I've started this thread because gant wanted to inrtroduce the subject into a political thread. I don't think it should be a political football. others might agree with gant that it ought to be.
I'll allow the mods, and other contributors to decide. If their comments are restricted to this thread, or continue in the other thread, I'll follow their lead.
Although that will depend on the value I apply to their comments, based on (IMO) the value of their previous comments.
So I've copied JohnD's recent posts into here as a starter, to which I'll respond in here. I do appreciate that might make it difficult for others to follow the gist of the discussion. If the mods want the onerous task of moving other relevant posts into here, that's up to them.
I don't see them as that. That suggests some sort of alienation. I see those differences merely as variations.
It does need considerably more than merely uttering some words. They have to convince a panel of experts.
Now "adopting" a different gender is another issue. And people don't physically change, but they adopt their preferred gender. Maybe a physical change is not required, in their case, for their physique to better resemble their adopted gender.
a) the wearer feels the need to bring sex and gender into the political debate.
b) the wearer feels the need to make sex and gender a philosophical debate.
Your use of language describing others as deluded or ignorant because they disagree with you does nothing to further the debate.
Edit: sorry, I never read your comment properly. Sex wasn't mentioned about the busdriver label.
But my point applies, if the cap included the preferred definition of the occupation, then it becomes a political statement, not just a label.
I'll allow the mods, and other contributors to decide. If their comments are restricted to this thread, or continue in the other thread, I'll follow their lead.
Although that will depend on the value I apply to their comments, based on (IMO) the value of their previous comments.
So I've copied JohnD's recent posts into here as a starter, to which I'll respond in here. I do appreciate that might make it difficult for others to follow the gist of the discussion. If the mods want the onerous task of moving other relevant posts into here, that's up to them.
I labelled such instances and conditions as disfigurements, disabilities, deformities, etc.The examples you give are not of Transsexuals.
I don't see them as that. That suggests some sort of alienation. I see those differences merely as variations.
Of course those "definitions" or "concepts" exist, but they are societal, political, even religious concepts. And as societal, political or religious concepts there are societies in which other variations are recognised and accepted as normal.If you sincerely think that there is no such thing as a "woman" or a "man"
Given the example I quoted, and there are other conditions that give rise to incorrectly labelled "sex" at birth, then it is not only possible, it really happens, that people are wrongly labelled at birth. Only since 2004 has it been possible, in UK, for people to change the registered sex on their birth certificate. So, yes, it is possible, with difficulty, for people to adopt the "other" gender/sex.Or that a person can change from one to the other by saying four words
It does need considerably more than merely uttering some words. They have to convince a panel of experts.
Now "adopting" a different gender is another issue. And people don't physically change, but they adopt their preferred gender. Maybe a physical change is not required, in their case, for their physique to better resemble their adopted gender.
I would like to live in a more tolerant world, if that is a fantasy, it doesn't and won't stop me striving for it.Then you live in a world of fantasy.
I'd call that a political or philosophical statement.If a person who is an actual woman wears a T Shirt proclaiming herself to be a woman, and reminding the ignorant or deluded what a "woman" is
Then it can be a label
a) the wearer feels the need to bring sex and gender into the political debate.
b) the wearer feels the need to make sex and gender a philosophical debate.
Your use of language describing others as deluded or ignorant because they disagree with you does nothing to further the debate.
If the cap, or whatever also had the definition of what a busdriver is, then it becomes more than a mere label.Just as much as if you wore a cap saying "bus driver."
No, of course not because a busdriver is not a recognised sex or gender. But it is expressing an opinion of what they think a busdriver is or should be.But it is expressing neither a preference nor a gender.
Edit: sorry, I never read your comment properly. Sex wasn't mentioned about the busdriver label.
But my point applies, if the cap included the preferred definition of the occupation, then it becomes a political statement, not just a label.
Last edited: