Sure, sure, ignore the whole section where I broke down that gender is an
identity system and that a woman would be someone whose internal perception of themselves matches that identity, constructed by society.
But of course, because the psychological concept of identity is harder to understand than “penis or vagina?”, you ignore it and pretend I’m just being circular.
Once again, and I’ll bold it this time:
biological sex can be an aspect of gender identity, but it does not necessarily define it. We know biology plays an aspect in how people identify themselves; most people are fine with the sex they are born as, and studies show there may be biological factors at play with trans people. But the social construct of gender brings far more into play than just biology, and it affects non-trans people as much as it affects trans people. This is the basis of gender equality: that men and women are equal, and that inequality comes not from biology but from society. The differences in identities are a result of social expectations, and are therefore
socially constructed, not a result of biology.
:
|
What deep connotations can "man" and "woman" have when by your own defintion the only prerequisite is identifying with the mere words themselves? Why should anyone care about being "misgendered" when your definition of woman is inclusive to potentially anyone?
|
“Man” and “woman” are identity descriptors. They help us inform one another about who we perceive ourselves to be, in context of shared social understandings. Refusal to acknowledge how another perceives themselves and wishes to be perceived by others is a refusal of their identity; and therefore a refusal of them as a person. This rejection can and does have deep connotations, and it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that it does not.
We live in a society that has a concept of gender, and it informs a large part of social attitudes and our core identities. Until such a time as society discards that concept (which may never even happen), then it will remain an important way for people to describe their identity.
:
|
You go on to talk about bathrooms. By your definitions, what is the point of sex segregated spaces when men and women are reduced to utterly meaningless concepts? Should women be expected to share their changing rooms and toilets with Danielle Muscato just because she identifies as a woman (whatever that even means)?
|
Men and women are not meaningless concepts, nor am I implying them to be.
But ignoring that, sex-segregated spaces exist to
segregate – and as our understanding of gender and our work towards gender equality progresses, I see those spaces as becoming less important. Historically, men and women were segregated in all kinds of public spaces —
women-only libraries and train cars, for instance — and before then women were often completely excluded from public life. Bathrooms and changing rooms are the last holdout to those attitudes, largely due to the aspects of privacy we associate with them.
Let’s face some truths here – gender-neutral facilities already exist in many places, not least as the bathrooms
in most people’s homes. Gender-neutral facilities can be made which still respect occupants’ privacy. And sexual predators are not waiting for an invitation to attack people in bathrooms – they already can and do, and segregated bathrooms do not stop them.
:
|
See this is why transgender ideology is inherently conservative and sexist. There's no way social justice warriors would ever champion Danielle, because that would freak people out. Only men who become some sort of carictature of women and wear makeup and feminine clothing and reinforce every other sexist expectation of women get to use women's spaces.
|
Ooor maybe it’s just pragmatic, since people like you seem to freak out at any challenge to the established gender norm in the first place? When society still has trouble accepting ideas about gender equality, let alone gender identity, then perhaps it doesn’t yet make sense to directly challenge gender norms in a way that most people would find difficult to accept? Win the small battles, and build.
I challenge you: if Danielle Muscato looked exactly the same way as she does now, but was born with female genitalia, would you still be bringing her up here? Would you be worried about her sharing bathrooms with women? What about other masculine-appearing women, are they a threat? Perhaps the one being conservative and sexist … is you?
(and as an aside, Muscato no longer looks as she does in your image, and has also
stated that she is limited in how far she can transition)
:
|
Either people subscribe to the social construct of gender as an identity or they do not. You can't say "someone is a woman because they fall within socially constructed definition of a woman" despite society largely not acknowledging this definition. That's how social constructs (as oppossed to physical ones) work; they require social acceptance.
|
People subscribe to gender as an identity; the difference here is that for many sex is still considered the core of those identities, while modern studies suggest that the social construct of gender evolved from attitudes segregating sex, and developed over the thousands of years of human society into the complex identity systems we observe today. Sex is now just one possible informer of that identity system, but it is not necessarily recognized as such by all of society.
:
|
Ultimately if you do not subscribe to the idea of "gender as an identity" then you are incapable of misgendering anyone.
|
So, if we ignore someone’s identity then we can’t misidentify them? I think there’s a flaw in your logic…
:
|
eww, eww, yucky vaginas! o wait. its almost like we are a sexual species. It's almost like the existence of the two sexes has had tremendous social implications across every society that ever existed, hmmmmm maybe we should acknowledge they exist then? I find the insinuation that non-trans people are obsessed with genitals particularly annoying when sex-reassignment surgery exists.
|
Yes, we are a sexual species, yes sex has had a tremendous impact on how our society developed the social construct of gender, and yes we should acknowledge its existence.
But we do not have to define gender with it, as our understanding of gender identity has progressed beyond it.
Sorry, but the obsession with genitals exists – trans people are constantly asked about their genitals when that information is not needed to understand the identity they are presenting. Hell, you’ve spent how many posts now trying to stress the importance of genitals?