WSPUS and Transgender
March 2023 › Forums › World Socialist Movement › WSPUS and Transgender
- This topic has 157 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by Jordan Levi.
February 28, 2021 at 10:47 am #214488
oh, when i said “your argument,” i didn’t mean you specifically, thomas, i was speaking in reference to their group lol but also, they don’t use gender as a synonym of sex. so some will say there are only two sexes (most actually argue there’s an infinite amount by using intersex conditions to uphold the bs idea of there being a “sex spectrum”), but most will say there are infinite genders. there’s mfs on twitter with “fairygender” or “dragongender” in their bio lmaooo i interacted with a guy who literally thinks he’s rudolph the fuckin red-nosed reindeer. i swear to god. i got called a bigot for saying he’s not a goddamn fictional character lmaooo but yeah, this entire shit isn’t compatible with a materialist analysis, which marxism is built on. it’s all blatant idealism, which is why they can’t soundly define key terms, cuz it’s all built on sand. i appreciate that, it’s good to see someone else at least somewhat agrees!February 28, 2021 at 11:21 am #214494AnonymousInactive
They are not the first to confuse biological reality with social constructs.
Like so many today (the conspiracy cultists etc.), they lack DISCERNMENT.
Gender is biological, whereas BEHAVIOUR is socially determined. Gender role types are what one can legitimately challenge, but these are not the same thing as gender.
As i’ve said … lack of discernment; inability to distinguish biological from social.February 28, 2021 at 12:21 pm #214498
You may have misread me. Gender is a biological fact, and I was asking how do all these “woke” (?) people explain that, according to them, humans, who are animals, have 27+ (?) genders,
I think you might have the terms the wrong way round but I am no expert on this subject. Still, according to WHO:
“Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
Gender is hierarchical and produces inequalities that intersect with other social and economic inequalities. Gender-based discrimination intersects with other factors of discrimination, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, age, geographic location, gender identity and sexual orientation, among others. This is referred to as intersectionality.
Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.”
One final comment – I became aware of the controversy surrounding Jordan’s Twitter post because someone on the Ultras v Tankies FB group tagged me to get me to explain how or where Jordan acquired what he called these transphobic views. I have challenged this group to explain in what way Jordan was being transphobic and have yet to receive a coherent response. It seems many people in this FB group don’t understand the meaning of the term phobic. That didn’t stop them expelling Jordan from the group in a typical display of woke intolerance.
No wonder the Left is in such disarrayFebruary 28, 2021 at 12:45 pm #214499AnonymousInactive
It seems they and WHO don’t understand the word gender either, as it has always been understood. Another casualty of today’s Newspeak movement. I stand by my understanding of the English language, not by Newspeak, which is, btw, making anything written before the year 2000 incomprehensible to more and more badly educated and confused millenials – as much as this Newspeak is incomprehensible to me! (And may it remain so!)February 28, 2021 at 12:49 pm #214501
this WHO definition pisses me off lmao they use the same definition of gender that a RadFem would use, but when some transgender people give you that same definition and you ask them “ok, so how can you have an internal feeling of sexist stereotypes or social constructs?” they usually retreat by saying that fulfilling those srereotypes is actually gender expression or gender roles and that even a person’s preferred pronouns aren’t even an indication of their gender or gender identity. so you literally have no proof of someone’s gender or gender identity in reality outside of their word. obviously dysphoria exists and should be dealt with, but many transgender people say dysphoria isn’t even needed to be transgender and call those who say otherwise transmedicalists or truscum. i’ve been dealing with this for years and it’s still so goddamn confusing when i try to explain it to people, it literally doesn’t make the least bit of sense.
WHO defines gender identity as “…a person’s deeply
felt, internal and individual experience of
gender…” but again, how tf can you possibly have an internal feeling of sexist stereotypes? they blatantly mean something else by gender in this context, something completely immaterial and idealistic like a soul or something.
they’re never gonna give you a coherent response, robin lmao it’s not even worth your time. they can’t do it for the same reason that emma never gave a definition of a woman or female after i gave mine like they asked: they don’t have a coherent definition of key terms involved in this debate in the first place. as i said, i’ve been given 4 broad definitions of what a man or woman is by this group, and none of them srand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny, which is why anyone gets written off as a TERF for asking even the most reasonable of questions.February 28, 2021 at 12:58 pm #214503AnonymousInactive
Deleted.February 28, 2021 at 1:57 pm #214508AnonymousInactive
So now, homosexuality is a gender? Is lesbianism a separate gender? Paedophilia? Zoophilia? Heterosexuality? Asexuality? Is virginity a gender?
Maybe socialists are a gender?
So THAT’S WHY we haven’t made much headway! The gender barrier! Explains our failure to expand.February 28, 2021 at 1:59 pm #214509
i swear to god you don’t want me to go there right now, thomas, it gets so goddamn weird lmaoFebruary 28, 2021 at 3:47 pm #214515AnonymousInactive
And far from being about sexual freedom, it seems to be more about the need to separate people from one another, ad absurdum, and pin more and more labels on one another.February 28, 2021 at 11:36 pm #214542
Thomas and Jordan
Like I say, I’m no expert on the subject but it seems , Thomas, you may be right about the meaning of the word “gender” having changed. Here’s an excerpt from https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
c. 1300, “kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits,” from Old French gendre, genre “kind, species; character; gender” (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) “race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,” also “(male or female) sex,” from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle’s Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)).
The “male-or-female sex” sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for “sex of a human being,” in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
As far as the World Health Organisation’s definition of gender as the socially constructed characteristics of individuals this does seem to be quite a widely used definition
See for example the following links
(this article says “Historically, the terms “sex” and “gender” have been used interchangeably, but their uses are becoming increasingly distinct, and it is important to understand the differences between the two”)
My wife who is Spanish tells me that at least in Spain the term “gender” refers to biological differences rather social constructs This would be more in line with your understanding of the term Thomas and how it used to be widely understood in the pastFebruary 28, 2021 at 11:54 pm #214546
Here’s another explanation of the etymology of the word gender
from the link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15938009
If you research the etymology of the word gender you discover that the word gender, up until the 1970’s in academia, and up until the 2010’s in the general populace, had an identical meaning to sex. Gender meant sex. Gender was used in writing and conversation in preference to the word sex, because sex also meant sexual intercourse. So to prevent confusion and so as to not evoke the thought of sex, the word gender was used. Gender meant “sex and I don’t mean fucking”. This meaning of gender originated back in the 17th century if I recall correctly.
In the 1970s, certain non-scientific branches of academia invented an entirely new concept and attached the label “gender” to it. The concept was that the way one presents themselves in society is “gender”. This historically has never been the meaning of gender. The public at large continued to use gender in the original meaning (as you will see with official forms asking for ‘gender’. If they asked for ‘sex’, people would add a box with “yes please” on it and tick it).
In the 2010s this new meaning of gender leaked out of academic circles and into the general vernacular. But it is a concept that is entirely the invention of left-leaning academics, cross citing each other repeatedly in echo chamber journals.
You say there is “great variety in both”, but this is not true. There is great variety in “gender as a social construct”, that is, the cosmetic way people dress, do their hair etc. But there is not great variety in “sex and I don’t mean fucking”. Disorders of sex development (DSDs) are extremely rare and do not constitute a new sex and are recognised medically as disorders. For example, XXYY occurs in 1 in 18,000 to 40,000 male births. XXXXY occurs in 1 in 85,000 to 100,000 male births. Compare that to the “normal” male sex characteristics, or the “normal” female sex characteristics, that each occur in about 1 in 2 births.
People erroneously make the claim that other conditions, like triple X syndrome, constitute a DSD (occurs in 1 in 1000 females), but because it causes no health issues or abnormal development it is not considered a DSD by the medical community. The DSD Guideline documents [http://www.dsdguidelines.org] are a trustworthy source of information and definitions.March 1, 2021 at 12:50 am #214549AnonymousInactive
Thank you Robbo.
I had until yesterday never heard of the new Newspeak definition of gender.
Basically there can be no justification for it unless we apply it to all animals, not just humans. We don’t say a male dog is a different gender from another male dog. Or maybe he is following the “gender lifestyle of the Decadent movement while his chum is of a gender-conservative bent.”
The whole thing is ridiculous, and as Oscar said, “Those incapable of learning have taken to teaching.”March 1, 2021 at 3:33 am #214556
rob, you’re right about the original definition of gender. it was originally used as a grammatical term (in latin languages, -o or -a endings are the gender forms of certain words used for men and women, for example) or a synomym of sex.
i’m not sure if feminists started using the term gender to refer to social roles before or after him, but i do know that john money coined the term gender identity, which he also never gave a falsifiable definition of.
john money was a sexologist and documented pedophile. in debates, he advocated for the acceptance of pedophiles who had no bad intentions.
john money’s first patient who he tested out his gender theory with was named david reimer. doctors botched a circumcision of david’s penis after he was born, leaving him without one. david’s parents heard about john and thought he may be able to help them raise david as a girl. they all decided to lie to david and make him believe he was a girl. david had a twin brother, i believe his name was robert.
john would take pictures of david and his twin humping each other as children. david looked like a boy and obviously started looking moreso as he got older. he eventually found out the truth that he was actually a boy and tried to live his life normally afterward.
david and his twin both committed suicide within 2 years of each other in their 20’s. this group never mentions that this is the guy who originated this entire theory or the fact that he never gave a falsifiable definition of gender identity either. the entire theory is dogma.
i should again stress the fact that i do believe in gender dysphoria and i also believe some concessions should be made for dysphoric people who pass as the opposite sex. but this group doesn’t consider gender dysphoria to be the only criteria for being transgender. again, they call transgender people who think this “transmedicalists” and “truscum” and ostracize them. most trans people would consider “gender euphoria” — being happy or aroused at the idea of being the opposite sex (or “gender,” as they call it) — to also qualify someone as transgender. ray blanchard coined the terms autogynephilia (for TIMs) and autoandrophilia (for TIFs) to refer to these people. he theorizes that most “trans women” are actually autogynephiles. an early person who came out as a “trams women” recently admitted that they realized they were actually just an autogynephile
after you find this out you get into some very odd kinks many of them defend and the fact that paraphilias usually come in clusters, but i honestly don’t even wanna go down that road, not even in the article, cuz it gets very dark lmaoMarch 1, 2021 at 3:37 am #214557
i forgot to add the fact again that discussing some of these gets you written off as a transphobe. i’ve only read about this, but you guys may be old enough to remember, but i guess there was this big pedophile acceptance movement at least in the UK back in like the 70s. i’ve read that the trans lobby uses a lot of the old pedo lobbies same tactics of writing off any dissent as phobia.March 1, 2021 at 5:26 am #214558ComradeEmmaParticipant
“I guess” is doing a lot of carrying here in this comment, Jordan! I honestly don’t know how you ever expected an actual debate here when you keep just tacking on new things without anything to back it up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.