Enjoy.

[GeekyBugle]

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

Does the MIB agency know you're from another planet? Who the fuck does this?

Nobody, but he knows it and is trying to derail the conversation.

[jhkim]

Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

So yes, let us reframe things accurately as lifestyle.  My sex is obviously part of my overall identity, but it is not my lifestyle.  You don't see me coming in with a big sex symbol for my user avatar, I don't have my sexual preferences lined up in a post signature in convenient flag form, I have never mentioned my pronouns.

Hi, Valatar. First of all, thanks for acknowledging the identity part. As for lifestyle... 

Traditionally, most people do signal their sex in things like clothes, hairstyle, makeup, and mannerisms. For example, someone may carefully do up their long hair, paint their nails, wear a dress, and put on makeup to go out. I'd say that they are engaging in a lifestyle related to their sex.

To most of society, this is perfectly acceptable as long as the person is a non-transgender woman. If a man does the same thing, then he is often considered a freak and his appearance may be considered indecent and inappropriate for children.

---

Now, some people may argue that this difference is right. But regardless, we should hopefully be able to agree that this is both an identity and a lifestyle. Traditional society has coded gender roles, and the proper behavior, dress, and other signals for gender are taught from a very early age. Regardless of the value that one assigns to it, that is true.

All societies have such gender coding, though the expression isn't always the same across different cultures. A number of traditional societies have a social category different than traditional male/female, like hijras in India or winkte among the Lakota.

One can argue that transgender people are wrong for their behavior, but they didn't introduce the idea of gender as an important identity and lifestyle.

[Valatar]

Furries (and possibly others, but they're the ones I heard of it from) have what they call 'lifestylers', the people who are wearing collars, tails, etc, and/or acting in ways they consider animalistic, out in public on a day to day basis.  This is not necessarily the same as the fursuiters who have the full-body costumes, as those are apparently hot as hell and unfeasible to have on for extended periods, but they're somewhat akin.  I consider many trans people to be doing the same thing: acting out a fetish in public.  I say this because many of the examples I've seen of trans women are not dressing like a normal person of the opposite sex, they're dressing up in an uncanny valley stylized manner that exaggerates a certain stereotypical appearance.  To be more precise, they're dressed like a thirteen-year-old girl out of a Target catalog.  No woman of an equivalent age would be caught dead in most of those clothes.

The stereotypical effeminate gay man of last century is of a similar cloth; they're broadcasting because they're getting some exhibitionist kick out of doing so.  Do I care if they're gay?  No.  But do I want to sit down next to someone looking like Boy George on a bad day?  Also no.  I'm not inflicting my sexual proclivities on them, and would appreciate the favor be returned.

[rytrasmi]

One can argue that transgender people are wrong for their behavior, but they didn't introduce the idea of gender as an important identity and lifestyle.

How do you know?

Isn't is possible that an ancient, classical, or medieval man who took to women's clothing originated this entire discussion?

It certainly never consciously occurred to me until the trans situation became mainstream.

I think you're viewing this from a 2023 academic lens. The typical regular person 100, 500, or 2000 years ago basically thought "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman" and that was the end of it. Tussles over clothing and lifestyle had more to do with status within the male or female domains than any kind of high-minded ideas of gender expression.

[Grognard GM]

Sex and gender were 100% interchangeable until 10 years ago. Gender was just a way to avoid saying the rude word 'sex,' and certain people have spun the myth that sex and gender are these disconnected states.

People are interested in the gender of babies because secondary characteristics haven't yet emerged, and we use gendered language. Spinning this in to some kind of larger evidence that gender is confusing is nonsense. 99% of men and women are obvious in their sex/gender, in fact humans are excellent in telling the difference.

Also, men and women presenting their sex via hairstyles and clothing is part of living in a community. Being part of a society means conforming to the acceptable mores of that society. We in the West have always had a wider range of acceptable behaviors than most peoples, but the limitations are what maintains social cohesion.

When it comes to the slow collapse of the West, and the accompanying explosion of ultra, even desperate, individualism as the prime good; it's up in the air over what is the chicken and what is the egg.

[jhkim]

I consider many trans people to be doing the same thing: acting out a fetish in public.  I say this because many of the examples I've seen of trans women are not dressing like a normal person of the opposite sex, they're dressing up in an uncanny valley stylized manner that exaggerates a certain stereotypical appearance.  To be more precise, they're dressed like a thirteen-year-old girl out of a Target catalog.  No woman of an equivalent age would be caught dead in most of those clothes.

That hasn't been my experience among the transgender people I know. When you talk about examples you've seen -- where are you seeing those examples?

As far as sexualization, straight American women often have sexualized fashion like cleavage-revealing necklines that aren't seen on 13-year-old girls. In my experience, young straight American women have by far the most sexualized clothing. It's just that is considered normal and acceptable rather than a fetish.

[jhkim]

Also, men and women presenting their sex via hairstyles and clothing is part of living in a community. Being part of a society means conforming to the acceptable mores of that society. We in the West have always had a wider range of acceptable behaviors than most peoples, but the limitations are what maintains social cohesion.

Right. The social mores are that men and women should present differently via hairstyle and clothing. That's the core of my disagreement with Valatar, who suggested that only modern LGBT people make a public display of their gender. Almost everyone, LGBT or not, makes a public display of their gender.

---

Sex and gender were 100% interchangeable until 10 years ago. Gender was just a way to avoid saying the rude word 'sex,' and certain people have spun the myth that sex and gender are these disconnected states.

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with this -- but there have always been transgender people since ancient times. As I mentioned, some traditional societies had accepted categories for transgender people like the winkte among the Lakota or the hijra in India. Pundit has proclaimed how his RPG Arrows of Indra is the first to have a transgender character on the cover, based on a hijra character. Other societies have suppressed them.

It's not that transgender people suddenly sprang into existence 10 years ago. They've always been around -- called various other names like transvestites, transsexuals, etc. in earlier times. There were plenty of cross-identifying people in colonial times, Victorian times, etc.

What's changed is that there has been growing resistance to discrimination against them, and subsequent backlash. Not all transgender people are part of the push for rights. V in my church isn't involved in any activism, nor was my late friend Heather. But many of them are activists, because they have had to deal with a lot of hostility over the years and consider it unjust.

As far as word meaning, if sex and gender are the same, then you run into the ambiguity of biology and social mores. If sex/gender just means biological fact, then a transgender man is objectively wrong to declare themselves a man -- but it also means that there's nothing unmanly about having long hair and wearing a dress and makeup.

[GeekyBugle]

Also, men and women presenting their sex via hairstyles and clothing is part of living in a community. Being part of a society means conforming to the acceptable mores of that society. We in the West have always had a wider range of acceptable behaviors than most peoples, but the limitations are what maintains social cohesion.

Right. The social mores are that men and women should present differently via hairstyle and clothing. That's the core of my disagreement with Valatar, who suggested that only modern LGBT people make a public display of their gender. Almost everyone, LGBT or not, makes a public display of their gender.

---

Sex and gender were 100% interchangeable until 10 years ago. Gender was just a way to avoid saying the rude word 'sex,' and certain people have spun the myth that sex and gender are these disconnected states.

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with this -- but there have always been transgender people since ancient times. As I mentioned, some traditional societies had accepted categories for transgender people like the winkte among the Lakota or the hijra in India. Pundit has proclaimed how his RPG Arrows of Indra is the first to have a transgender character on the cover, based on a hijra character. Other societies have suppressed them.

It's not that transgender people suddenly sprang into existence 10 years ago. They've always been around -- called various other names like transvestites, transsexuals, etc. in earlier times. There were plenty of cross-identifying people in colonial times, Victorian times, etc.

What's changed is that there has been growing resistance to discrimination against them, and subsequent backlash. Not all transgender people are part of the push for rights. V in my church isn't involved in any activism, nor was my late friend Heather. But many of them are activists, because they have had to deal with a lot of hostility over the years and consider it unjust.

As far as word meaning, if sex and gender are the same, then you run into the ambiguity of biology and social mores. If sex/gender just means biological fact, then a transgender man is objectively wrong to declare themselves a man -- but it also means that there's nothing unmanly about having long hair and wearing a dress and makeup.

Manliness is opposite to effeminate

Dressing like a woman is either a fetish or a sign that you're effeminate, which makes it in both cases unmanly, because men in the west haven't wore makeup in centuries and dresses never.

Is a Tomboy being feminine? Nope, it's why we call her a tomboy.

But you do keep with the disingenuousness and the word salad.

[jhkim]

As far as word meaning, if sex and gender are the same, then you run into the ambiguity of biology and social mores. If sex/gender just means biological fact, then a transgender man is objectively wrong to declare themselves a man -- but it also means that there's nothing unmanly about having long hair and wearing a dress and makeup.

Manliness is opposite to effeminate

Dressing like a woman is either a fetish or a sign that you're effeminate, which makes it in both cases unmanly, because men in the west haven't wore makeup in centuries and dresses never.

I don't see how this disagrees with what I said. You're referring to social mores. If someone who fails to follow the social mores for men is unmanly or less of a man -- then part of the definition of being a man is following the social mores. That's defining gender at least in part socially rather than just biologically.

This isn't compatible with saying that gender/sex is purely biological.

[Eirikrautha]

Traditionally, most people do signal their sex in things like clothes, hairstyle, makeup, and mannerisms. For example, someone may carefully do up their long hair, paint their nails, wear a dress, and put on makeup to go out. I'd say that they are engaging in a lifestyle related to their sex.

And you'd be wrong, as usual.  They are not engaging in their "lifestyle."  They are signaling their sexual availability.  A twink doesn't wear a tank top as a "lifestyle"; he wears it to advertise.  Ditto that for a fit twenty-something hetero female.  Your subtle conflation of sex and lifestyle is part of your disingenuousness.  Sexual displays are sexual.

As far as sexualization, straight American women often have sexualized fashion like cleavage-revealing necklines that aren't seen on 13-year-old girls. In my experience, young straight American women have by far the most sexualized clothing. It's just that is considered normal and acceptable rather than a fetish.

This is also your fault.  The left in America has been fighting to normalize personal sexual displays since the 1960s.  It is NOT a ever-present feature of societies.  And if you want to argue the point, I'm happy to flood this thread with picture after picture of normal public attire and bathing suits worn on public beaches in the 1940s and 50s.  And before your cherry-picking lying ass bothers to find one picture or two, your one or two counter examples don't disprove the general rule.  Now you want to argue that the sexual displays you've been advocating for somehow justify the forcing of the Overton Window even further towards letting mentally ill people flaunt their fetishes in public.  The "young straight American women" are just as fucked up as the trans people are.

Right. The social mores are that men and women should present differently via hairstyle and clothing. That's the core of my disagreement with Valatar, who suggested that only modern LGBT people make a public display of their gender. Almost everyone, LGBT or not, makes a public display of their gender.

No.  Is long hair a male or female hairstyle?  A ponytail?  A shaved head?  Seems like I've seen both men and women wear both.  Are you going to tell a biker he looks like a woman because of his ponytail?  So your argumentum ad populum is invalid, because most people today don't view these as sex specific indicators.

Most people don't make a "public display of their gender" because their sex is obvious.  People who display primary and secondary sexual characteristics (including simulated ones like make-up or cleavage) are doing so to signal sexual availability (whether they intend to or not).  And these are physical, biological, signals.  They are not cultural.  This isn't the color of funerary attire (black in the West, white in Japan), which can be argued to be primarily culturally based.  Blush simulates the rush of blood due to sexual arousal.  Eye shadow simulates pupil dilation via contrast (see previous point).  Shall we discuss cleavage and what it simulates?  All of these are displays that date back to the ancient Egyptians or earlier.  The fact that one minor tribe of natives somewhere might not have used one or two of these is no argument against the biological purpose of these displays.  This is the reason why parents have strongly regulated and cautioned their daughters about the use of cosmetics and revealing clothing, as it sends biological signals the child might not mean or understand.  Of course, this is why the groomers on the left have pushed for the sexualization of children, because of their ingrained biological connection of youth to fertility (but, being leftists, they always have to pervert these things to the greatest degree possible).  Women dress like whores today because the left has been pushing the stupidity that sexual displays are symbols of power and independence (especially among women).  So it's no wonder that you would advocate for sexual displays by men pretending to be women as if it was a "lifestyle."  But it's not.  It's a sexual display.  A kindergarten teacher shouldn't be wearing fishnet stockings or assless chaps at school, because it is an inappropriate sexual display in front of children.  Drag queens and trans people shouldn't be reading to kindergarteners for the same reason.  We need to keep the sexually-fixated mentally ill as far away from our children as possible.

It's not that transgender people suddenly sprang into existence 10 years ago. They've always been around -- called various other names like transvestites, transsexuals, etc. in earlier times. There were plenty of cross-identifying people in colonial times, Victorian times, etc.

This is a bald-faced lie.  None of those examples or cultures described their cross-dressers as women trapped in men's bodies, or anything even approaching that.  Transvestites 40 years ago didn't claim to be real women (and I knew some... unfortunately).

From nih.gov:

What is a hijra in Indian culture?
The hijra (eunuch/transvestite) is an institutionalized third gender role in India. Hijra are neither male nor female, but contain elements of both. As devotees of the Mother Goddess Bahuchara Mata, their sacred powers are contingent upon their sexuality. In reality, however, many hijras are prostitutes.

It's not a "man born in a woman's body", which is the direct descriptor of modern transgender ideologies and justifications.  So you are either dramatically ignorant, or outright lying, when you claim that modern transgenderism is anything other than a new phenomenon.  A chariot and a steam locomotive both have wheels and both are ground transportation, but they're not the same thing.

If someone who fails to follow the social mores for men is unmanly or less of a man -- then part of the definition of being a man is following the social mores. That's defining gender at least in part socially rather than just biologically.

Testosterone increases aggressiveness, risk-taking, physical strength, et al.  Men have many times more testosterone than females, especially during puberty, which fundamentally changes the biological structure of their brains and bodies (there are over 462 biological differences between the male and female body, with many in the brain).  No society views passiveness, submissiveness, and weakness as male qualities (which is why disciplines like Buddhism which feature some similarities to a few of these qualities stress the difficulty of reaching such states, as they are contrary to men's nature).  So an effeminate man is categorized by his disconnect between his behavior and biology.  It's directly defining social roles by biology.  It's one of the reasons why Western societies are collapsing, because they have completely refused to recognized social roles based on biology (just ask the Swedes how well they've been able to conquer the "inequalities" in employment vis a vis male nurses and female engineers).

You know, if your opinion was in any way right or just, you wouldn't have to lie, obfuscate, redefine terms, and conflate unlike things in order to prove your point.  Which is, I guess, the ultimate repudiation of your statements here....

[Elfdart]

Were the insurrectionists that stormed the Tennessee capital (with the participation of 3 elected democrat politicians) and who claimed that Audrey Hale, who murdered six people (three of them young children), was a "victim" just some randos?

There were no "insurrectionists" in Tennessee, you silly drama queen. Funny how Jan 6 putsch apologists still think there was no insurrection when Trump's summoned mob beat police officers, ransacked the Capitol and called openly for members of Congress to be lynched, but you think some demonstrators who didn't even try to attack police officers, didn't vandalize the state house, didn't threaten anyone and didn't try to overturn an election are "insurrectionists".

As far as the "trannies" are concerned, every movement is going to have a fringe. That doesn't mean the movement itself is wrong, any more than the Weather Underground bombings retroactively excuse the Vietnam War.

[GeekyBugle]

As far as word meaning, if sex and gender are the same, then you run into the ambiguity of biology and social mores. If sex/gender just means biological fact, then a transgender man is objectively wrong to declare themselves a man -- but it also means that there's nothing unmanly about having long hair and wearing a dress and makeup.

Manliness is opposite to effeminate

Dressing like a woman is either a fetish or a sign that you're effeminate, which makes it in both cases unmanly, because men in the west haven't wore makeup in centuries and dresses never.

I don't see how this disagrees with what I said. You're referring to social mores. If someone who fails to follow the social mores for men is unmanly or less of a man -- then part of the definition of being a man is following the social mores. That's defining gender at least in part socially rather than just biologically.

This isn't compatible with saying that gender/sex is purely biological.

LOL WUT!?

Nope, acting like a woman makes you less masculine because you're acting effeminate, because women's femininity is a sexual signal of sexual maturity and availability, see Eirikrautha's excellent response above.

Likewise being manly is a sexual signal of sexual maturity and availability to the women around that you're a worthy catch, a good provider and protector worthy of her time to breed your children. Which ties to the value of purity which you also deny because you're a believer in the tabula rasa.

So, a man dressing as a woman is signaling to men who like other men his availability for sex, even if you would like to deny it. Your constant push to normalize deviancy means that now those who get aroused from dressing like the opposite sex roam our streets and are pushed down our children's throats.

"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

Men are attracted to certain female attributes, ergo females have evolved to have and display such, the same is true in reverse, women are attracted to certain male attributes so men have evolved to have and display them.

Only now, under the lefts constant push for degeneracy, we see predatory men disguising themselves as male feminists to get close to their prey.

And yet, the same feminists hate themselves because they find the traditionally masculine men attractive and the male allies make them go drier than the Gobi.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/10/why-progressive-women-want-to-date-men-who-act-conservative/ Click on the link to the scientific study that proves me right.

Even leftist men https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/right-wing-women-are-sexier/

So it's a balancing act, be manly but not fall into the pittraps of uncleanliness, hyper-aggression, etc.
Be feminine but not a whore, etc.

[RPGPundit]

Were the insurrectionists that stormed the Tennessee capital (with the participation of 3 elected democrat politicians) and who claimed that Audrey Hale, who murdered six people (three of them young children), was a "victim" just some randos?

There were no "insurrectionists" in Tennessee, you silly drama queen. Funny how Jan 6 putsch apologists still think there was no insurrection when Trump's summoned mob beat police officers, ransacked the Capitol and called openly for members of Congress to be lynched, but you think some demonstrators who didn't even try to attack police officers, didn't vandalize the state house, didn't threaten anyone and didn't try to overturn an election are "insurrectionists".

Both groups did exactly the same thing, except the pro-trans-mass-murderer side didn't get shot at by the police.

As far as the "trannies" are concerned, every movement is going to have a fringe.

Except they're not the fringe. The "fringe" in Trans Activism are the people who just want to live quiet normal lives, and think that sterilizing and mutilating preteen children based on the recommendation of some "queer" schoolteacher wanting to get views on tiktok is probably a bad idea.
The "mainstream" of Trans activism now are the ones who are posting pictures of guns, saying "Trans Day Of Vengeance", holding up Audrey Hale as an innocent victim (those 9 year old christian children were basically committing GENOCIDE on he/him by existing and refusing to be queer), and advocating for open murder of their ideological opponents.

[Grognard GM]

There were no "insurrectionists" in Tennessee, you silly drama queen. Funny how Jan 6 putsch apologists still think there was no insurrection when Trump's summoned mob beat police officers, ransacked the Capitol and called openly for members of Congress to be lynched, but you think some demonstrators who didn't even try to attack police officers, didn't vandalize the state house, didn't threaten anyone and didn't try to overturn an election are "insurrectionists".

You know, if you argued that both events were attempted Insurrection, you'd at least be morally consistent, from your own POV. But instead you just wrote "it's OK when we do it," but via a massive paragraph.

[jhkim]

It's not that transgender people suddenly sprang into existence 10 years ago. They've always been around -- called various other names like transvestites, transsexuals, etc. in earlier times. There were plenty of cross-identifying people in colonial times, Victorian times, etc.

This is a bald-faced lie.  None of those examples or cultures described their cross-dressers as women trapped in men's bodies, or anything even approaching that.  Transvestites 40 years ago didn't claim to be real women (and I knew some... unfortunately).

From nih.gov:

What is a hijra in Indian culture?
The hijra (eunuch/transvestite) is an institutionalized third gender role in India. Hijra are neither male nor female, but contain elements of both. As devotees of the Mother Goddess Bahuchara Mata, their sacred powers are contingent upon their sexuality. In reality, however, many hijras are prostitutes.

It's not a "man born in a woman's body", which is the direct descriptor of modern transgender ideologies and justifications.  So you are either dramatically ignorant, or outright lying, when you claim that modern transgenderism is anything other than a new phenomenon.  A chariot and a steam locomotive both have wheels and both are ground transportation, but they're not the same thing.

I didn't say that these are all exactly the same. However, I consider them under the category of transgender - which is an umbrella, like ground transportation. Pundit, for example, referred to hijra as "transgender". Modern transgender people have a lot of different ideologies and beliefs, and they don't all dress the same way either (to Valatar's earlier point). There are hijra in modern-day India, and I'm sure they don't all have the same ideology or beliefs.

My church friend V is an older Christian woman who is mostly quiet and retiring. My late friend Heather was a soccer-playing, RPG-playing atheist engineer. My friend J is a history-loving pagan teacher. They all have very different beliefs and ideology.

There are plenty of transgender people I don't like or I don't agree with. I played a short campaign with two of J's friends who were very raunchy, and I didn't like that. There are assholes in any group of people. But most of the transgender people I know are just regular folk.

People who display primary and secondary sexual characteristics (including simulated ones like make-up or cleavage) are doing so to signal sexual availability (whether they intend to or not).  And these are physical, biological, signals.  They are not cultural.  This isn't the color of funerary attire (black in the West, white in Japan), which can be argued to be primarily culturally based.  Blush simulates the rush of blood due to sexual arousal.  Eye shadow simulates pupil dilation via contrast (see previous point).

A kindergarten teacher shouldn't be wearing fishnet stockings or assless chaps at school, because it is an inappropriate sexual display in front of children.  Drag queens and trans people shouldn't be reading to kindergarteners for the same reason.  We need to keep the sexually-fixated mentally ill as far away from our children as possible.

I don't think this covers the vast majority of social gender-coding, though. Even modest, demure, old-fashioned young girl clothes are still very distinct from young boy clothes. Baby clothes are clearly gender-coded. And married women and even elderly grandmas still have very distinctive gender-coded clothing and mannerisms.

A woman kindergarten teacher in a modest, old-fashioned dress is still clearly gender coding. They dress very differently from how a man teacher would dress. Old-fashioned traditional women still wear makeup as well, including blush and eye shadow.

For example, V at my church is on our adult education committee - not involved with kids. But if she wanted to, I don't see any reason why she shouldn't read or volunteer in the youth Sunday school.