I don’t think it’s derogatory to trans people to acknowledge the physical reality of sex, while honouring the cultural and social realities of gender. One is a given, the other is a choice.
What do I think? I think this article was created to deliberately troll your readers by providing a false binary argument. Come on guys. You can do better. This is a nuanced argument affecting real people. It needs a nuanced, considered, compassionate response. Please don’t use this issue to drive cheap engagement for your newsletter.
Yes, the discriminated lives of trans peoples, which is a reality, but not one impacted by this debate which is about the reality of biological based differences which result in the discrimination faced by around half the human race and the struggle by them to achieve equality, an important part of which is having penis free environments
Sorry, I was reading the above comment. Please ignore. As a biological and self-identifying male of the species, I believe I understand the desire for a penis-free environment. Good luck with that.
I agree with the reply to this comment. It's a legitimate topic for discussion: Science versus social-agenda-based everything-is-a-theory-including-science free-form opinionating. And again, if you please: Dawkins was speaking about the science of gender, not whether it's morally okay for any person to self-identify as one gender or another or none -- REGARDLESS of biological gender. I find it frustrating that so many of the socially-influenced comments in this thread seem to willfully misread what Dawkins actually said and what he did not say.
Astonishing that 25% vote for Rose's assertion that 'female' dates to the 19th century.
Etymonline has it that 'female (n.) early 14c., from Old French femelle "woman, female" (12c.), from Medieval Latin femella "a female," from Latin femella "young female, girl," diminutive of femina "woman, a female" ("woman, female," literally "she who suckles," from PIE root *dhe(i)- "to suck").'
'The sense in Vulgar Latin was extended from young humans to female of other animals, then to females generally. Compare Latin masculus, also a diminutive (see masculine). The spelling altered late 14c. in erroneous imitation of male. In modern use usually an adjective (which is attested from early 14c.). In reference to implements with sockets and corresponding parts, from 1660s.
I don't think anything Dawkins said or implied was about biological absolutism when it comes to your personal gender self-identification. Science doesn't care what you think, okay? But science has almost nothing to say about anyone's self-identification. Thanks.
Neither - our identity is a combination of both statuses. We are born with biological characteristics but we are subjected throughout our lives to gender-specific expectations and norms which shape our gendered behaviour.
To abandon Dawkins would be to abandon civilisation, art, humanity, and all the progress our ancestors have died for. Darwin and evolution will continue the progress of all earthly species whatever idiotic fantasies fester in a few deranged minds.
Yes, deranged postmodernist academic theory that truly believes everything-is-a-theory-including-science-so-why-not-let-your-emotions-tell-you-the-nature-of-reality-and-then-teach-this-bs-in-college. No wonder social-construct academia is on the wane, and deservedly so!
Biologically there are two sexes in humans. Male or female, and each human remains until death the sex that coincides with its chromosomes at fertilisation. They can, of course, change their behaviour and to some extent their appearance to resemble that of the other sex but can never change the biological sex of the cells of their body. Other creatures including fish can change sex during their life.
The oppression of over fifty percent of the human race, since the beginning of time, based on biology, be it menstruation related exclusion from homes, religious or public places, female libido related genital mutilation, paranoia related witch burning and the like is a deep stain on our inhumanity and the recent gains in equality, protection from violence and safe (penis free) spaces for all biological women who need it must take precedence over all other human endevour. Dawkins progressive analysis axiomatically supports this whilst Rose's retrograde analysis intrinsically opposes this.
To quote a European definition of female and ignore that other cultures do recognise females is just pathetic. To say that trans-males are same as biological males, and trans females are the same as biological females is simply linguistic poverty and denial of reality. The dissociation of subjective gender from biological gender exists but claiming subjectivity trumps biology makes no sense.
Neither party would describe themselves as absolutists, I believe, and nor would I. The poll here is perhaps stimulating but hides many facets of the discussion.
I'm a clinical psychologist and Psychotherapist. Gender Dysphoria is real. Not all trans people have it. I know many trans people who know they are not the gender they dress at, including surgery.
Gender dysphoria is like anorexia. You "feel" obese but objectively you aren't. They need therapy.
You wouldn't tell an anorexic "you are right, you are obese, keep not eating."
Supporting a mental health illness as truth is in itself an illness.
The origin of the word “Female” is the Latin word “Femina,” meaning 'woman,' while the Latin word for man is “Vir.” So, while the words “Male” and “Female” were not originally linked etymologically, the spelling of Femina was changed in the 14th century in order to associate the idea of the female with the male. So I suggest that the article is a bit of a windup.
What is a man? What is male? Why is this not debated or politicians pulled up on this question? Because trans activism is anti women. It’s just another way for men to tell women who we are. And if you stand up for women’s rights you are called names and worse, death threats are made against you.
I don’t think it’s derogatory to trans people to acknowledge the physical reality of sex, while honouring the cultural and social realities of gender. One is a given, the other is a choice.
What do I think? I think this article was created to deliberately troll your readers by providing a false binary argument. Come on guys. You can do better. This is a nuanced argument affecting real people. It needs a nuanced, considered, compassionate response. Please don’t use this issue to drive cheap engagement for your newsletter.
Cheap and lazy comment, ignoring the point under discussion and obfuscating by trying to shift the discussion down an unrelated alley
The “unrelated alley” being the lives of actual trans people impacted by this “debate”
Yes, the discriminated lives of trans peoples, which is a reality, but not one impacted by this debate which is about the reality of biological based differences which result in the discrimination faced by around half the human race and the struggle by them to achieve equality, an important part of which is having penis free environments
Another social finger-wagger telling us to censor a reasonable discussion because someone's feelings might get hurt. Shame on you!
Sorry, I was reading the above comment. Please ignore. As a biological and self-identifying male of the species, I believe I understand the desire for a penis-free environment. Good luck with that.
Another social finger-wagger telling us to censor a reasonable discussion because someone's feelings might get hurt. Shame on you!
I agree with the reply to this comment. It's a legitimate topic for discussion: Science versus social-agenda-based everything-is-a-theory-including-science free-form opinionating. And again, if you please: Dawkins was speaking about the science of gender, not whether it's morally okay for any person to self-identify as one gender or another or none -- REGARDLESS of biological gender. I find it frustrating that so many of the socially-influenced comments in this thread seem to willfully misread what Dawkins actually said and what he did not say.
I'm afraid I found Rose's essay shallow & incoherent.
Astonishing that 25% vote for Rose's assertion that 'female' dates to the 19th century.
Etymonline has it that 'female (n.) early 14c., from Old French femelle "woman, female" (12c.), from Medieval Latin femella "a female," from Latin femella "young female, girl," diminutive of femina "woman, a female" ("woman, female," literally "she who suckles," from PIE root *dhe(i)- "to suck").'
'The sense in Vulgar Latin was extended from young humans to female of other animals, then to females generally. Compare Latin masculus, also a diminutive (see masculine). The spelling altered late 14c. in erroneous imitation of male. In modern use usually an adjective (which is attested from early 14c.). In reference to implements with sockets and corresponding parts, from 1660s.
also from early 14c.'
I’m not voting for that, I’m voting against Dawkins’s biological absolutism
I don't think anything Dawkins said or implied was about biological absolutism when it comes to your personal gender self-identification. Science doesn't care what you think, okay? But science has almost nothing to say about anyone's self-identification. Thanks.
Neither - our identity is a combination of both statuses. We are born with biological characteristics but we are subjected throughout our lives to gender-specific expectations and norms which shape our gendered behaviour.
To abandon Dawkins would be to abandon civilisation, art, humanity, and all the progress our ancestors have died for. Darwin and evolution will continue the progress of all earthly species whatever idiotic fantasies fester in a few deranged minds.
Yes, deranged postmodernist academic theory that truly believes everything-is-a-theory-including-science-so-why-not-let-your-emotions-tell-you-the-nature-of-reality-and-then-teach-this-bs-in-college. No wonder social-construct academia is on the wane, and deservedly so!
This is a false antithesis
No, it's an eloquent summation of how far fact and evidence -free social theorizing will take humans in their thinking.
Biologically there are two sexes in humans. Male or female, and each human remains until death the sex that coincides with its chromosomes at fertilisation. They can, of course, change their behaviour and to some extent their appearance to resemble that of the other sex but can never change the biological sex of the cells of their body. Other creatures including fish can change sex during their life.
Astonishing that Rose has (a) academic qualifications and (b) is paid to teach(!) by a university. Breathtakingly bad. Cringe....
The oppression of over fifty percent of the human race, since the beginning of time, based on biology, be it menstruation related exclusion from homes, religious or public places, female libido related genital mutilation, paranoia related witch burning and the like is a deep stain on our inhumanity and the recent gains in equality, protection from violence and safe (penis free) spaces for all biological women who need it must take precedence over all other human endevour. Dawkins progressive analysis axiomatically supports this whilst Rose's retrograde analysis intrinsically opposes this.
To quote a European definition of female and ignore that other cultures do recognise females is just pathetic. To say that trans-males are same as biological males, and trans females are the same as biological females is simply linguistic poverty and denial of reality. The dissociation of subjective gender from biological gender exists but claiming subjectivity trumps biology makes no sense.
Neither party would describe themselves as absolutists, I believe, and nor would I. The poll here is perhaps stimulating but hides many facets of the discussion.
I'm a clinical psychologist and Psychotherapist. Gender Dysphoria is real. Not all trans people have it. I know many trans people who know they are not the gender they dress at, including surgery.
Gender dysphoria is like anorexia. You "feel" obese but objectively you aren't. They need therapy.
You wouldn't tell an anorexic "you are right, you are obese, keep not eating."
Supporting a mental health illness as truth is in itself an illness.
The word 'female' was first used in 1373 and, differently spelt, it dates back further than that. Female is hardly a 19th century concept.
The origin of the word “Female” is the Latin word “Femina,” meaning 'woman,' while the Latin word for man is “Vir.” So, while the words “Male” and “Female” were not originally linked etymologically, the spelling of Femina was changed in the 14th century in order to associate the idea of the female with the male. So I suggest that the article is a bit of a windup.
What is a man? What is male? Why is this not debated or politicians pulled up on this question? Because trans activism is anti women. It’s just another way for men to tell women who we are. And if you stand up for women’s rights you are called names and worse, death threats are made against you.