Trans

Are People Confused About What the Label 'Transgender' Signifies?

Measuring the number of LGBT Americans is a challenge.

|

Rainbow flag
Ludovic Bertron

Exactly how many Americans identify as a different gender than the one they were labeled as at birth? In fact, no one knows.

Both government and private-sector researchers have been trying to improve their methods of measuring the number of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people—not to mention the increasing cadre of mostly young people who identify as something else altogether, like "genderfluid" or "non-binary." But it's tough, in part because the language isn't always established enough to allow pollsters to craft a question that will clearly convey to survey respondents what is being asked.

GfK, a big German market research firm, has been working with its web survey platform, Knowledge Panel, to try to get at the answer, explained Frances M. Barlas a couple of weeks ago at the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) annual conference in Austin. What GfK's research team has found is that some people appear not to be clear on what the word transgender even means.

In 2010, the company conducted an online survey in which 1.1 percent of respondents answered that they were trans. That seemed high compared to previous estimates; the leading expert on measuring the GLBT community, UCLA's Gary Gates, for example, guesses that trans people make up more like one-third of a percent of the population.

Indeed, Barlas' colleagues found that when they followed up with the group who initially identified that way, just 30 percent re-confirmed their response. "That's troubling," she said during the panel: Generally, a confirmation rate of even 80 percent suggests a question isn't doing a good job of measuring what it's supposed to.

When the researchers dug further, asking the respondents who initially answered that they were transgender how they would define the term, quite a few of them gave answers that Barlas and her team deemed "incorrect." Some knew, of course, that it signifies that a person's gender identity differs from the sex on their original birth certificate. (That's more or less right.) But a lot of the people who had initially said they were trans replied to the definition question by saying they didn't know what the word meant. Still others conflated it with different concepts.

"A good number of folks thought it meant something along the lines of being straight or attracted to the opposite sex," she said. "Some [said] bi-sexual or intersex. And then kind of a mix of other answers, like 'someone who is content with their sex' or 'darned if I know but I assume it means my ability to work with both genders.'"

It's just another reminder that trans issues aren't just not a top priority for many Americans—in some cases, they're not on the radar at all.

Advertisement

NEXT: Erik Wemple on the misleading edit of gun rights supporters in new Katie Couric documentary

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I assume most people are burned out now on thinking about this stuff or trying to make sense of it.

    1. Pretty much.

      It’s almost like there’s different levels of transgender folks. I always associated it with reassignment surgery. I guess that’s not necessary? It’s really confusing these days, and all of sudden became a huge issue for some.

      1. OK, here’s the deal with the surgery. There are a limited but growing number of surgeons and hospitals which do this. The surgery is expensive, and is often self-funded.

        Every surgical program I’ve heard of requires that you live as your new gender for a period (at least six months, IIRC, but might be longer) before they will do surgery on you which is indeed prudent but also creates the issue of people with male genitalia using the women’s restroom, etc.

        M2F surgery (vaginoplasty) yields fairly good results both aesthetically and functionally. F2M surgery (phalloplasty) is much rarer since the results neither look good nor function well. F2Ms do get mastectomies but often pass on further surgery; the hormones do cause the clitoris to enlarge which is called a micropenis.

        1. That seems longer than 140 characters, and therefore I am outraged.

      2. Just about all sex-dimorphic traits exist in nature not as a binary, but along a M/F spectrum. And in humans (& most other such organisms studied), they don’t necessarily develop synchronized at all. So, we might find a tall, muscular, hairy man and a short, muscular hairy man – the traits don’t have to go together. It’s the same with trans people, as they are medically speaking just at one extreme, with traits that are not only mixed like everyone else, but some of which actually developed on the other end of the spectrum. The most simplified example is the brain and genitals; they develop M or F at different times in utero, and are triggered by different signals.

  2. The pro LGBT community has not been able to define transgender so that it excludes those that they call “pretending to be” transgender or thers they don’t want included.

    1. I’m not sure why gays, lesbians and bisexuals should be involved in defining transgender in the first place.

      Wouldn’t it be nice if people could just do their thing without insisting on a universally accepted name for it?

      1. Wouldn’t it be nice if people could just do their thing without insisting on a universally accepted name for it?

        And just go with LGB? You othering monster!

        /2005

      2. I agree with you Zeb.

      3. Because even all together they don’t have an actual voting bloc with any meaningful national power, and even if they did how does one create a political ideology or voting pattern out of what holes you like to put things into, or rub together, or whatever. That isn’t policy, it’s life style.

        They’re used as a stand-in for the eternal Democratic division politics. This is why people think there are so many more of them than there actually are. If people really realized how few there are in this group, in total, they might begin to question all these expansions of government power that would more efficiently be done through a reduction of power. (I.E. no government marriage licensing instead of more.)

        Nobody gives a fuck about the actual people, they only care about the perception of themselves as caring about the group. This is an important distinction to keep in mind.

      4. A: Because gays, lesbians and bisexuals are technically speaking just really, really specialized examples of transgender people (taken at it’s most broad definition). They both have a common biological origin, being of mixed sex brain (and a few other features, such as endocrine system & others) development. Also, they have a statistically high degree of overlap.

  3. “It’s just another reminder that trans issues aren’t just not a top priority for many Americans?in some cases, they’re not on the radar at all.”

    I care just enough about not caring to comment.

    1. It’s not that I don’t disagree, it’s that I don’t not agree to not that.

    2. Most men don’t care much about it other than social swaggering, so don’t feel bad about it. It’s all based on misogyny, anyway…

      < / SJW off

  4. It seems pretty simple. Pull your pants down and look in the mirror. If you have boy-parts, you are a man. If you have girl parts, you are a woman. Fuck whoever will have you, fantasize about whoever you want, dress up as you please. That doesn’t change your actual gender. And if you think this ends with Trans people, you are really naive.

    As soon as the Trannies get their pony, expect to hear from the Twin Spirits and Genderfucks. The future of restrooms is a row of 12 Honey Buckets on the street, 2 of which will be legal for a man who identifies as a man to use.

    1. You truly are the last American Hero.

      What I want to know is what bathroom does the Trannie who identifies as another Trannies Pony use? Also, can I get a surgery to become a pony, and if so do I still need to pay taxes?

      1. I’m always reminded of the woman who self-identifies as a cat. Well public litter boxes be state mandated?

  5. Yahweh has been pretty clear about this.

  6. It’s not that I’m confused; it’s that I just don’t care.

    1. If you (say) run a business with bathrooms in it, you better start caring.

      1. Imagine how many places of work will now have a single toilet.

      2. How many businesses even let people use their bathrooms these days? I know that at my parents business that they’ve run for over 35 years they have one bathroom, and everyone uses that one bathroom. One at a time unless they’re a child.

        Seems to have worked pretty fucking well for almost the entire time I’ve been alive.

    2. so much this

    3. You’ll care when that woman is peering over the urinal stall. And you’ll like it.

  7. Here’s a question for anyone wishing to answer it:

    Is the human species actually becoming more biologically diverse or are people becoming more decadent as a result of the near nonexistence of existential threats?

    1. B.

      Unless you count the greater preservation of people with genetic diseases as increased diversity. (ie people that would have died younger with less care)

      1. That’s something I’ve tried to discuss with my wife, the preservation of diseases through treatment. Unfortunately it mostly goes over her head and I get the noncommittal nod before she just walks away.

        1. It’s called dysgenics and it’s all about studying the factors that result in the accumulation of defective or undesirable genes. The welfare state is one such factor. There was a time when reproductive success was tied to economic success, whereas now the laziest, stupidest and least able people breed the most because they’re lack of ability and drive is not only no longer a detriment to reproductive success, but that lack of ability and drive is actively subsidized by the state. It doesn’t take long for a population to transition from relatively K selected to relatively R selected and the state is doing everything in it’s power to make it happen.

          1. It doesn’t take long for a population to transition from relatively K selected to relatively R selected

            But the time for that to yield evolutionary changes of any significance is measured in eons.

            Genetic evolution is nothing but the testing of information (our DNA) and passing successful information to the next tester (our children). It is an extremely inferior method of passing information and testing its usefulness. Thankfully, we have developed a new mechanism. Instead of passing the information our kids need to assemble chitinous exoskeletons from their diet, we pass the information to create kevlar and titanium-oxide ceramic plates from our environment.

            We continue to evolve, but the mechanism of evolution has stopped existing in our DNA, and has instead transitioned to our minds. And while we have largely “broken” the mechanisms for testing genetic information, that is because our new method is far more superior. Unfortunately, evolution works for everybody- not just “good” humans. Parasites have evolved and whether we counter or succumb to them will forever depend on which has evolved the most successful strategy for the existing environment.

            1. But the time for that to yield evolutionary changes of any significance is measured in eons

              Isn’t the mutation that allows some people to breakdown lactose on the order of just 10,000 years old? And I think the high-altitude mutation for the Tibetans is even more recent.

              1. There is more than one theory of evolution, just for starters.

              2. Yeah, I was thinking measured in spans of 10,000 years, and used eons. You are right. But again, in the time that tibetans evolved their adaptations to high altitude, they have also evolved the ability to fly, kill animals from 600 yards, create textiles that keep them warm, etc etc.

                Evolution is happening, it is just happening faster than their DNA can evolve. So the majority of their adaptations are in the form of technology and culture.

          2. Ideocracy was not a comedy, but a glimpse of the future, scro.

    2. More decadent.

      1/3 of a percent of a population is a tiny minority. Unless they have an extreme advantage (and from a reproductive standpoint, it seems they have a disadvantage), they aren’t likely to take over the gene pool.

      It’s exactly as you said. People in the western world have basically no threats to their daily lives. It’s hard to say whether any of our ancestors would have even had time to consider whether or not they were comfortable with their genitalia.

      1. Typical ancestor thought about genitalia:

        Did my genitalia fall off today? No? Good.

        1. Did my genitalia fall off today? No? Good.

          No? What’s your secret?

          1. Liberal amounts of talcum powder

      2. Consider this then: does comfort stop evolution? I think most would agree that the main function of evolution is adaptation to adverse situations. The more adverse, the greater the necessary change. But when adverse situations essentially disappear, as has happened for the majority of humans, does evolution necessarily stop?

        1. We’re still adapting and mutating. There’s just not as much natural selection.

          1. And given that, adapting to what? It’s possible that some are just blindly charging forward until they hit an adversity that will force an evolutionary adaptation, I suppose.

            1. Diet, sleep cycles, modern civilization in general, or as SF observed, comfort itself.

              1. Lee, people in the West don’t fail to breed because they have poor sleep. They don’t fail to breed because they’re unemployed. They don’t have their children starve just because they have no money. We’re not evolving towards any of those things.

            2. There’s little negative selection pressure now, but a huge positive one: people who have the most babies at the youngest age will continue to grow their share of the population as long as catastrophe doesn’t strike

              1. There is plenty of negative pressure. I grant you that our current evolutionary environment has led to plenty of parasites. However, by and large, a vast majority of our country participates in an ecosystem built on mutual benefit. Yes, there are some- politicians, warlords and rent-seekers who have evolved as parasites in our ecosystem, but no ecosystem was ever destroyed by a parasite as far as I can tell. Parasites that completely kill their host, or take too many resources for that host to thrive, will be less successful.

                I think most of Europe is an eco-system dominated and run by parasites, but do you for a minute think the average european is worse off than his nearly genetically identical ancestor 80 years ago? Yeah, 1/2 of his production goes into the pockets of parasites, but the remaining 50% makes him more successful in the evolution view.

                1. There is plenty of negative pressure

                  Where? Point to the children literally starving to death in this country. If you can fuck, find someone who will fuck you, and the two of you are not infertile, you can have children that will get everything they need to grow to sexually mature adults from somewhere, even if you can’t afford it

                  1. Once we’re allowed to manipulate our own genome, we shall stick our finger in God’s eye and laugh.

                    At least for a minute. Possible extinction may follow, but hopefully a new and improved version of man emerges. It’s pretty inevitable, honestly, but the results are not.

                    1. The possible futures for humanity that do not include manipulation of our genes are pretty bleak. Civilizational collapse or forced negative eugenics

                    2. If for no other reason, it’s because mankind will eventually hit a wall that our minds can not overcome on their own. Ironically, our minds could still give us the answer: a new mind.

          2. If there is little natural selection going on, then there is little adaptation ( from a species evolutionary standpoint) happening. The mutations pile up and there is no weeding out bad ones or selecting for good ones.

        2. No. Comfort has its own selection pressures. Falling birth rates, for example.

          1. Do you think obesity will eventually work itself out as people finally adjust to not needing to fight for food? Maybe more people starting their own gardens is a sign of that?

        3. No. Evolution isn’t really driven by anything. It’s essentially a stochastic, random sampling. What “evolutionary pressures” do is cull the herd. In the absence of pressures, evolution still continues. It just doesn’t necessarily produce more desirable traits. Just more traits.

          I see where you’re coming from. Maybe I should rephrase my earlier post as “yes more diverse (if transgenderism is genetic, which who the fuck knows), no not more useful traits”…

          1. That’s essentially what I’m getting at. Traits may not be useful, but if they don’t cause extinction then they’ll just keep on going. It would be interesting to see if the changes become great enough to define a new subspecies.

            1. Plenty of human subspecies out there already, you know

          2. In the absence of pressures, evolution still continues.

            Again, this depends on the literal and figurative definition of evolution.

            Increased diversity isn’t the same thing as diversification the same way simply progressing through time isn’t development. Much the same way, with information theory, it doesn’t matter how much info you cram into one end of the signal/pipe if none comes out the other (or it comes out but produces no discernible change).

            One species of a hundred colors and a hundred species that differ only in color is a moot differentiation if the next developmental bottleneck kills each and every individual.

          3. Just to note, it’s been known for over 40 years (starting with R.Green, 1970) that statistically there is a strong genetic component. More recently (last 20 years) the fetal neurological development processes and the gene expressions involved have been identified. However, it has also been determined that it is not strictly a genetically determined trait, as influences such as fetal hormonal environment strongly influence the triggers.

        4. does comfort stop evolution?

          No. Literally not dying stops evolution in the literal sense, figuratively ceasing to die stops evolution in the figurative sense, but figurative evolution is still dependent on literal evolution.

          1. Are you sure? Evolution is based on creating offspring that may or may not survive better than other offspring. As such strictly speaking not dying is irrelevant; not reproducing is highly relevant. They just happen to correlate highly when the person dies. 😉

      3. Yet some Native American cultures, for whom survival was always an issue, already had that transgendered thing figured out before Columbus. So it’s not just a modern, secure, white-people problem.

        1. Yes, like most pre-modern societies, they had it “figured out” in this way: Femaleness is the absence of maleness. To be a man is a privilege. That privilege is earned by holding the thoughts and feelings, and displaying the behaviors, demanded of a man. Someone born with male parts who fails to meet those standards might fail to be promoted to Man and be considered a woman. In many societies, such a boy would be castrated, being undeserving of male genitalia. A man can lose his status as a man by displaying womanliness and be demoted to woman.

          This idea, that only a certain way of thinking, feeling, and acting is tolerable in a man, and that anyone who deviates from it must not be a man, is called “sexism”. It is the idea behind male-to-female transsexualism. MtoF “transgenders” have internalized sexism to the point where they are extremely distressed that their thoughts and feeling do not align with what is appropriate for someone with a male body. Often, they seek the old-fashioned remedy of castration, though modern medicine has added refinements with cosmetic surgery and hormone treatments.

          So, no, it’s not just a modern problem, but it is one I would have hoped we could grow out of, having accepted that there are no thoughts, feelings, or behaviors unacceptable for persons of either sex.

          The country with the highest rate of MtoF “sex change” surgeries is Iran. Think about that.

          1. Doesn’t Iran essentially force people to have these operations? That’s one way to do things, I guess, but it seems rather like the castration of yore than any amount of progress. Which, I suppose, is your point of course.

            1. Yes, that is my point. “Gender identity” is just the same old sexism with a new logo. “Transitioning” is the most extreme form of acquiescence to sexism.

        2. And, they are mentioned in the Bibles (both Hebrew and Christian) and well documented in Roman records of the era.

      1. In this case, they would be smaller than black people problems.

        1. Speak for yourself.

    3. I think there is a third option. People are hiding their peculiarities less than they used to. Which might be tied to decadence a bit.

      1. The peculiarity now has some political power. There will be some, certainly not all, who proclaim to be peculiar simply because of the attention and moral high ground it brings.

        I find it similar to the holier than thou syndrome so commonly found in church.

    4. Pretty sure the answer is neither.

      Whatever you’re thinking of when you use teh word “decadent”, the truth is that people already did it, with gusto, and have been for thousands of years. The only difference now is that people are honest about it.

  8. Both government and private-sector researchers have been trying to improve their methods of measuring the number of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people?not to mention the increasing cadre of mostly young people who identify as something else altogether, like “genderfluid” or “non-binary.”

    Why? The government now apparently has some skin in this game somehow because of restrooms. I can understand psychologists or other academic disciplines having some interest. But why in hell would private businesses care? Except for a few very niche companies, why would a corporation consider blowing research money on 0.33% of the population? There’s no way that’s going to pay dividends. For now, companies acting as activists in this area are actually getting hurt (just ask Target, although they blame their profit declines on “climate change”).

    1. But why in hell would private businesses care?

      If you’re being made to “open your bathrooms so transgendered can use the facility of their choice” I would think that identifying the transgendered would be priority fucking one.

    2. I don’t like the government collecting that kind of data. I always lie on all the census demographic questions because all they need to know is how many people live where.

      1. You have a physician, medical insurance policy (a corporation), medical health and RX history, no?

        If you have even one of those three, both the Bid Government and Big Medical has now (and had for LONG time) all your statistical information and made use of it for a long time.

        Also, because Obamacare *MANDATES* recognition of, “Gender Dysphoria/Gender Identity Disorder,” as pre-existing conditions. As of May 13, 2016, Sylvia Burwell clarified a number of issues, but the specific and discrete delineation of, “biological sex,” (i.e. male == XY; Female == XX) v. “gender/gender identity” (i.e. Masculine role v. Feminine role):

        While the final rule does not resolve whether discrimination on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation status alone is a form of sex discrimination under Section 1557, the rule makes clear that OCR will evaluate complaints that allege sex discrimination related to an individual’s sexual orientation to determine if they involve the sorts of stereotyping that can be addressed under 1557. HHS supports prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination as a matter of policy and will continue to monitor legal developments on this issue.

        (emphasis mine)

        1. Addendum: Basically, “gender,” is this context is replaced by, “sexual orientation,” [most commonly associated with choice of coital parter(s), i.e. Heterosexual coitus, Homosexual coitus, Bisexual coitus, and Pansexual (including zoosexual/bestiality) coitus].

          More muddying of the waters, by design.

          In short, when the USA get Single Payer, Medicare-for-All, all of this will legimised and covered by whatever insurance scheme exists. (I think mandated coverage of this will get here much sooner).

          1. I’m pretty sure they already passed single payer insurance. The only people that don’t pay into the system are the poor who qualify for Medicaid. (Consider that if you don’t have insurance you’re still paying into the system through the ‘penaltax’.)

            The only difference is that the left can’t call it single payer because, if they did, it would be an admission that it’s a failure. They need some shining city on a hill that’s always unreachable or their policies will be revealed for what they are; failures.

            You can not give universal access to a highly limited good; it is impossible. It’s like legislating that the moon should be green or the sky should have zebra stripes. Accepting that it is possible to do so is accepting the absurd as truth.

            1. Two problems with this:

              1) True “Single Payer” is defined as exactly one biller and provider, i.e. CHS (Canada). Even though Britain is not quite a true “Single Payer” (it does allow for private surgeries and insurance coverage, though prohibitively expensive for all the but richest people), it does mandate which Primary Surgery to where a patient reports, and allows for “access” to *ANY* service offered. Assuming one survives queue to make it to the service provider. Which brings me to….

              2) The only true representation of this “Single Payer” paradigm in the USA is the Veteran’s Administration; while they now pay for these reassignment surgeries now, both for current enlistees and eligible dischargees, as well as any other service, one has to literally survive navigating the system to tangibly realise these benefits.

              The USA still has yet to realise full implementation of either 1) or 2); Both my wife and I practice medicine in UKR (she’s a national and I’m an expat). We know of what we speak.

    3. “private-sector researchers”

      “Why?…Except for a few very niche companies, why would a corporation consider blowing research money on 0.33% of the population?”

      Do you even UNDERSTAND how the Free Motherfucking Market works?? There are people out there interested in this subject. They aren’t large in number, but there’s enough to create a /demand/ for such research. As a result, some private organizations seek to capitalize off of the demand by providing the service. Basic economics.

      0.33% is not large, sure. But the market don’t care. Based on estimates about the number of players, around 0.007% of people play Dungeons and Dragons, yet that’s still big enough to justify both demand and a market in that particular game. The market caters to people’s demands, that’s the beauty of the system.

      1. Pretty sure the only fucks private enterprise gives about them is how much cash is in their wallet and not necessarily where they like to stick their wallet for pleasure. Although if they have money in said wallet, they will be interested in where they like it to be jammed and will offer to jam it there themselves, possibly at a 20% discount.

  9. When the researchers dug further, asking the respondents who initially answered that they were transgender how they would define the term, quite a few of them gave answers that Barlas and her team deemed “incorrect.”

    Maaan we just keep dancing around the point. We just keep doin’ it. This is almost becoming the subject that no one will directly address. Would be nice if they’d combine two of these posts together:

    “Transgender bathroom use and who counts as Transgender”

  10. Transgender means whatever they want it to mean. If people can legally demand to be referred to by an arbitrary pronoun, then they can legally demand to be referred to as transgender, black, wolf-hybrid, etc…

    We’ve gone full on deconstructionist in the personal identity arena.

    1. The optimist in me wants to say that’s a good thing. All this identity stuff is just poisonous. Maybe it will become so meaningless as to become useless as a political weapon. If everyone can identify their own race, gender, etc. then anti-discrimination laws become meaningless and practically useless.

      A man can dream.

    2. I will henceforth demand to be referred to as “Scarlett Johanssen’s Fuck-Buddy” and insist on all the rights and privileges that go along with the title.

      Anyone want to guess how far I’ll get with that?

      1. You might run into the problem of the 400 lbs. German Shepard that self identifies as Scarlett Johanssen.

        1. You know who else had a 400 lb. German Shepard?

  11. Measuring the number of LGBT Americans is a challenge.

    Well to start with we could stop lumping them in with the lesbians, gays, and bisexuals as which set of genitals you prefer to rub up against is a completely different thing than which set you’d prefer to have.

    1. None of the letters of the alphabet really get along except to the extent that they are each “not normal” in some way. They will briefly coalesce when it is convenient to do so but most of the time it’s each man/woman/other for themself.

    2. Well to start with we could stop lumping them in with the lesbians, gays, and bisexuals as which set of genitals you prefer to rub up against is a completely different thing than which set you’d prefer to have.

      Is a gay tranny like a circular reference error in Excel or something?

      Personally, I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body and I see no accommodating legislation.

      1. No, but being gay and being a tranny are two distinct things that aren’t related to each other.

        So I don’t know why anyone would bring up homo/bisexuality alongside transgenderism – certainly not without bringing in *heterosexuality* as well as its just a related.

        Even being ‘genderfluid’ has nothing to do with your sexual preferences. One day you feel like a man, one day a woman, BUT . . . if one day you prefer men and the other day women as sexual partners – you’re bisexual. And you’d be bisexual even if adhered to a fixed gender identity (no matter what that gender may be).

        1. No, but being gay and being a tranny are two distinct things that aren’t related to each other.

          The words “two distinct things” carry less and less weight in any discussion about sexuality.

    3. That’s step 2. Step 1 is convincing me to give a fuck.

      1. And then, PROFIT!

    4. Especially with lesbians being all pissed off about the women who want to stick their penises in them

  12. the increasing cadre of mostly young people who identify as something else altogether, like “genderfluid” or “non-binary.”

    “Special snowflake” is the term we used to use back in the day. Look, stop labeling everything just to stake out your own identity-politics reservation and just be a human being like most of the rest of us.

    1. I think L, G, B, and T are things but everything after that is just trolling.

      1. Yeah, didn’t we have this discussion a while back, didn’t someone add an ‘I’?

        Yeah, LGBTQI?

        1. Okay, I is a thing too.

        2. “I” stands for “Intersex”.

        3. I miss GLBT, because I could pronounce that other than as an initialism. I don’t think I ever understood what “queer” was supposed to add to it.

      2. And another thing, we do we separate Lesbian and Gay?

        Does Gayness have an inherent sex?

        1. Its the (L)esbians man. They hate men, gay men most of all.

          1. Its the (L)esbians man. They hate men, gay men most of all.

            That’s a gross stereotype. My sister is a lesbian and has tons of gay male friends. To be fair, there are more than a few butch dykes that resent men, especially straight men, but I wouldn’t say they hate men.

            1. Is she a (l)esbian or a (L)esbian.

              Its like the difference between libertarians and Libertarians.

              The former are just women who like women, the latter are *activists*.

              1. (l), but a bit of an (L) in her undergrad years.

          2. Pretty sure they hate the MtF transsexuals who want to stick their penises in them more.

        2. Are you subjecting Lesbianism to erasure? Or Erasure?

        3. That one’s a little weird. I hear “gay” applied to women often enough. Yet LG persists.

          1. I think I had one of their flip phones a few years ago.

        4. Because, for good or ill, when you use gender-neutral terms in America, most people default to male. This is less true now then it used to be, but it’s still there.

          So the “L” got called out, explicitly, to make sure the women weren’t forgotten. It’s also why the acronym (sometime in the 80s or 90s I think) got swapped from GLBT to LGBT.

      3. I demand the entire QUILTBAG!

  13. The “thing that wasn’t even on the radar becoming the next Social Justice Crusade” strategy worked well enough for gay marriage; why wouldn’t the left go back to that well?

    1. I keep thinking that this whole “let’s not think about real, actual problems that we have” (not referring to gay marriage, that was a legitimate beef) thing is going to burn out once it hits a certain level of ridiculousness.

    2. Tou do know that there this was coming in bits and pieces for the last decade, right? Individual schools being pushed by parents to let their kid use the right restroom, use the right pro-nouns, and so-on. Not any sort of big organized thing, just individuals doing what they thought was best for their families.

      That’s how cases on this stuff ended up in court, why there is now precedent for Obama’s executive order, and so-on.

      No big gay conspiracy, just individuals trying to do what’s best for them and theirs.

      1. I wonder why we couldn’t just get rid of the government saying who can, and who can not, get married?

        Oh, right! Because then everyone would be equal. Can’t have that, then who would we prod for votes?

        1. Because there are courts, & they have to decide who is married.

  14. It’s just another reminder that trans issues aren’t just not a top priority for many Americans?in some cases, they’re not on the radar at all.

    That is not okay. You will care, and you will care about it the right way, which is the way we decide.

    *off to Twitter to gather group of outrage*

  15. The main problem a lot of people are having is that the transgender status is self-assigned and totally subjective, there are no positive or negative acts that define it. It makes the idea of woman and man/male and female a subjective state rather than one of objective reality.

    Things with no objective reality are called delusions in almost every other case. Or if enough people believe in them, religions. And this is the pushback. Transgendered people and their allies are demanding the way everyone else sees reality must be made subordinate to the way they see reality.

    Calling someone by a preferred pronoun is just civility–an individual can extend it or not, but when ideas like “The penis can be a female organ,” or “He had nowhere to throw away his used tampons,” become cant, you impinge on people’s metaphysical certainty of a consensual reality through empiricism and they dismiss transfolk and allies as other people that think like that, namely the insane or mentally damaged.

    1. Nicely summarized.

      1. Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston’s Children’s Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous?even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.

        At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. “Sex change” is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.

        Dr. McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, is the author of “Try to Remember: Psychiatry’s Clash Over Meaning, Memory, and Mind” (Dana Press, 2008).

        1. This is from an article in the WSJ. If you paste some of the text in a Google search, the link provided will sneak past the paywall (Ann Althouse taught us that). It a very well written piece.

        2. , these medical interventions come close to child abuse

          Close to???

          1. Close to ??? is right. When is a medical atrocity committed against a child NOT abuse?

            1. When it’s considered the norm by the majority of people in said culture.

              RE: circumcision et. al.

              1. Fuck cultural relativism.

        3. But sex roles are just that, roles. You can assume different roles in life as you can in a play. You don’t need drugs or surgery to do that.

    2. Perhaps a future president can create an Office of Gender Management (I tried mightily to make the initials ‘OMG’) and a team of experts graduating from elite universities can create a set of guidelines, and then you will be issued a Certificate of Gender by the OGM- after an appropriate application process.

      Upon entering the facility of your choice, you can present this Certificate to any officials demanding it. Either that, or some convenient symbol sewn onto your lapel may easily identify you without the formality of having to present your papers when you’re in a hurry to make a number two.

      Only then will we be truly free.

      1. You know who else liked to sew things onto….

        ah screw it

      2. And you didn’t come up with Office of Managing Gender?

      3. You’re trying for hyperbole here, but you should know that it’s possible to have your transition recognized in government documents. States do it differently, but if you’re not in some backwards place like North Carolina or Tennesee, you can go to court, with statements from your doctors, and get a new birth certificate issues. From there you update your driver’s license, passport, and so-on.

        I swear, if you’re going to mock something, you should at least make sure you know enough to mock it *right*.

        1. Is it even possible to use parody or hyperbole when talking about a subject like this? In and of itself it’s already both of those things, so anything you try to use as an example of how ridiculous it is has already actually been done.

    3. It makes the idea of woman and man/male and female a subjective state rather than one of objective reality.

      Until it collapses on one’s genitals, one cannot precisely describe gender of the satisfying compartment. In quantum physics, this is known as Schroedinger’s Other Box and was empirically proven in the famous Double Slit Airport Bathroom experiments.

      1. Until it collapses on one’s genitals

        And man, does that hurt.

      2. You make a hole in a box
        Then you put your gender in that box
        Then you make society open that box

      3. “Until it collapses on one’s genitals”

        i remember an article here a while ago, where a transgender was angry, because the TSA agents were trying to get “her” to admit to being a man…….. so they would be able to verify that was a penis on the body scanner.

  16. No more confused than understanding the difference between biology and sociology.

  17. Exactly how many Americans identify as a different gender than the one they were labeled as at birth? In fact, no one knows.

    Saying “no one knows” doesn’t mean there aren’t reliable estimates which are consistent with empirical observations.

    You’d think if you’re going to do a piece on the topic, you’d look further than a few recent polls. There have been a half dozen articles on the subject in major newspapers over the last few years, all of which cited a wider range of methods used.

    I can’t find the link at the moment, but a few of the above-mentioned pieces linked to a European (*Swedish?) study which compiled data on “Sex-Reassignment Surgery Completed” across a range of countries, added to “reassignment requested” but either not yet conducted or not yet approved.

    Their numbers also ended up in a range of 0.3-.5% of the population.

    (*i also think – but can’t recall – they also ’rounded up’ to account for a number of people who actually live as their chosen gender but never pursued any reassignment – which typically requires visits to therapists prior to the procedures being approved AFAIK)

    I think it is unlikely that more-accurate methods would reveal a far-larger population than the ‘fraction of a percent’ others have shown.

    Also maybe relevant = Americans Greatly Overestimate Percent Gay, Lesbian in U.S.

    1. What did I miss? When did ‘transgender’ revert way, way back to ‘sex reassignment surgery completed’? I thought the entire POINT of this hysterical panic was that transgender was how the individual identified hxself.

    2. Also – the study (which i’m still looking for) was fairly particular about defining their population as =

      “Pre-Op” + “Post Op” + “Living as Other-Gender”

      There was none of this open-ended “gender-fluid” b.s., where they’re polling Tumblr teens on what they feel like today. The problem with all the stories i’ve seen trying to “quantify” the population is that they feel compelled to throw in this gigantic “BUT” which suggests ‘hey the definition is constantly changing!”. It shouldn’t be.

      This isn’t what i was looking for, but i believe it references it in the (page 10) list of other recent studies of the Trans population = “”(c) recent data gathered in the Transgender Eurostudy and the AIAU survey. “”

      1. “Living as Other-Gender”

        There was none of this open-ended “gender-fluid” b.s., where they’re polling Tumblr teens on what they feel like today.

        But that’s just it. Define “living as Other-Gender”.

        1. Define “living as Other-Gender”.

          People who actually live 100% of the time as their identified gender. Not your weekend transvestites.

          In poorer countries where sex-reassignment is basically ‘not an option’, this is pretty much the norm.

          *there were some interesting stories i recall reading about from the early 20th century… where a man discovered on the death of his wife for 40+ years that she was, in fact, a man.

          It still happens

          1. People who actually live 100% of the time as their identified gender. Not your weekend transvestites.

            Identified how?

            Sorry, so I don’t come off as being difficult, I’m leading you down the primrose path here on purpose.

            If you and I can wink and nudge each other and “understand” or “know” which behaviors contain the correct ‘sex’ or ‘gender’ markers– ie, this behavior, hairstyle, hand movement, footwear etc, are “female” that’s fine for conversation purposes. But is it fine for policy purposes?

            1. But is it fine for policy purposes?

              It’s great for an election year wedge issue.

            2. If you and I can wink and nudge each other and “understand” or “know” which behaviors contain the correct ‘sex’ or ‘gender’ markers– ie, this behavior, hairstyle, hand movement, footwear etc, are “female” that’s fine for conversation purposes. But is it fine for policy purposes?

              Look, the question at hand was “How many people are transgender

              Answering that question first requires defining who is included.

              There is bound to be some fuzziness on the boundaries because of the already-noted various stages people will be in as regards their ‘transition’. So the goal should be to try and make the definition as measurable as possible, while leaving open some (no pun intended) +/- ‘wiggle room’

              What that means, or whether there should be any ‘policy’ about it at all is a separate issue entirely as far as i’m concerned.

            3. “identified how?”
              Same way you get common-law married in places where it’s still legal.

              You say you are, consistently over a period of time, and don’t backtrack. This isn’t hard.

              1. Same way you get common-law married in places where it’s still legal.

                You say you are, consistently over a period of time, and don’t backtrack. This isn’t hard.

                Really? So the state will decide if you’re common-law male or female? Even if you don’t want to be? And by the way, that’s not exactly how common law marriage works. The state can find you common law married, even if you don’t want to be.

                If you’re comfortable with that, I’m good too.

    3. “That seemed high compared to previous estimates; the leading expert on measuring the GLBT community, UCLA’s Gary Gates, for example, guesses that trans people make up more like one-third of a percent of the population.”

      ?\_(?)_/?

  18. Exactly how many Americans identify as a different gender than the one they were labeled as at birth?

    Sure, they were just arbitrarily “labeled” with a gender at birth, it had nothing to do with biological reality.
    Jesus Tittyfucking Christ.

    1. Your penis is a social construct.

      1. It is pretty social.

  19. It seems to me that if you want people to think you’re female you should dress like one and use the women’s bathroom (the fact that they have stalls in those sort of ensures privacy, doesn’t it?).

    It seems to me that if you want people to think you’re male you should dress like one and use the men’s bathroom (you should probably use a stall, but, whatever).

    If you don’t make a blatant display, I’m wondering how the fuck anyone would ever know. Somehow I think this is not about privacy or comfort, it’s about making blatant displays and then feeling victimized.

    As to how to handle this in schools, somehow it seems to me that considering what shits teenage boys and girls are to anyone who is socially different, somehow which crapper you use is probably the least of your worries. IOW, if all the “right” kids know you’re gay or trans or WTF, your life’s already a misery.

    1. What does a woman dress like?

      Like this?

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/ veiled-women-in-saudi-arabia/3034814

      Like this?

      https://i2.wp.com/24.media.tumblr.com/ tumblr_m9sl4m0QTs1r5h9aoo1_500.jpg

      1. Like this?

        http://assets.rebelcircus.com/…..tume-2.jpg

        Like this? (NSFW – Nat’l Geo)

        http://www.ryanpaul.ca/wp-cont…..25×300.jpg

      2. I think you’re missing Isaac’s larger point. So I’ll make it differently:

        You can’t declare a bathroom (or any facility) open people of their birth sex OR Transgender people. You declare them unisex, full stop. If continue to insist that “No, we’re not making them unisex, we’re demanding the owner of the facility accommodate transgender people as a unique group” then you MUST come up with some metric to identify them. One country has. I suspect we’re next.

        1. Except that’s not what he’s saying – he’s saying that if you dress like a woman, nobody should even notice if you’re a man or not. Except that there is no ‘dress like a woman’ as that’s something that has varied wildly across this country since long before this transgender stuff.

          And these laws are not proposing you treat trangenders to *separate* accommodations but that you must allow them to use the facilities of their choice. There’s no need for a metric – you’re just going to have to trust them (and the straights).

          1. This already happens to an extent – women are not shy about using the ‘men’s’ restrooms at large events where the line to the women’s is excessively long.

          2. Men can already dress up as women to infiltrate – undoubtedly some do and some have been caught doing things like placing cameras in stalls. Personally, I would find the latter far more upsetting that the idea that a dude is in the next stall over. Its not like women run around in their underwear inside the Target restrooms.

          3. Given that people can already sneak into opposite sex bathrooms and so few do, coupled with the fact that transgenderism has (right now) significant stigma attached to it, I actually expect the majority of people to act like courteous adults who consider sneaking a peak at people in various states of undress to be a pretty shitty thing to do.

          1. I focused on this statement:

            If you don’t make a blatant display, I’m wondering how the fuck anyone would ever know. Somehow I think this is not about privacy or comfort, it’s about making blatant displays and then feeling victimized.

            They won’t. Which leads to:

            And these laws are not proposing you treat trangenders to *separate* accommodations but that you must allow them to use the facilities of their choice. There’s no need for a metric – you’re just going to have to trust them (and the straights).

            What do you mean “trust”? Trust that they’re telling the truth about their identity? Again, we’re right back to where we started. If that’s how the policy is to be applied (which no one anywhere in the administration has indicated) then the bathrooms are Unisex. Full stop. It’s not a question of trust. Because if we’re doing it based on trust, then that logically presumes that trust can be violated.

            There are ONLY three ways to deal with this.

            1. Leave things the way they are– which addresses your #3
            2. Declare all facilities Unisex.
            3. Create an identification metric for the so-called Transgendered.

            1. Except that doesn’t happen.

              There are no-shit years-long examples of places (schools, cities, states) that allow trans folk to use their preferred restroom, and none of what you predict happens.

              Boys use the boysroom. Girls use the girlsroom. It just happens to be that some of the boys are transboys, and some of the girls are transgirls. Your fears have not come to pass.

              1. What fears? My fear of the government demanding a pink star of David to positively identify Trans people not coming to pass?

                If that’s what you mean by “my fears”, you’d be wrong.

                Someone, somewhere decided that this problem was so critical that they needed to legally and positively identify transgender people, with a bureaucrat who can declare your identity ‘so’ or ‘not so’ with complete and final authority.

                If by “fears” you mean that I fear pervs are going to be spying on the girls, you’ve entirely misunderstood my position.

              2. Boys use the boysroom. Girls use the girlsroom. It just happens to be that some of the boys are transboys, and some of the girls are transgirls. Your fears have not come to pass.

                And by the way, this description falls squarely into #1.

          2. And these laws are not proposing you treat trangenders to *separate* accommodations but that you must allow them to use the facilities of their choice.

            I should add that I know that. However, 100% of the wording that I’ve been treated through by the news media and communications from the administration is that the bathrooms can be used by people of their assigned sex AND by Transgendered peoples’ identified sex.

            That wording directly implies that the policy is NOT unisex, but somehow compartmentalized around transgendered people.

            1. Then ultimately its a matter of semantics – passage of this is de-facto forcing all restrooms to be unisex regardless of what’s on the door.

    2. For most adults it is that simple.

      For teens and college students and other people living/working/whatever-ing in places with a fair amount of sex-segregation? It becomes more problematic. Especially when your state isn’t accomodating and makes it difficult (and costly) to get new government ID with the right markers.

      But in case you haven’t noticed, a lot of the problems have been around middle and high schools. In many of these cases, the kid will *start* transitioning while they’re in school, and everyone will know regardless of what you do. Even when the student body doesn’t know, the staff/faculty will almost always know (because you gave them a copy of your birth certificate when you enrolled, and as a kid that’s not going to be changed yet). And then we get cases where the one staff member that has a bone to pick with trans* folk existing harasses and outs the student (we’ve seen this numerous times).

      And so-on.

      In short, the ability of a teen to transition without people knowing is very limited.

  20. Exactly how many Americans identify as a different gender than the one they were labeled as at birth?

    I consider this to be begging the question.

    The evolution of the word gender has been grotesquely fascinating. Gender started out as a term for “sex”–as in biological–only used in grammar. After that, gender became a fancy $2 word for biological sex. Then gender was defined as a performance–a role that society forced you to play based on your biological sex–which meant that gender was just a context-dependent construct, malleable, maybe even just a neurosis to overcome. And now gender is something not only as innate as biological sex, but something so powerful that biological sex must be suborned to its will.

    1. Exactly. That’s why I took Agamammon to task above for forcefully correcting someone on the ‘incorrect use of terms’.

      1. While I like being forcefully corrected as the next red-blooded male, I must have been black-out drunk because I missed it.

        1. You were taking another poster to task and you were helpfully providing “correct terms”.

          https://reason.com/blog/2016/05…..nt_6149627

          Point being, it was but a mere 8 months ago that I knew the “correct terms” for the different types of Trans people.

          It’s all gone out the window– as Sugarfree correctly points out.

          1. OK, well I wasn’t actually correcting his use of terms, only that ‘gay’ has no effect on ‘tranny’. You can be a gay tranny, you can be a tranny, you can be gay but being one has no bearing on the other.

    2. Suge, you are killing it on this thread.

      And not in your usual way. Seriously, your comments are some of the best I’ve read, anywhere, about this topic.

      And far superior to SJW-infused bleatings of Robby & Co.

  21. Concerning this discussion:

    The witness, University of San Diego law professor Gail Heriot, lambasted the recent Departments of Justice and Education guidance on transgender students’ rights, declaring that “[i]f someone had said in 1972 that one day Title IX would be interpreted to force schools to allow anatomically intact boys who psychologically ‘identify’ as girls to use the girls’ locker room, he would have been greeted with hoots of laughter.” Heriot went on to dismiss trans students’ gender identities as “a fantasy,” asserting that, “I [am not] a great-horned owl just because, as I have been told, I happen to share some personality traits with those feathered creatures.”

    Lofgren wasn’t having any of it. She condemned Heriot’s transphobia, noted the disproportionately high rates of violence and discrimination that trans students suffer, and declared her objection that Heriot’s hateful comments ? many of which, by the way, are legally suspect in addition to unethical and bigoted ? were ever entered into the record to begin with.

    Then, over the objections of Republican Chairman King ? who demanded “civil” language from Lofgren but (of course) not from Heriot ? Lofgren declared:

    I think you’re a bigot lady. I think you’re an ignorant bigot.

    1. and declared her objection that Heriot’s hateful comments ? many of which, by the way, are legally suspect in addition to unethical and bigoted

      The patriarchal oppression of free speech.

      1. It’s no longer a veiled threat.

    2. Funny, if someone had said in 1971 that one day the War on Drugs would be interpreted to allow civil asset forfeiture, that no-knock raids would be the *standard* instead of a last-resort tactic, that the United States would put a larger percentage of its population in jail (for decades) than most communist dictatorships, he wold have been greeted with hoots of laughter.

      1. he wold have been greeted with hoots of laughter.

        While secretly emboldening government officials to enact it faster, because wow, what power!

  22. Exactly how many Americans identify as a different gender than the one they were labeled as at birth?

    Nobody assigned me a “gender” at birth. They recognized my sex. (In those days, “gender” was understood to be something that nouns and adjectives had (masculine, feminine, or neuter). If you’d told people about “gender” as understood by today’s gender theorists, they’d have told you they didn’t give a rat’s ass what gender I “identified” as, that all they cared about was my biological sex, and that it was my sex, not my “gender” that would determine what bathroom and locker room I used and what sports teams I was eligible for.

    1. That’s one of the major problems with the reporting on this subject.

      I can accept that gender and sex are separate (though I still believe they are linked or the whole ‘sex is gender’ thing wouldn’t be so prevalent throughout the world) but if that’s the premise you’re going with then you need to be consistent with it.

      You’re ‘labelled’ with a sex at birth based on your overt physical appearance – but there’s no labeling of *gender*, only an assumption that male=man, female=woman. Gender is a set of behaviors and roles and you can’t tell where a child is going to fall until its old enough to start displaying these behaviors.

      You can certainly influence that path, which is where I think the ‘gender is a social construct’ people start off from, but then they move on to assuming that because you can influence it it is *only* a social construct.

      1. Gender is a set of behaviors and roles and you can’t tell where a child is going to fall until its old enough to start displaying these behaviors.

        This still confuses me. Do these behaviors have innate sex? What are the roles for the female gender?

        1. No they don’t have an innate sex – which is why gender is separate and different from sex and culturally defined. There’s a lot of American women that would be considered waaaaay to masculine in other societies – because our currently defined gender roles aren’t no longer contain things that in other countries are considered explicitly masculine or feminine.

          1. You answer hasn’t helped me. You (and others say) that Gender is a set of behaviors and roles. I assume or infer that these behaviors and roles define gender. Can I get a list?

            1. Nope. Because the list varies by nation and even within nations and across time.

              1. Right, which makes the whole Transgender thing seem suspiciously like pornography. No one wants to define it, but we sure know it when we see it.

                Which is what concerns me deeply about the administration laying out executive orders on who gets to use which bathroom facilities, but they’re explicitly calling out “transgender” as a group.

  23. “Are people confused”

    Some are

    1. I don’t think they are. Truly confused people don’t talk about it that much in my experience.

      1. And, science being the wondrous invention that it is, the one’s that are truly confused by the empirical evidence usually have empirical evidence to confuse others with rather than relying on highly subjective ideas mixed with heretofore (un)known bullshit like identity spirits and gender fluids.

  24. [Q]uite a few of them gave answers that Barlas and her team deemed “incorrect.” Some knew, of course, that it signifies that a person’s gender identity differs from the sex on their original birth certificate. (That’s more or less right.) […] “Some [said] bi-sexual or intersex“.

    [Emphasis added]

    The need for a journalist familiar with the subject matter to insert a parenthetical “more or less” into part of an article more or less quoting researchers familiar with the subject matter speaks volumes, or possibly journals.

    For example, it’s possible that a person was born intersexed, that this was not correctly detected and recorded correctly at the time of birth, but shortly thereafter was observed and sexual assignment surgery was performed. If the person never perceived any disconnect between the assigned “gender”, and their “gender identity”, the base definition could make them be simultaneously cis- and trans- gendered (more or less, depending on definitions).

    1. This is helpful:

      David Reime
      r

  25. Li’l Miley Ray Cyrus identifies as “gender fluid”.

    1. I absolutely adore her tits.

    2. I absolutely adore her tits.

  26. I think one question we should ask – and ask loudly – is ‘where have these transgendered people been shitting all these years’?

    1. I think many people have been asking this question actually. And unfortunately the answer gives ammunition to people on both sides of the debate.

      1. The answer to that question is twofold. First, there are damn few actual transgender. Second, actual transgender have been and are living as the opposite sex without anyone noticing or knowing they are unless the person tells them.

        And I don’t think that answer helps both sides. It makes the pro transgender side even more absurd. If you truly believe you are the opposite sex, how would anyone know you were not unless you told them? Its not like they check your DNA or make you drop your pants to get into the bathroom. So why have these laws?

        1. And I don’t think that answer helps both sides.

          I disagree.

          So-cons: Where have they been shitting all these years? Somehow the nation’s bathroom regimen was fine eight months ago, why is this a crisis now?

          SJWs: The Transgendered have quietly suffered the indignity of using a bathroom which didn’t match their gender, and no one in society cared or even noticed this cruel treatment.

          1. If you don’t know, the there is no effect. But once you start requiring it and letting people sue, then you do know. That doesn’t undercut the SOCON argument at all. These laws and making this a civil rights crusade ends the otherwise harmless and stable situation.

            And my God, since when does “I don’t want to shower with men” make someone a SOCON? Seriously, what the hell does that have to do with SOCONs? I know a ton of people who are very socially liberal who think this shit is insane and don’t want their daughters showering with boys who think they are girls. Are those people now SOCONs?

            You guys have raped the word SOCON so badly that it now is just a stand in for “anyone who objects to the latest Prog bullshit that we are acting as toadies for”.

            1. You know, John, because “social liberals” keep shifting the ground under us.

        2. Because the situation is different for adults and teens.

          As an adult, you have a lot more autonomy over most things in your life.

          As a teen that’s not home-schooled, your school *will* know what your birth certificate says, and there’s always *someone* on the faculty that decides to be an ass about it.

          There’s a reason Obama’s executive order was for schools.

  27. This is pretty simple. Gender is a social construct and some people have an innate social construct that is different the one that was given to them at birth.

    1. Umm, how can a social construct be innate? I thought “social construct” meant “not innate”.

      1. I think you need to check your cis privilege to better understand (also sarcasm detector)

  28. Serious question, how many people on this board have ever personally known a full on trans? I haven’t. I have known a couple of people who were full on cross dressers but they were not trans. They didn’t actually think they were women.

    When you think about the numbers involved here, consider this. It is pretty reliably known that about 1.8% of the population is gay. And by gay I mean exclusively attracted to the same sex or in a long term relationship with someone of the same sex that they effectively are only attracted to the same sex even if they once had some attraction to the opposite sex. I don’t mean “made out with my roommate to make my boyfriend happy gay” or “I went to English male only boarding school” gay.

    So gays are 1.8% of the population. Everyone I know has known at least a few gay people in their lives. Think of all of the celebrities and athletes who have come out as gay over the last 15 or 20 years. Contrast that with the number of public figures who have come out as transgendered. Bruce Jenner, who apparently has decided to go back to being a man, and one of the nuts who made the Matrix are the only two I can think of and I am not entirely sure that the Matrix gay being transgendered isn’t an urban myth. Whatever the number, it is damn few. So if gays are 1.8% of the population and still pretty much everyone knows someone who is gay and a large number of public figures are known to be gay, how tiny must the number of transgendered be?

    1. I knew a “guy” who was halfway thru the process to female, but not the important half yet. This was back in the 90’s, so I have no doubts of his commitment to it given the social cost.

      I’ve known far more gay men than any of the other categories.

      1. It is not just that I have never personally known a full trans, it is that no one I know has either. Everyone I know, even my reactionary father, has had a few gay friends over the years. If gays are 1.8% and that number seems to be pretty reliable, trans must be something well south of 1% or even .5%.

        1. If it even hits 0.5% I would be surprised.

    2. Bruce Jenner, who apparently has decided to go back to being a man

      I believe that this is a fake news story that went viral.

    3. and one of the nuts who made the Matrix are the only two I can think of and I am not entirely sure that the Matrix gay being transgendered isn’t an urban myth.

      Actually, the rumor I’ve heard, and Wikipedia supports (FWTW), is that they both are or are transitioninged*.

      *As a self-appointed time lord, you must honor my transchronological gerrunding.

      1. Okay, so that makes three. And its not like you can as a public figure be a transgender and no one notice like you can be gay but in the closet. so I seriously doubt we will see a wave of previously closeted transgendered public figures coming out as such the way we saw that with gays in the 90s and beyond.

        1. IMO, just like with homosexuality, this is, and always was, more about teh feelz of useful idiots rather than the actual number of trans people or homosexuals desiring to get married. Unfortunately, being against the feelz of useful idiots makes you a bigot regardless of the actual number of oppressed minorities whether they exist or not.

          See: polygamy/polyamory, smoking, rape, heroin epidemic, TSA, etc.

    4. Both the Wachowskis are ‘living as women’ now. The terminology is unclear though. They’ve both ‘transitioned’ but its not clear if that means they’ve finished the biological modifications or if they have just changed their wardrobe, driver’s license, and which way the toilet paper hangs.

    5. I’ve known three: a former coworker, a neighbor, and a regular to an online forum I frequented for like 5 years.

      I don’t think that’s representative though.

    6. Serious question, how many people on this board have ever personally known a full on trans?

      I have a passing acquaintance with a couple of legit trannies – medical treatment, surgery (to some stage) and all.

      They did an excellent job of “passing”. Unless you either had been told or were unusually observant, you’d never guess they got traded to the other team.

    7. I’ve known a MtF transperson. I feel like there might have been a FtM or two in my larger social circle as well, a few years back, although I can’t remember specifically. But overall I agree that they seem to be far fewer than gay people.

    8. The only one I’ve known I met in residential psych treatment. Weird guy, even aside from the trans thing, but not a bad person

    9. And before the 90s there were barely any out-gay celebrities. It’s almost like as things become more socially acceptable, people with a lot to lose (celebrities) are more willing to talk about it rather then just be publicly closeted (even if they’re privately out).

      That said, you’ve probably known some transgender folk in your life, just didn’t know it. Face it, if (A) they’re reasonably good at passing, (B) you never get intimitate with them, and (C) it’s not something they choose to share, how are you going to know? It’s even harder to notice then with gay people, because they can introduce their boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse and you still won’t know if they’re trans.

  29. The problematic group in the gay community is bisexuals. How can you square the idea that being gay is some kind of ingrained trait like race with the existence of bisexuals? Some people seem to be attracted to both sexes or will flow from being attracted to one sex to being attracted to the other as their life progresses. That is not very consistent with homosexuality being ingrained and not just another sexual preference like any other kink.

    1. “Some people seem to be attracted to both sexes…”

      And some people are attracted only to the same sex. Most are attracted only to the opposite sex. I don’t see any “inconsistency”.

    2. “How can you square the idea that being gay is some kind of ingrained trait like race with the existence of bisexuals?”
      The same way you square Asians, Africans and Europeans. Just because a trait is ingrained doesn’t mean it’s binary.

    3. The problematic group in the gay community is bisexuals.

      IMO, the problematic group in the gay community is smokers of tobacco and heroin addicts. This is one of the main reasons I consider Gary Johnson to be unprincipled and/or completely full of shit.

      The funny thing is, people who fucking love both science and liberty will defy reality on all kinds of levels in order to conserve a belief system where it’s morally acceptable to rather literally torture significant portions of the population while expecting a fractional minority of the population to wait 5-10 min. to use the shower or walk 20 ft. in the same building to use the restroom *like you already do to half the population anyway* (and have done for centuries) is some sort of unacceptable blight on the soul of all of humanity.

  30. Sex is biologic. Gender is a usually arbitrary division of things into 2 or more kinds. Until recently “gender” (which literally means “kind”, same as “genre”) was used practically exclusively to refer to words in language. Languages that have gender typically have the words for “boy” and “girl” in different genders, so the genders then take on the names of the corresponding sex, although really they have nothing to do with sex, as illustrated by the genders of the French & Spanish words for “key” and “lock”: key is female and lock is male.

    Lately “gender” has come to be used as a euphemism for “sex”, so when you ask someone on an application, “Sex?” they don’t answer, “Right now? Sure!”

    If someone’s sex is clear, it’s silly to introduce confusion as to it. But since “gender” doesn’t really mean anything outside of language, it’s also silly to ask or assign persons a gender. And if it’s just a euphemism for sex, then obviously their gender is their sex. If people say they’re of a certain gender, they must be saying their name should be declined that way.

  31. This application is really good and very easy to use because you can never get an app which streams way of the latest and even the oldest videos. showbox

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.