- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.zip
- fediverse@lemmy.world
- wedistribute@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.zip
- fediverse@lemmy.world
- wedistribute@sh.itjust.works
In light of recent controversy and its handling, the twice-a-year FediForum unconference for April 1st and 2nd has been canceled by its organizer.
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t understand how we live in a society where so many people are concerned with what other people do. Most of the world will never knowingly deal with trans people and yet they’re obsessed. How about people stop focusing on how to differentiate each other and instead focus on ways to bring people together?
Some of what Kaliya is saying sounds reasonable but it’s actually reprehensible. As far as sport goes, someone pointed out a while back that sport would be better off if division was done by skill and weight class and I wholeheartedly agree, let’s make sport better and more inclusive, foundationally.
As for Johannes, unfortunately when you try and remain classy, people baying for heads will feel you’re not doing enough. I felt he did little wrong, but can totally see how a more fire and brimstone approach would’ve appeased some.
To be fair to Johannes, I think he ultimately made the right decision. The main problem lie in communication, and timeliness.
No matter what you did in this situation, you are screwed. If you don’t respond harshly enough, you will be attacked for it. If you react too harshly, you will be accused of overreacting, even by people who agree with your reaction. It is impossible to please everyone in this situation.
Telling male children who have feminine tights they must be female is what is happening and it is hurting boys.
This one just confuses me, I thought I heard all the talking points at this point (luckily the next sentence is much more familiar)
I can only imagine “tights” was supposed to be “thoughts”? Still, clearly exhibits a deep misunderstanding of what she’s talking about
I don’t understand how Kaliya’s statements can be controversial or classed as transphobia. Isn’t it in line with the definition of trans?
Her comments cover everything from “trans women are mostly autistic boys who have been gaslit” to “there are only two sexes” to “trans people are unfit to play in their gender’s sport.” However, there are far worse comments floating around out there that talk about genital mutilation and all kinds of other heinous shit.
So the other stuff is clearly wrong and gross, but I’m confused by the “only two sexes” comment. Gender being a spectrum makes sense but I always thought we all pretty much agreed that biological sex was a binary function in humans. Sure there are genetic disorders that create exceptions, but aren’t those exceptions that prove the rule instead of break it?
This is a genuine question. I’m a computer guy not a biology guy.
So…while biology does account for male and female reproductive systems across a variety of species, they have found that, as they continue to study many different forms of life, that they actually have to keep adjusting the model of what they once thought. Life is weirder, more complex, and accounts for a tremendous amount of variation in how this whole thing works.
I’m not a biologist, there are experts who can speak extremely well on this subject. Within the field of biology, the whole “two sexes” thing is kind of an oversimplification. Even if we just focus on humans and not, say, some form of algae with 500 different sexes, there are plenty of divergent forms of human beings that manifest as some form of intersex, with quite a few different variations.
Even if intersex people are a fraction of a fraction of the population, they are a compelling case study for why things don’t definitively boil down across some kind of sexual binary across the board for absolutely everyone. Heck, even males and females in the traditional sense of sexual dimorphism tend to exhibit traits of the other sex in one way or another.
TL;DR - it’s a huge complicated can of worms, and people who try to shutdown discussion of nonbinary or transgender identities with “there’s only two sexes, it’s just science!” tend to have a grade-school understanding of biology.
I feel like were straying back into “sex and gender are the same thing” territory which seems reductive to me.
Not sure why we would focus on algae when we’re clearly only talking about humans.
I get that intersex/other genetic disorders exist. But I still don’t get how that breaks the rule instead of proving it. The rule is that humans have two arms and two legs. Just because there’s one armed people doesn’t mean that rule is broken. It means they’re an exception to that rule.
Another thing to consider is that humans have a brain powerful enough to override human instincts. For example, we are born with an instinct to reproduce, but we can choose not to.
This also applies to our sexuality, personality, gender, behaviors, preferences, and more. We don’t have to conform to instincts, norms, or stereotypes.
Since that is the case, unless you’re strictly talking about anatomy, two sexes aren’t an accurate way to describe human sexuality.
I don’t think that the problem is saying that there are “two sexes.” The problem is that many people who say that tend to assign a specific gender or stereotype to that sex. In other words, what they really mean is that “men are supposed to be one way and women are supposed to be another,” with the implication that someone isn’t a real man or women if they are not that stereotype. That notion dismisses the reality for people who do not conform to those stereotypes. Trans people are the most obvious expression of gender fluidity, but I think most people don’t conform to society’s rigid standards. They just hide behind a mask, and if they are lucky, express it in the bedroom with a trusted partner.
But, as someone who does not fit gender stereotypes, I can say that there are only four anatomical configurations that people are born with: female genitalia (vagina), male genitalia (penis), both male and female genitalia (vagina and a penis) and no sexual genitalia. Most people are the first two. It also should be noted that a person can have surgery to alter this, and that babies born with both genitalia usually have surgery shortly after birth so they only have one, not both.
So a lot of the reaction to that statement is what people are reading between the lines, and not those specific words themselves.
what they really mean is that “men are supposed to be one way and women are supposed to be another,” with the implication that someone isn’t a real man or women if they are not that stereotype
I think what they often imply is that for them gender is just a way to refer to male and female sex, and not really a stereotype. If someone is female/male then in their eyes they are a woman/man regardless of what they look or how they behave, because it’s not about social stereotypes for them. Even if a man looks and behaves like a stereotypical woman, it would not stop being “a real man” because for them gender isn’t about looks, behavior or feelings of identity.
However, the trans community sees gender as something that relates to what stereotype (social construct) a person identifies with, and this makes gender independent of sex, because you can identify with a gender stereotype that does not match the stereotype that you might typically associate with your biological sex.
I don’t think “identifying with social stereotypes” is really an accurate representation of what being trans is.
Sure, there are some people who transition and identify as stereotypical members of their desired gender, but there are also people who transition and are gender nonconforming after their transition, but still identify as binary trans.
Identifying with social stereotypes also doesn’t account for physical dysphoria, which is very real for a lot of trans folks. Some trans folks change little about their presentation when they transition but still want hormones and/or surgery.
What I said is that for a trans, “gender relates to what stereotype (social construct) a person identifies with”. I did not say their gender matches a particular stereotype, but that it relates to it.
Someone who does not identify with a typical stereotype and believes that this makes them be of a different gender, is defining their gender based on whether they fit (or don’t fit, in this case) a specific social stereotype.
However, someone who does not believe gender relates to stereotypes at all would not see that person as having a different gender because that person’s gender (for those people) would be unrelated to whether they match (or identify themselves with) a stereotype or not.
I think your take is reductive. Gender isn’t about stereotypes. I’m sure that for many trans people, part of their trans discovery was not feeling like a stereotypical member of their sex, but there’s more to it than that. You can say that gender relates to a lot of things. Gender is ultimately an internal experience that means different things to different people, and isn’t necessarily related to identifying or not identifying with any given stereotype.
Bioessentialism in turn reduces people to genitals, and sort of refuses to address intersex people because something something “outliers don’t count”. At best it says sure, you can dress up however you want, but it’s super important that everyone know What You Really Are so they can put you in a box and appropriately segregate society.
And there are also people like me. I am feminine and have male anatomy. I don’t feel the need to have surgery to conform to other people’s gender stereotypes. I am a feminine man. People just have to deal with the fact that not everyone conforms to society’s stereotypes. And, while I respect other people’s right to alter their bodies how they see fit, I don’t think I should change my body just because someone says men aren’t supposed to be feminine.
I didn’t explicitly address that in my comment, but yeah. The trans community exists in synergy with cis GNC people like you. You can break every stereotype for your sex and still be cis, or you can fit the stereotypes for your sex but be trans, and both are just as valid as stereotypical cis or trans folks.
Of course you (or anyone) don 't need to have surgery to conform to other people’s gender stereotypes. But I don’t think that’s what was implied here.
What’s “feminine”? is that not a gender stereotype? I don’t think there’s anything wrong about being a man that closer fits a feminine stereotype than a masculine one.
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying :)
I don’t understand how Kaliya’s statements can be controversial or classed as transphobia
That’s because it’s mostly dog whistles and wedge tactics. It’s a rehashing of common transphobic talking points, but with the edges brushed off. It’s the way transphobia is portrayed to appear reasonable at first glance.
The dog whistles are easy to miss if you aren’t familiar with them, but the sheer volume of them from her shows that they were absolutely intended. This isn’t accidentally repeating something, this is an active relisting of transphobic talking points predominantly utilised by transphobic groups.
Sex isn’t a “gender orientation” it is really simple biology.
There are unspoken parts to this. What she really means here, even though she doesn’t explicitly say it, is that sex is real, and thus gender isn’t, and because of that, sex is more important than gender. It’s the way transphobic folk often phrase things so they can have a facade of acceptance, whilst still being transphobic. "I’m not questioning your gender, but you’re still male and should be denied space
Sex and gender might be distinct, but they’re related, often conflated and neither are inherently static, binary or immutable. Any attempt to draw a hard line between them, or to point at a dictionary definition is normally always said with the goal of validating exclusion, and that’s what is happening here.
Gamete size – its really simple.
This is a regular talking point used by transphobic groups. It is said precisely for the reasons I mentioned above. It’s an attempt to make a black and white, one sized fits all definition. And the reason that TERFs use it, is because to them, it’s a “gotcha” definition that allows them to exclude trans folk from spaces. And those reasons are there, but unspoken when Kaliya wrote that.
Stop confusing young autistic vulnerable people.
This is also a straight up transphobic talking point. It comes from transphobic literature that paints transgender identity as a form of social contagion, whilst also implying that autistic folk are more vulnerable to this social contagion. The specific context in which it is normally used by these transphobic groups is when talking about young trans men, by portraying them instead as vulnerable young girls.
You think it IS moral to have male-bodied people who identify as trans women playing in elite comparative sport for female-bodied people?
This is more dog whistle transphobia. The big give away here is that she can’t even give trans women the validity of their own identity. She defines trans women first as “male bodied” and secondly as “identitying as trans women”. There is a transphobic term “TIM”, that transphobes use as a slur against trans women. It means “trans identified male”. Transphobes like it, because it is a masculine name, and because it defines their identity as being male, whilst implying that the trans part is less real. The word “identified” here implies it is a phase, or a deceit.
This comment from Kaliya is using that exact concept, but just skipping the acronym.
Gender can be socially-constructed.
Sure. Parts of it can be, and are socially constructed. But what she is really saying here is that gender isn’t as real as sex.
There are only two sexes.
See my earlier comment. When you try and make things black and white, and use strict definitions, generally, the reason for doing so is to validate a push for exclusion, which is exactly what this is.
Telling male children who have feminine tights they must be female is what is happening and it is hurting boys.
Once more, portraying trans identity as social contagion.
culture has gone competely bonkers confusing sex and gender.
Explicitly transphobic. Portrays trans folk as “bonkers”.
Which is a lot of words to say, she’s a transphobe, and she is rehashing transphobic talking points, but framing them in such a way that the transphobia isn’t immediately obvious to folks who aren’t familiar with trans and gender diverse folk.
Besides, “there are only two sexes” is rather obviously inaccurate. While intersex people aren’t terribly common, they do exist and are well-documented – as are the genetic reasons for why they’re intersex. XX men and XY women are also a thing. Genetics are inherently messy.
But acknowledging all that would mean having to admit that sex is a complex matter and can’t be handled with simple statements like “the one you were born with is the one you should have”. It’s easier to just pretend intersex people don’t exist.
That’s pedantry. If I said “the difference between cars and bicycles is 4 wheels versus 2” someone will feel the need to shout out about some 6 wheeled Mercedes or unicycles and tricycles.
Her comment was meant as black and white. To use your analogy, she would be arguing that 6 wheeled cars don’t exist, and insisting that all vehicles have two or four wheels, and that’s how we distinguish them
You don’t understand how they can be controversial? How about factually, for starters. Even setting aside the issue of transphobia (which we really shouldn’t because let’s face it, it’s pretty central to what’s going on) every one of the posts displayed contains a claim that’s blatantly untrue on its face.
