>then this opens new doors to examining the behaviour of other illnesses such as gender dysphoria that are statistically over represented.
Don't fall into the trap of assuming that 1950's Western norms are a 'baseline.'
History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid. The idea of "men and women need to be segregated in certain places (particularly when nude) and must dress differently' is likely the cause of how prevalent transgender people have become. It was always an unsustainable system that was only allowed to flourish because a powerful minority wanted it to. Like are you a boy that relates primarily to women? Well you either endure being separated from them for a ton of meaningful developmental activities or you become transgender.
I think there are plenty of people who would be fine with their biological sex if it didn't come with so much societal baggage.
> ...if it didn't come with so much societal baggage.
Isn't societal baggage also a perception issue? Take 10 people with all the same physical traits and the same social situation and you will get 10 different perspectives.
Why should I accept there is _any_ baggage as a fact? It may just appear so for a massive amount of people, and _that_ could be fluid.
> Is it 'subjective' that many activities are segregated by gender in the West?
You're conflating sex and gender. If you used the two terms as others do there's no surprise.
Washrooms, in almost the entire world, are sex segregated. They aren't gender-segregated in the sense of transgender because they forbid all males and allow all females, or vice versa.
> If a person doesn't like that, how is it not a logical response to try to change their gender?
The washroom isn't actually gender segregated, it's sex segregated and you can't change sex. The words you're using are chosen to subtly obscure the situation.
> So you're telling me that a boy who identifies as a boy is fine to change with the girls at PE and do their activities? OR is there 'baggage' to being a boy in this scenario?
It sure feels like there's baggage to being a girl - being an object for you to shower next to, not a person with their own privacy rights.
> The idea of "men and women need to be segregated in certain places (particularly when nude) and must dress differently' is likely the cause of how prevalent transgender people have become.
Have you ever been a parent? Because males and females are different, and the sexual pressures on them are immensely different too, for both social and physical reasons. Similarly, sexual risk (to anyone, but especially children) is incredibly lopsided and comes almost entirely from males.
If you ignore sexual differences in other children you will let your children be mistreated, if you ignore sexual differences in adults you will get them molested.
> It was always an unsustainable system that was only allowed to flourish because a powerful minority wanted it to.
Pretty much all women know and are cautious, if not fearful, of male violence. They fought for women's sex-based rights because of obvious need. This isn't men putting women in purdah, these are protections they've achieved for themselves. Most men can see the extra work women have to do for safety reasons. The need for women's spaces is far from a minority opinion.
> Like are you a boy that relates primarily to women? Well you either endure being separated from them for a ton of meaningful developmental activities or you become transgender.
If you truly empathized with women you'd realized that your size and strength and biology makes you a risk that another woman wouldn't be and you'd socialize with women in mixed-sex areas and activities where your presence wasn't an undue burden.
> I think there are plenty of people who would be fine with their biological sex if it didn't come with so much societal baggage.
It's the physical baggage people are wrongly trying to ignore.
> You're making an argument to make better men, but your method is victimize weak boys instead.
Unfortunately, even weak males are a physical threat to females. The difference in upper body strength is that stark. So if you're trying to split society along some line to reduce the problem of physical aggression, gender is not a bad place to do it.
(Add more lines, and you'd end up with a system more akin to boxing weight classes, which would be more than a bit ridiculous. It's way better to invest in enforcement of very rigid norms against physical abuse.)
> Have you heard of being gay? I'm guessing you have, but you choose not to care
Being gay has nothing to do with child abuse. You're gay-baiting, conflating transgenderism with homosexuality. This is one of the issues the LGB Alliance was founded to address.
> the insane amount of male-on-male sexual violence that occurs among children in the current system.
Yes, from men. That's my point. As a parent you need to know the sex of those who are interacting with your children.
> Again, then why do we let young boys change in the same room as grown men? Is the problem really just about biological sex?
We let them change with either parent because presumably their parent can keep them safe with active supervision. Generally though, other parents would recommend that young children use the womens' facility with another woman if neither parent is available.
> Wait until you find out how gay men feel!
Men are men, straight or gay. Women are smaller and not as strong.
> Sure, and what exactly is the reason behind why a vagina is the definition of who is a woman deserving of protection?
Having a vagina is not the definition of a female, but they do strongly correlate.
Everyone deserves protection but women's protection is largely achieved by providing sexually segregated spaces.
> There are plenty of weak men who empathize with women who are very at risk for physical and sexual violence.
Hopefully most males empathize with women but even if the risks were justification for a man to leave male spaces they aren't a justification to invade female spaces.
> IS the only solution to say who cares you were born with a penis?
Why is your solution to take away all women and children's safety to provide questionable safety to some males?
If you can't stop abusive men in the men's room how do you plan to stop them from following you into the women's washroom using the same legal exception written for you?
> Buddy, would you be willing to believe I have less than zero interest in women?
Would you believe that this isn't relevant? It's not "Women's spaces, and anyone else who swears they don't like vaj".
Women's spaces don't work if there are exceptions, they only work if they can be used to instantly exclude any male who tries to enter. You being there lessens the effectiveness of the system even if you are pure of heart.
Operating based on a sampling of women I know - Im going to perform an experiment - I have some clothes of mine that I (Male with a capital M) no longer wear and Im going to give them to some Female friends for their own use.
We'll see what happens but I bet Im going to be met with confusing expressions and laughed at - at best.
Men and women do not dress differently on the count of societal pressures but rather express themselves differently on the count of different imperatives. You can slice it 6 different ways but outside of a small minority of people with non-standard gender ideals, the vast majority of women want to "be pretty" in whatever way that means to them and the vast majority of men want to "look like a man" for their various reasons and in whatever way that means to them.
I realize this is a terribly "incorrect" thing to say these days but at the same time its among the most pervasive ideals I can think of - right up there with the understanding that water is wet. Out side of groups where the word "Patriarchy" is thrown around, men are men and women are women and neither would have it any other way. This isn't due to societal pressure to conform either. This is prevailing behavior of both genders at work.
I personally do not understand why a minority of people choosing alternative, non-birth gender roles needs to be cast into some movement where everyones gender is in question. Im not sure I know anyone who has ever so much as questioned the "baggage" their bio-gender is supposedly saddled with. According to modern psychiatry (which for the purposes of this conversation we'll assume is valid since we all agree Sociopathy and Eating Disorders are real things too), the DSM-5 includes Gender Dysphoria. Psychiatry considers that a real thing right next to some other things I think we can all agree are real.
> History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid.
>You can slice it 6 different ways but outside of a small minority
How small is that minority?
>the vast majority of women want to "be pretty"
Are you implying that there's an objective idea of 'pretty' as it relates to fashion? That a woman in pants can't be 'pretty'? Can I point you to powerful men in high-heeled shoes in the 10th Century? Lots of women were attracted to that back then, because of what it meant from a societal standpoint.
Or are you implying that it's fine for men to dress in women's clothes? Because if so then why are we here?
>I realize this is a terribly "incorrect" thing to say
It's not 'incorrect,' it's intellectually lazy.
>I personally do not understand why a minority of people choosing alternative, non-birth gender roles needs to be cast into some movement where everyones gender is in question.
Luckily, that's a strawman so you can stop being confused by it.
> History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid
Again, are high heels for boys or girls? History's opinion will surprise you!
Now listen, outside of snark, I understand its hard to see outside of the environment you've lived for your entire life, but this is a forum for hackers so maybe be a little bit more open to people questioning and challenging things you hold dear?
EDIT: You know what, here's one of many phenomenon that you seem to be unaware of:
Although Europeans were first attracted to heels because the Persian connection gave them a macho air, a craze in women's fashion for adopting elements of men's dress meant their use soon spread to women and children.
"In the 1630s you had women cutting their hair, adding epaulettes to their outfits," says Semmelhack.
"They would smoke pipes, they would wear hats that were very masculine. And this is why women adopted the heel - it was in an effort to masculinise their outfits."
From that time, Europe's upper classes followed a unisex shoe fashion until the end of the 17th Century, when things began to change again.
"You start seeing a change in the heel at this point," says Helen Persson, a curator at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. "Men started to have a squarer, more robust, lower, stacky heel, while women's heels became more slender, more curvaceous."
> > History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid
> Again, are high heels for boys or girls? History's opinion will surprise you!
If transgenderism were only changing fashion trends it wouldn't involve psychiatric or surgical interventions and transition wouldn't be called life-saving, etc.
> Or are you implying that it's fine for men to dress in women's clothes? Because if so then why are we here?
Are you implying that men in women's clothes are just men in women's clothes? Because then yeah, why are we here?
Don't fall into the trap of assuming that 1950's Western norms are a 'baseline.'
History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid. The idea of "men and women need to be segregated in certain places (particularly when nude) and must dress differently' is likely the cause of how prevalent transgender people have become. It was always an unsustainable system that was only allowed to flourish because a powerful minority wanted it to. Like are you a boy that relates primarily to women? Well you either endure being separated from them for a ton of meaningful developmental activities or you become transgender.
I think there are plenty of people who would be fine with their biological sex if it didn't come with so much societal baggage.