₦airaland Forum

LordAdam16:
Dude the difference between transgender and transsexual is that a transsexual feels so strongly about their gender identity that they decide to match their sexual organs with their sense of personal and gender identity. So your point on biology cannot be exclusive to transsexuals. It concerns both transgenders and transsexuals. Which is why the next sentences you make are embarrassing fallacies and completely anti-science.

So, I'm not even going to waste time debating with you.

I'm just going to leave this study about transsexuality in identical twins as a way to prove that there is a genetic influence for this identity.

That's to explicitly show the fallacy in this statement of yours:



The genetic influences for gender identity and presence of reproductive organs are not the same. And every major scientific committee agrees on this. Use a simple Google search to search for proof. I will no longer spoon feed you, since you've shown yourself to be a complete waste of time.

I'm sorry I even called your science half-baked. It's not even science. It's fallacious conjectures of your heavily uninformed mind.

Read and understand--https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-willpower/201208/is-your-mind-separate-your-body. I'm not even sure you can read and understand, because I shared a Vox article on the subject and it you learned nothing from it.

And so I refuse to discuss further when you don't even understand the rudiments of gender identity and sexual orientation.

-Lord

Okay. The fact that I have a penis does not make me a man. I get it.

DarkRebel101:
I demur to that last sentence. Adichie's submissions were in fact communicated in the most acutely straightforward manner. That it was non-politically correct and void of the euphemistic and beguiling interlardings that are a commonplace in speeches/statements made by public figures doesn't qualify to adjudge her sentiments as "poorly articulated".

It's hardly any surprising, seeing as we live in a world wherein painfully bitter but unvarnished truths constitute a rare commodity, or as Oscar Wilde had deftly put it, "... the truth is rarely pure and never simple".

The only reason why Adichie seemed to have whipped up some dusts of controversy in the coliseum is because she voiced the stark truth to a crop of people long used to honey-coated truths and half-truths.



The women of Musuo, Sahrawi, and Cambodia represent isolated cases, not the general norm. While it would be foolish to claim they are not women simply because they do not experience the indignities of unequality that are peculiar to the vast majority of the female demographic, it would also be a great disservice to common sense to conclude that the experience of such a teeny-weeny minority correctly denotes the universal status quo of women.

But then again, how is that or any of your other absurd and incongruous analogies cognate with the issue up for debate?
Precise case of reductio ad absurdum!
...


Adichie did not seek to foster division with her statement, she merely expounded on the living, breathing nuances existing betwixt the cis women comity and the trans women community.

Experience maketh a man. How then can we all in good conscience overtly acclaim that despite the disparity of life experiences of a cis woman and trans woman, that they are entirely one and the same?

Even the experiences of trans women who before their transition were heavily discriminated against for being androgynous cannot be compared to those faced by cis women - not because the experiences of trans women pale in comparison to those of cis women, but because they are independently of them and essentially unique. The uniquity of both trans and cis women is what Adichie is stressing about.

If trans women were entirely the same as cis women then don't you think they would just be called women rather than TRANS women?

P.S.: That you do not believe some men are more equal than others only further proves how much of a wool-gatherer you are. That would explain why you would resort to coating the face of reality with idealistic layers, like in your deliberate failure to agree trans women and cis women are in fact different in some minor ways.

By the way, a man called Jeremy Bentham once described such life-sized logical misfiring to be an ''anarchic fallacy".

This was my position before I derailed. I agree with this. We cannot honestly say they are the same. Their experiences are different. But this doesn't mean their difference, as transgender women, is not marked by struggles and unfair treatment. Adichie's fault was ditching Political Correctness.

LordAdam16:
You are a man of HALF-BAKED science. I mean no disrespect.

This is the definition of transgender



Transgenders are who they say they are, not what we call them. We've already called them transgenders (that's our label on them), they get the right to call themselves trans men or trans women. We don't get to tell them our label is the only label they should live by. If the sense of personal identity and gender is female, then the person calls herself a transgender girl/woman. If the sense of personal identity and gender is male, then the person calls himself a transgender boy/man.

The biology is not the issue here, it is the sense of personal identity and gender. What you're saying doesn't make sense because it'd mean perfectly okay men who have the sense of personal identity and gender of male but have very scarce bodily hair typical of males (for example no or scant beards) shouldn't be call males, because very scarce bodily hair is a female biological feature.

It's like when you go to your doctor and tell him your stomach is aching you. But he says no, that it's your brain paining you because MRI scan showed increased activity in the brain area responsible for pain. People would tell you what their personal and gender identity is when they are sure of it.

Transgender people are transgender people as a group. But this group is split into trans men, trans women, or people with gender identity disorder (aren't sure of their personal identity and gender, it can be scary). Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Trans people without a gender identity yet, well, we don't a label for them yet.

It's like this heterosexuals are heterosexuals as a group. But this group is split into bigot heterosexuals (who think they're elitist people with the only normal sexulaity), tolerant heterosexuals (who do not subscribe to the school of thought of bigot heterosexuals), or skeptic heterosexuals (those sitting on the fence or really do not mind). Bigot heterosexuals are bigots (like racial bigots, gender bigots and what have you), tolerant heterosexuals are tolerant humans, skeptic heterosexuals are skeptics (like agnostics...).

This is why I said I don't bother about the nuances. Because gender identity and sexual orientation is a very wide spectrum. And it's far easier to say all humans should be accorded X rights than, men should be accorded XY rights while women should be accorded XX rights. When you start doing that, then brute men would start asking for XYY rights while calm men should receive XXY rights. You see where this is going?

Current science is still playing catch-up. And the boundaries we set today could evaporate in 5 years time.

Like every movement, feminism has its stratas. Adichie just showed where her loyalties lie, and she's not the first person.

I'll encourage you to read this Vox article. I should warn you that it is lengthy. But considering that you have an open mind to learn more, it makes points that'd pique your attention.

PS: Male and female is not the only gender out there. Learn about the Third Gender officially recognized by the governments in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, called the Hijras. For starters, check the beautiful photos by Jan in the Daily Mail--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4286052/The-gender-Hijras-forced-work-sex-trade.html.

PPS: Apologies if any part of my reply reads like an insult. That's certainly not my intention.

-Lord

When you say I am a HALF BAKED science person I was really expecting a real scientific rebuttal and not some discussion on culture. Let's even assume my understanding of identity and culture are erroneous does that in any way make my science half baked? Or is it that you couldn't hold back your disappointment and had to throw an irrational rebuttal with mixed colours?

My point is solely on transgender people that transitioned–better still, transsexual people. They can never be of that sense they transitioned to. Your doctor analogy misses the point because gender is biology and not psychology. A boy who thinks he's a woman even though he has every attribute of a boy is only deceiving himself. The half beard man too is an insufficient analogy because that's not the forte of masculinity.

Though some men and women often display some level of resemblance and characters opposite to both, the tostesterone and oestrogen and the organs are still strong determinant factors. For these transitioned people, a simple psychological reevaluation of self doesn't change the biological evidences. Kaitlyn Jenner is not a woman. He is simply a transexual. That's what matters to me. The nature of being is not a psychological thing.

Please, whatever submission you make back them up with their corresponding rebuttals. If you say a man is poorly baked in a field, explain it using his errors in that field. I cannot be said to be half baked in Maths but corrected using social science. You can also keep the extra details and I apologize too if this appears rude.

LordAdam16:
No need to act defensive.

It's all a matter of semantics. Red ball is a ball. Blue ball is a ball. Red ball is not a blue ball. Saying red ball is not a ball, is just going to raise hell.

That's what Adichie did. Transgender women are women. Cisgender women are women. Transgender women are not cisgender women. Implying that transgender women are not women is wrong.

You cannot make a category (women) exclusive for one sub-category (cisgender women). That is the origin of bigotry.

So as I said, she has a point that transgender women have different experiences from cis women, but she articulated it wrongly that for this reason trans women are not women and that only cis women are women. Everyone makes silly mistakes once in a while.

She could have said. Trans women are women. But trans women have unique experiences from cis women.

Now you can understand why everyone is making a big deal out of this because she is in America, the hotbed of diversity. She is an ally to the LGBTQ+ community. She is a literary icon (that is she understands the impact of words and the need to select words carefully). Yet she made such an obvious, unnecessary error. Anyone but Adichie should have made that error. Anyone but her.

I'm a full-on heterosexual, yet I have seething rage that she couldn't even apologize and she's still bandying about her heavily flawed argument days and weeks after first citing it. It is very arrogant. And I'll understand why trans women may want to boycott the Feminism movement because she's a part of it.

Yea, and as I said, the nuances really do not bother me. But sometimes it pays to set the record straight.

-Lord

One could argue from the position of biology that Transgender people are simply transgender people. You can't have the anatomy of a transgender and be rightly referred to as a woman. You can't have such anatomy and still be referred to as a man either. That could be seen as extreme positions. Let me come down.

In her words:

"It’s about the way the world treats us, and I think if you’ve lived in the world as a man with the privileges that the world accords to men and then sort of change gender, it’s difficult for me to accept that then we can equate your experience with the experience of a woman who has lived from the beginning as a woman and who has not been accorded those privileges that men are…I don’t think it’s a good thing to talk about women’s issues being exactly the same as the issues of trans women because I don’t think that’s true"

I agree with this to am extent. Maybe we'd had seen nothing wrong if she had said: "Transgender women are transgender women and cis women are cis women".

To me, she, and the majority of persons who've said something on the matter so far, are been economical with the truth. I am a man of science. Transgender people, born transgender before transition to women, still have features of the male and female. We can't in all honesty call them either of the sexes. Even after transition, we can still see evidence of masculinity. What makes us males and females are our sexes. Transgender people to me are transgender people. Correct me on this.

Eddygourdo:
will the LGBT community segregate a heterosexual who realized he is gay this morning because he doesn't have the same life experiences from a gay of 20years? Are they not both gays currently subjected to the same percieved injustice she is trying to fight ? Why should it be consdered by how long one has been queer being a measure of his understanding of challenges. So my answer to you is "yes". Current circumstances should match their current definitions as women even though previously male. Because the challenges being faced are not past or weighted issues , but current and existing issues and biases.

How can people with different sexes for more than 20 years have the same experience? I don't just understand this. This is what I'm interested in and not the psychology of homosexuals.

Eddygourdo:
what do you define as customs, even what you seek today the so called female liberalization in the next 200years will be regarded as customs and still subject to change. Thus why degrade one for another. The current state of women asides in strictly muslim communities means that women get more equal oppportunities than men but since that is not the subject here. I still will point out that that rationalization which you giving for the non inclusion of transgender is similar to the bias a heterosexual has towards all these new sexual definitions . When we try to trace the history to determine cause and effect, all we see is pure facts as to why nobody is born gay but was a sudden realization at some point thanks to environmental influences in upbringing. All I am saying is that, simply because adichie is a literature goddes doesn't make her any smarter than a house mouse to become an authority in general life matters.

I don't yet understand why the mere concept of someone accepting or promoting the aalternate life style is paired with enlightenment. I am just pointing out that fact that her bias can be considered segregative by being non inclusive of all women (transgendered women). She is speaking of the current and I believe these women also face the smae challenges all current women are facing. Why calculate discrimination and rights abuses by the length of time which one suffered it. Is that logical ?

What exactly is your point? Is it that transgender women had similar experience as women(her point)? Simple Yes or No.

Eddygourdo:
do u see the problem. you serenade the heterosexual for non-inclusiveness with respect of the new world definition of other sexualities and yet have also found a way to do same to the transgender. I though what matters is what and whom one identifies with currently, must past non struggles due to being a former man matter in the present ? Now why not tell me the fight against customs. In a typical patriaciah society its norm for a woman to answer the man's name, and in a matriach one we assume the female name is most appropraite. So when has whose name is answered been a case of choice by men to subjugate women to their nuances

It matters currently who one identifies when the topic is on who he identifies with currently. It fails to matter when the subject is about their respective experiences.

This is commonsensical. You don't join a new camp for a few days and want your story to be told with the same language the other members of the camp is told. It doesn't even require too much logic.

Our world, with little equity, have shown evil to all, but more to women. Their upbringing was marred by inequity. The society's hypocrisy in handling their matters is another thing. Women get the hammer more.

Then one guy goes trans tomorrow and wants to be described with elements of feminine experience. It makes zero sense. You are asking me to respect such illogic because the transgender says so. No. It makes no sense.

Your response on why men's name should be answered by women didn't say anything tangible. It only worsened the problem. Why must we follow culture? We should rather follow logic and not custom. Should a foolish man be the head of the family because culture says so?

Eddygourdo:
she is so fantastic to your ilk cos ur a simpleton. How does being a fiction writer make anyone smart on life issues. So when women are able to talk about LGbT rights on live television they are advanced beings ? Or when the refuse to answer their husbands names.

No, he's not a simpleton. Adichie is both a great fiction writer and an intelligent woman. You'd be hating or intellectually inferior to disagree. It is just the fact. What exactly is your problem with her? I'd like to hear it.

Transwomen are trans women. They did not go through the experiences the woman from Childbirth passed through. Except you have no idea on what transgender means. Can you tell me any good reason why a woman must answer her husband's name?