Experts confirm gender identity is biological

[Wells]

Go ahead, I really don't care if you chop your penis off.

I have a hard time believing this since you've probably posted in this thread more than anyone else. And once the number of scientific studies which supported the idea that transgenderism is valid linked to you started reaching the double digits, you denied their accuracy based on a conspiracy theory you likely made up on the spot. You sure showed us how much you don't care!

A paragraph with spelling errors and a hypothesis that gender and race are the same.

makes u think

[Famous Mortimer]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

[Trans Rights Are Human Rights]

BWP, I would like to be  of my . What's up with that?

[America Needs R'hllor]

BWP, I would like to be  of my . What's up with that?

LOL, this is absolutely perfect.

[Reaganfan Democrat]

BWP, I would like to be  of my . What's up with that?

What will that make you? A  ?

[IceAgeComing]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

[Gustaf]

Apart from the rants and ravings of the idiotic transphobe this has been a pretty good thread with interesting points. Thanks, guys.

[Idaho Conservative]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

genderanalysis.net  is not exactly a "very trustworthy"  source for objective information.  It would be like me citing a webpage from the Family Research Council.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You know, if I started to make grand claims about knowing more than the entire medical establishment because I had received a few extra marks in the SAT, I would probably try and substantiate my claims (or make an effort to debunk others) rather than acting like a snotty and petulant child.

[IceAgeComing]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

genderanalysis.net  is not exactly a "very trustworthy"  source for objective information.  It would be like me citing a webpage from the Family Research Council.

Naturally - although note that they've cited most of their claims, which improves the quality of a source.  Biased sources are not always objectively BAD sources; provided that the quality of the evidence that they provide and the sources that they use are quality sources.  Besides, that argument is one that I agree with, and she makes the case in a much better way that I ever could.

Its also notably better than any of the sources that you've provided...

[Idaho Conservative]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

genderanalysis.net  is not exactly a "very trustworthy"  source for objective information.  It would be like me citing a webpage from the Family Research Council.

Naturally - although note that they've cited most of their claims, which improves the quality of a source.  Biased sources are not always objectively BAD sources; provided that the quality of the evidence that they provide and the sources that they use are quality sources.  Besides, that argument is one that I agree with, and she makes the case in a much better way that I ever could.

Its also notably better than any of the sources that you've provided...

no, its not.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

genderanalysis.net  is not exactly a "very trustworthy"  source for objective information.  It would be like me citing a webpage from the Family Research Council.

Naturally - although note that they've cited most of their claims, which improves the quality of a source.  Biased sources are not always objectively BAD sources; provided that the quality of the evidence that they provide and the sources that they use are quality sources.  Besides, that argument is one that I agree with, and she makes the case in a much better way that I ever could.

Its also notably better than any of the sources that you've provided...

no, its not.

You can stomp your feet and keep saying "NO!", but it won't make you right.

[IceAgeComing]

no, its not.

you provided an article about Dr McHugh; a person who's credibility on this issue is effectively nil, and vague references to "Biology textbooks" - I can only assume that you're talking about the type given to high school students that intentionally simplify certain things in order to teach the basics that you need: they certainly do that in High School Physics with the characterisation of electricity and the like.

Again I never stated that Ms Jones is this totally unbiased impartial person - no one is, and no source is truly unbiased - but she makes an argument that I agree with in a very good manner with supporting information, therefore as a source on that its very good.  In the Social Sciences (which this stuff is veering very close to) you'll find that every writer has some kind of notable bias in favour of one field or another, or bases their arguments about one of many contesting models of things: and therefore there isn't any truly unbiased sources...

[muon2]

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

It's interesting to compare this to the sociology and history I learned in college in the 1970's. The evidence for race as a social construct was present in the classes I took 40 years ago, and seems even more solid today. Even then biological science found no basis for categorization by race.

One of the most interesting readings I had was in a class covering North Africa in the Middle Ages. It was clear that the Arabs who controlled trade across the Sahara found no racial differences. They only saw a gradual change in the population as one traveled by land from north to south. However, when the Europeans began their exploration and trade with Africa, they were forced to hop way south by sea to skip past the Arab controlled areas. They found people who looked and sounded dramatically different.  Since they couldn't see the spectrum of change, they created a racial definition to describe what they saw. A similar situation occurred with Asia as the Arabs controlled the  land routes and the Europeans had to jump vast distances by ship.

[IceAgeComing]

That's an interesting theory and it'd be interesting to see if it's held up through time - not something that I've ever studied seriously though (closest I got was ethnopolitics in the Baltic States and Ukraine which are very interesting; wrote my dissertation on the former) so I'm not an expert on the area bar the absolute basics that you pick up in some corners of the Internet...

[America Needs R'hllor]

Since it's obviously connected to the subject:

I've had a debate with a friend, who's a Lesbian and a radical feminist. She doesn't believe in gender identity, and sees it as a social construct that doesn't change your sex, so she claims that while transsexual people should be able to do and behave however they want, it doesn't make them any less man/woman. According to her radical feminism, everyone should be able to behave however they want, regardless of their biological sex, but a man and a woman are who they are born. She also claims that transsexual women don't experience the same oppression, related to pregnancy, for example, as cis women.
I showed her the research, but she says that it's only a proof that gender dysphoria exists, not that it changes whether one is a man or a woman. I obviously disagree, and see her opinion as a result of the radical feminism and frustration about silly anti-lesbian rhetoric of some SJWs, like the 'cotton ceiling'. But in any case- what are your thoughts about that?

[Idaho Conservative]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

genderanalysis.net  is not exactly a "very trustworthy"  source for objective information.  It would be like me citing a webpage from the Family Research Council.

Naturally - although note that they've cited most of their claims, which improves the quality of a source.  Biased sources are not always objectively BAD sources; provided that the quality of the evidence that they provide and the sources that they use are quality sources.  Besides, that argument is one that I agree with, and she makes the case in a much better way that I ever could.

Its also notably better than any of the sources that you've provided...

no, its not.

You can stomp your feet and keep saying "NO!", but it won't make you right.

Do you seriously think genderanalysis.net  is a good source for impartial info on transgenderism? Its ok, you can admit when you are wrong.  Clinging to that stupid point just makes you look stupid.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

genderanalysis.net  is not exactly a "very trustworthy"  source for objective information.  It would be like me citing a webpage from the Family Research Council.

Naturally - although note that they've cited most of their claims, which improves the quality of a source.  Biased sources are not always objectively BAD sources; provided that the quality of the evidence that they provide and the sources that they use are quality sources.  Besides, that argument is one that I agree with, and she makes the case in a much better way that I ever could.

Its also notably better than any of the sources that you've provided...

no, its not.

You can stomp your feet and keep saying "NO!", but it won't make you right.

Do you seriously think genderanalysis.net  is a good source for impartial info on transgenderism? Its ok, you can admit when you are wrong.  Clinging to that stupid point just makes you look stupid.

But, um, that's exactly what you're doing. IceAgeComing had the patience to explain at length why genderanalysis.net might be biased, but cites good sources inside the article, and before that, I recall him explaining why your sources don't hold water. But his arguments fell on deaf ears.

[Famous Mortimer]

Since it's obviously connected to the subject:

I've had a debate with a friend, who's a Lesbian and a radical feminist. She doesn't believe in gender identity, and sees it as a social construct that doesn't change your sex, so she claims that while transsexual people should be able to do and behave however they want, it doesn't make them any less man/woman. According to her radical feminism, everyone should be able to behave however they want, regardless of their biological sex, but a man and a woman are who they are born. She also claims that transsexual women don't experience the same oppression, related to pregnancy, for example, as cis women.
I showed her the research, but she says that it's only a proof that gender dysphoria exists, not that it changes whether one is a man or a woman. I obviously disagree, and see her opinion as a result of the radical feminism and frustration about silly anti-lesbian rhetoric of some SJWs, like the 'cotton ceiling'. But in any case- what are your thoughts about that?

There's also the fact that this whole debate is basically a semantic issue. Pro-trans people think the terms "man" and "woman" refer to gender identity. Anti-trans people think they refer to biological sex. Since the terms "man" and "woman" existed for centuries before the theory of gender was ever solidified and no one before the 70s would have ever been able to explain modern theories of gender, it's pretty obvious who is literally right.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, the English language is odd and changes all the time. Both "man" and "girl" had stages, for instance, where they could be used in a gender neutral fashion.

[Gustaf]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

genderanalysis.net  is not exactly a "very trustworthy"  source for objective information.  It would be like me citing a webpage from the Family Research Council.

Naturally - although note that they've cited most of their claims, which improves the quality of a source.  Biased sources are not always objectively BAD sources; provided that the quality of the evidence that they provide and the sources that they use are quality sources.  Besides, that argument is one that I agree with, and she makes the case in a much better way that I ever could.

Its also notably better than any of the sources that you've provided...

no, its not.

You can stomp your feet and keep saying "NO!", but it won't make you right.

Do you seriously think genderanalysis.net  is a good source for impartial info on transgenderism? Its ok, you can admit when you are wrong.  Clinging to that stupid point just makes you look stupid.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Parrotguy, your friend sounds a bit TERFy.

[emailking]

Transgenders have a right to ask people to use any pronoun they prefer.  That doesn't mean that everyone will use that pronoun.

Would you?

BWP?

I think most people would agree the government should not be regulating pronoun use, but I'm still curious what you would do if you knew someone trans.

[Famous Mortimer]

Yes, the English language is odd and changes all the time. Both "man" and "girl" had stages, for instance, where they could be used in a gender neutral fashion.

The left is not honest about the nature of the debate. They don't say that they want to change the language. They assert that the language has already been changed and anyone who doesn't agree is stupid/evil/a legitimate target for violence. Same as they did with "racism".

[world.execute(me)]

Yes, the English language is odd and changes all the time. Both "man" and "girl" had stages, for instance, where they could be used in a gender neutral fashion.

The left is not honest about the nature of the debate. They don't say that they want to change the language. They assert that the language has already been changed and anyone who doesn't agree is stupid/evil/a legitimate target for violence. Same as they did with "racism".

Because "heil hitler" was totally acceptable 15 years ago.

[Famous Mortimer]

Yes, the English language is odd and changes all the time. Both "man" and "girl" had stages, for instance, where they could be used in a gender neutral fashion.

The left is not honest about the nature of the debate. They don't say that they want to change the language. They assert that the language has already been changed and anyone who doesn't agree is stupid/evil/a legitimate target for violence. Same as they did with "racism".

Because "heil hitler" was totally acceptable 15 years ago.

I meant changing the definition from "hating a race" to "White people hating a race". Although, the conception of what constitutes hate has also been greatly expanded in the minds of the left. You know very well that many many things short of explicit Nazism are considered racist. You're responding to be a point about the left being disingenuous by being disingenuous yourself.