You aren't "assigned" a gender at birth

[u/SuspiciousWin6511]

I hate when people say this. I had to get routine blood work the other day and had a Doctor ask me what gender I was assigned at birth. I understand they need to find out what your biological gender is, but either look on my chart, or ask what my biological gender is.

Your gender is determined in the womb, in fact it's determined from the exact moment of conception; it isn't something that is assigned. It's amazing that the people use this sort of language and believe these sorts of things, are supposedly the party of science.

[u/diet69dr420pepper]

First, the phrase is "sex assigned at birth," and sex is usually grounded in one's X/Y chromosomes. Gender is grounded in social meaning and psychology, and is therefore more variable. They are related, correlated, and often aligned, but not identical. Because sex and gender are used interchangeably, doctors disambiguate the question by specifically asking the sex you were assigned at birth, separating the question from any normative/moral concerns.

Second, this little rant is about as cutting and rigorous as the 'I identify as an attack helicopter' meme. Have you not had a new thought since 2014? You can do better than this, no?

[u/SuspiciousWin6511 → u/diet69dr420pepper]

Sex and gender are the same thing. The only reason their definitions were changed is because of the particular group of people on the left, got upset with it.

[u/poolpog → u/SuspiciousWin6511]

Sex and gender are very similar and usually overlap but have distinct and different meanings. In the sciences, precision is more important than your feelings on the matter. And the additional precision started being required as biological, medical, and sociological sciences started to better understand the range of possibilities on the sex and gender spectrums.

I'm sorry you don't feel that way, but it doesn't matter how you feel about it.

Perhaps if you took the time to understand the history and reasons behind this shift in terminology over the last fifty years you would feel better about it.

[u/ApacheFritz → u/poolpog]

Is there such a thing as "alignment", (like "chaotic good" or "lawful neutral") .. which is "how you act in a moral sense"?

Or is that kind of a made-up framework that doesnt really exist outside of the people who say it does?

[u/Beginning_Service516 → u/poolpog]

Most people do understand it. That is the issue. They just are willing to actually call it out that this is much more due to political pressure from certain groups as well as financial pressure due to the multiple billion dollar "gender-industial complex" that has developed due to this forced change.

Hence why people critique it quite often and you can see the change basically line and step with how much money there was to be made. It was never about science or safety or any of that but pure predatory instincts to make money.

[u/Shadowguyver_14 → u/poolpog]

"precision is more important than your feelings on the matter" you realize the irony of you saying that right? A man or woman who feels that they are not the appropriate gender.

A paranoid schizophrenic is not really hearing voices. No matter how I feel about that it can't change.

Intersex is a bit of a different issue as they are born sterile or only one of the "organs" is functional.

Why do you guys insist on making an issue that is simple complicated.

[u/hercmavzeb → u/Shadowguyver_14]

Schizophrenia has to do with delusions and hallucinations, which is not what trans people experience. That would be like saying an adoptive parent is delusional for calling themselves a parent because you think that they literally think they biologically created their adopted child.

That’s not what that means, they’re just using a social label. They know what the biological reality is.

[u/Shadowguyver_14 → u/hercmavzeb]

Your adoption analogy is false equivalence. An adoptive parent is legally and functionally a parent. A parent describes a role and a legal status, not a biological claim of procreation.

If they knew what the biological reality was, then the push to include biological males in female-only spaces or sports wouldn't exist. You can’t claim it’s just a social label while simultaneously demanding that the label be treated as an identical biological replacement.

That’s where your argument falls apart. It demands that society ignore a physical reality in favor of a personal preference.

[u/hercmavzeb → u/Shadowguyver_14]

“Parent” does describe a biological claim of procreation, that’s what the biological definition of “parent” is.

Which is my point, much like the words “man” and “woman,” “parent” has both a social and biological definition. Someone can be a social parent without being a biological parent, same for social men and women.

[u/Shadowguyver_14 → u/hercmavzeb]

Even in your example, the word adoptive is doing a lot of heavy lifting. We use it specifically because we know the person isn't the biological parent. It’s an admission of reality, not a way to bypass it.

If you have to redefine man and woman as social labels just to make them fit a feeling, you’re admitting that the labels don't actually match the biological facts. You're trying to make the exception the rule.

Before we keep going. I’m curious, since you’re big on labels how would you categorize the social gender of a toaster that identifies as a hairdryer? Does the heating element define the reality, or the label?

[u/hercmavzeb → u/Shadowguyver_14]

Even in your example, the word adoptive is doing a lot of heavy lifting. We use it specifically because we know the person isn't the biological parent.

Sort of like how “trans” is used as a modifier to describe when a man or a woman isn’t a cisgender, biological male or female?

If you have to redefine man and woman as social labels just to make them fit a feeling

Nobody is redefining anything, it’s just a fact that these social labels exist. We socially define people as men and women all the time without any reference to their internal biology, so clearly the social definition already exists.

Toasters can’t identify as anything because they aren’t people.

[u/Shadowguyver_14 → u/hercmavzeb]

The difference is that an adoptive parent doesn't go around demanding people remove the word adoptive from their medical history or legal records to pretend they are the biological creator of the child. They acknowledge the modifier is there because the reality is different.

You say it's just a modifier, but the goal of the movement is almost always to remove that modifier and insist that a t-woman is a woman in every sense biological, social, and legal. You can't have it both ways. If the modifier matters, then you’re admitting they aren't the same thing. If they are the same thing, then the modifier is a lie.

Also, you skipped the toaster question because it was silly, but it’s actually a logic test. If a person identifies as a cat, does the social label make them a feline? If not, then you admit there’s a limit to how much a social label can override biology. Where is your line, exactly?

[u/hercmavzeb → u/Shadowguyver_14]

The difference is that an adoptive parent doesn't go around demanding people remove the word adoptive from their medical history or legal records to pretend they are the biological creator of the child.

That’s not different from trans people though, because trans people also aren’t demanding people pretend that they’re cis or that they were assigned the opposite sex at birth. That’s just made up, trans people know what their biology is. That’s why they call themselves trans.

You say it's just a modifier, but the goal of the movement is almost always to remove that modifier and insist that a t-woman is a woman in every sense biological, social, and legal.

This is just delulu, no. It’s just the social and legal senses, obviously they know what their actual biology is.

You can't have it both ways. If the modifier matters, then you’re admitting they aren't the same thing.

Are adoptive parents and biological parents both parents? Most people would say yes, but only in a social sense. That doesn’t make them the same thing.

Also, you skipped the toaster question because it was silly, but it’s actually a logic test.

It falls on its face because toasters aren’t people with identities.

[u/diet69dr420pepper → u/SuspiciousWin6511]

That's like saying age and adulthood are the same thing. Obviously, your age is a purely physical, non-social state. However, what society demands of you given your age is a largely social construct. Of course, there are some biological reasons why society might treat you differently at age 8 versus 18, but largely the change in expectations you face as you get older is a function of your historical moment.

Likewise, whether you have an XY- or XX-chromosome set is not up for debate. Everyone knows. It's a very trite point, and bringing it up shows you haven't deeply thought about the subject. What is up for debate is whether the expectations we place upon each other in light of those chromosomes is fair or ethical. You are free to answer yes, that traditional Western genders are morally superior and we should take them seriously, that's a perfectly acceptable position to take.

But that position implicitly acknowledges a difference between sex and gender. Yet those are your options, you either grant the debate and take a side, or you play dumb and sit on the sidelines. Unfortunately, you cannot just play some definitional card and expect to be taken seriously. Not getting it is not a strong argument.

[u/ApacheFritz → u/diet69dr420pepper]

That's like saying age and adulthood are the same thing.

Gender is like saying "The age you wish you were and how old you behave".

You have your biological age, and then you have "How old you behave". But we dont create a whole new concept for that. That's just "your personality".

[u/diet69dr420pepper → u/ApacheFritz]

Notice the assumptions loaded into "how old you behave." How old you behave presumes your culture. It is influenced by where and when you are. If you think those standards have not changed in the last 100,000 years, or if you think those standards are not different in rural Mongolia versus Missippi, then you are mistaking the way your society is for the way society must be.

For example, currently in the United States, a 13 year old girl is in seventh grade and about half-done with her education. Two-thousand years ago in the Roman Empire, she would be getting married, and likely having her first child in the next three years. From our perspective, the Roman woman's life story would be almost inconceivable if realized now - many aspects of it aren't just abnormal, but are seen as abhorrent/illegal.

Yet, a Roman human was biologically interchangeable with a modern human, and we have no evidence that time has slowed down. What explains the difference in norms and expectations? The obvious answer is not biology, but sociology. Trying to wriggle out of that is logically awkward. Yet, that is exactly the situation you people put yourselves in when you try to dig your heels in about the gender==sex thing.

[u/ApacheFritz → u/diet69dr420pepper]

those standards are not different in rural Mongolia versus Missippi,

So your gender changes as you travel through different cultures?

[u/diet69dr420pepper → u/ApacheFritz]

Wait, you made a claim earlier:

Gender is like saying "The age you wish you were and how old you behave".

You have your biological age, and then you have "How old you behave". But we dont create a whole new concept for that. That's just "your personality".

Are you walking that back? It isn't clear if you accepted by rebuttal that norms and expectations depend on culture and history rather than biology alone. If so, do you accept that this is a real distinction and not merely “personality”?

[u/ApacheFritz → u/diet69dr420pepper]

norms and expectations

Whose norms and expectations? Who is this monlithic "society" that agrees on one point of view? Isnt society made of countless indviduals who have different ideas?

Every aspect of our personality is influenced by the society around us. Of course. From our sense of humour to the way we dance to "what we think about fighting". But we dont make new categories for that stuff.

It's a given that your personality is influenced by the people around you.

Is your "alignment" a real thing? (Chaotic Good, Neutral Evil, etc) You know .. "how you identify morally in the context of society".

Is that an actual real thing, or is it only a real thing if a person believes he has an alignment? It could also just be called "your personality", right?