or white question as you have it framed or desire an answer for. And if you think it’s a black or white question then you are coming from a place of ignorance not bigotry. I work under the idea that most people have good intentions but are misguided by a lack of edification on a topic and that if presented with the information they can make a proper logical conclusion.
[deleted] t1_j8s949e wrote
Ok. Do you believe there are any circumstances where a female only space is justified?
ThirdFirstName t1_j8sboga wrote
I believe having a space for female identifying individuals is important. But I don’t believe our definitions of “female” are the same.
[deleted] t1_j8t4j4c wrote
I'm not talking about women, I'm saying female. It is a scientific term. Is there any justification for a space for biological females only or should biological males be allowed in ANY space.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8s67z8 wrote
What is the biological definition of those two words?
[deleted] t1_j8s8uvy wrote
You aren't even making a good faith effort to engage. You can look up the definitions yourself if you don't know.
Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. "male children"
ThirdFirstName t1_j8sbdx1 wrote
Good those are the correct definitions under the current biological understanding. But what that doesn’t say is that these individuals present with any specific appearance or behavioral attributes attributed to either sex. The reason for that is because within physical development there are a whole host of processes that must occur for the complete differentiation from female to male sex characteristics. With any of these steps disrupted you may have an individual that is phenotypically presenting different then what raw genetics may suggest. Eliciting the point that sex determination isn’t binary on a developmental basis at the biological level. This is confounded with the psychological development of a human beings having both biological and environmental roots. We just established that genetics and physiological states can result in a whole host of variability in what can phenotypically present as “male” or “female”, when that is combined with the psychosocial aspects of “male” and “female” gender roles in today’s society you are left with a spectra of behavior prescribe and ascribed by both biology and environment. Within this spectra people may see and internalize patterns they see as a gender binary but this is a generalization and doesn’t fully apply to the entirety of the population. So when you say “male and female” it is predicated on your own internal understanding of this topic which isn’t necessarily complete.
[deleted] t1_j8t4u9y wrote
Actually you are confusing male with the term "man" and the term female with the term "woman."
Instead of a massive word salad trying to argue about definitions of words can you just answer in good faith?
Are there circumstances where it is ok to have female only spaces? Or should males be allowed in to them as well?
ThirdFirstName t1_j8t76hp wrote
But here is my answer. I believed there should be spaces for female identifying individuals to be separate from male identifying individuals. No I don’t believe that should be determined by the type of gamete produced. I have trans people in my life I know and love and I know the people in my life would be safer in their company than with someone who makes arguments like the one you are trying to make. Yes I am generalizing you.
[deleted] t1_j8t88ei wrote
You are using the term female to mean woman. If you are born male, you can not identify as female. You can identify as a woman but you cannot ever become female.
If you are using this definition that is universally accepted in the scientific community do you think there is ever a scenario where you can have female only spaces? Or do you believe males should always be allowed in?
> I know the people in my life would be safer in their company than with someone who makes arguments like the one you are trying to make
Honestly that is an insane position to take. This is why there is a backlash against the new trans movement... if someone says "well what about this situation..." the response is OMG YOU ARE LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE!
ThirdFirstName t1_j8t92u8 wrote
Again “born male or female” on a biological level isn’t a yes or no situation. Biology is much messier than that. And cognitively within development the internal sense of self isn’t determined by what gamete you produce. Nope that’s not what’s happening here you aren’t the victim in this conversation. I’m arguing using scientific knowledge and first hand experience, what are you arguing with?
[deleted] t1_j8ta82d wrote
> I’m arguing using scientific knowledge and first hand experience, what are you arguing with?
lmao you are arguing by trying to avoid what is obviously my question. You have done backflips to try to avoid answering it.
>Again “born male or female” on a biological level isn’t a yes or no situation. Biology is much messier than that.
Not accurate. For more than 99% of people it really is that simple.
You are trying to avoid answering the question at all costs because you know your answer doesn't make any sense.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8taqew wrote
Yeah not really. I literally answered your question. The trans community is not very big so that 1% really matters in this situation. You just want excuse for you to be correct which you aren’t in this situation
[deleted] t1_j8tcec3 wrote
> so that 1% really matters
It really does not. You are trying to compare gender identity to deformities or genetic issues. Trans issues are distinct from genetic issues.
You didn't answer the question at all. You changed the question to be asking about gender identify when I was talking about biological sex.
We have literally sent more than a dozen replies as you act like you are a comedian answering a different question.
Do you believe that females, based on the modern scientific understanding of that term, should be allowed to compete in female only events or should males, based on the modern scientific understanding of that term, be allowed to compete with them?
ThirdFirstName t1_j8tdmep wrote
Again the “biology” isn’t that cut and dry it never has been.
But let me play your game, adopting your definition of “biological sex” no I don’t think there should be a place that discriminates like that other than your own house hold.
I think physical competition is not really essential so yes I think anyone should be able to compete in what ever class of any sport they want. If sports are the hill you die on in this topic then that presents to me that you don’t grasp the actual hardship of existing as a person off the central curve of humanity. Trans individuals aren’t gaining anything you don’t have in life when it comes to survival.
[deleted] t1_j8tee94 wrote
Again, not my definition. This movement represents an iconoclasm of language. Just insane that you knew exactly what I was asking but you must have typed twenty pages of circular reasoning to avoid answering.
It would have been easier to say off the bat "no I don't think females should be allowed to have spaces without males, whether it be group therapy, women's shelters, women's fitness centers, women's sports or even in women's clinics, males should be allowed to participate."
ThirdFirstName t1_j8teypy wrote
Oh no again I believe that female identifying individuals should have spaces free of male identifying individuals. No I don’t think this should be determined by their gamete production.
No it is your definition and it’s not backed by the science period.
[deleted] t1_j8tgwhz wrote
lmao it's not my definition. Show me one scientific source that has a different definition of female.
You can't "identify" as female if you were born male. You could identify as a woman, but male and female are traits you are born with.
I empathize with people who wish it was different but not everything in life is how you wish it is. Males can never be females. Sorry dude.
And you have to accept your real beliefs that you believe that people who are born male should be allowed to enter spaces that women have designated for people born females only. Typical male privilege.
Going to just mute you, this feels like I'm huffing paint. Your cognitive dissonance is dominating your life.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8thqjn wrote
Haha just because you say it’s that way doesn’t mean your correct. These people exist and they always will do you will have to deal with that. Biologically the definition is gamete psychologically the definition is different. I can get you some sources on that if you want.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8t5vsw wrote
No I literally just gave you the current scientific theory of those concepts. In a semantically correct way. Again I will refer to what I just said I don’t think your personal definition lines up with the biological and psychosocial definitions.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments