Transgender Miss Universe Canada Finalist Jenna Talackova Disqualified From Competing

Etymology: "c.1300, 'kind, sort, class,' from O.Fr. gendre (12c., Mod.Fr. genre), from stem of L. genus (gen. generis) 'race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,' also (male or female) 'sex' (see genus) and used to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c.; the male-or-female sense from early 15c. As sex took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the common word used for 'sex of a human being,' often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963."

The alleged distinction between "gender" and "sex" is just something somebody made up. There's no such thing. Minds don't have "gender." A male is a person born with a set of male reproductive organs. That's what the term exists to denote. That's what it is.

Or should we just go ahead and create a new term for a person born with male reproductive organs for you? Let's call it a gooznack. And if you're a person born with female reproductive organs will call you a gooznicker. Now, only gooznickers are allowed in the Miss Universe competition.

Does this make you a female despite having a male reproductive system or vice versa? Nope.

There's no more in what makes a woman, by definition, a woman rather than a man except for her reproductive system.

 

He IS a male by sex. But the problem we have is we don not differentiate between being "male" by sex and "male" by gender, which leads people to think that the male sex and male gender characteristics are the SAME thing, whether by culture or by nature!

To illustrate, Arnold Swartzenegger and Richard Simmons and Liberace are not the same GENDER as each other although they all are of the male sex!

 

On the contrary, it's a shift in meaning that seeks to accommodate an expanding understanding of the human condition - a meaning that has become well accepted in professional circles that deal with the associated issues.

Brains, however, do show differences between men and women.

And a person whose reproductive organs are neither fully male or female; or both, is what?

If you're going to start with the absurdity, then I'll just ignore you.

Strawman. Just to be clear, I'm not transgender.

What it serves to illustrate, is that gender traits are not the exclusive domain of one sex or the other. I don't care if you don't acknowledge the word to be anything but a synonym for sex. Your obstinate opinion doesn't hold value in the face of reality.

Thankfully, you don't get to decide for the rest of us what makes a woman a woman.

 

Men have penis's women have vagina's. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

 

...except that it is more complicated than that.

 

How is this "gender" business detected by science? How do you quantify it? I expect Richard Simmons would say he feels just as much like a guy as Arnold Schwartzenegger.

 

It's a load of horses**t. Show me how you quantify a "male gender" versus a "female gender."

On a general bell curve, yes. But the key distinction in the reproductive system. There are two kinds of reproductive systems, and they are what make the creature male or female. They may be associated, in general, with other differences but those differences don't define the sex. For example, men are, in general, taller than women. But that doesn't mean we say that a particularly short person with a male reproductive system is a woman in terms of height.

Again, with the supposed trump card of intersexuality. When we talk about transsexuals, we are talking about people will fully functional male or female reproductive organs, so what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Most people with defective reproductive organs can usually be discerned as being more definably one sex or the other, usually by the lack or possession of a Y chromosome.

Even if not, again, that has to do with the reproductive organs, which are what define male/female/possible third category. Someone's so-called "personal identity" does not.

You don't want us to define "man" or "male" as "person with a male reproductive system," so why not create a new word for that. It's a kind of important categorization. For example, only such people can be afflicted with prostate cancer, even if they've clicked their heels three times saying "I'm a girl, I'm a girl, I'm a girl."

There's no such thing as a "gender trait." That's reality. If I play with dolls, that's a "female" trait, so therefore I'm part female? I thought that way of thinking is precisely what social liberals wanted us to move away from.

If a trait is not the exclusive domain of one sex or another, then it's not a gender trait, it's just plain old trait that may be numerically more common amongst a certain sex.

Neither do you and neither does anyone, including transsexuals. I'm simply saying I won't be guilt tripped into putting on a politically correct pretense.

Someone can say he's a cow and even define the word "cow" as "somebody who thinks he's a cow" to make it fit and every shrink and progressive blogger in the realm can agree, but I will stubbornly insist that as he doesn't have udders, hooves, four stomachs, he's not a cow in any useful sense.

 

go for it.

 

No it's not, you pansy liberals make it more complicated than it needs to be.

 

perfect example of how women play the game. They want to invade the purview of men and make them change the rules.

Tables got turned on them and they won't have it. You guys will not come into their purview and make them change the rules. no way.

You guys are pushovers.

 

Like any beauty contest, there are rules. If the rules say you have to be a naturally born female, then that is what you must be. The problem is that all transgendered women will say they felt they already were naturally women, born into the wrong body.

She is a woman now though, since having the surgery. That makes her female enough for me, but its not my contest and its not my rules, sadly.

 

if this person could win i say let em run if he/she whatever cant no harm done either

Now if this person had to have appearance altering surgery or substances to look the way she/he whatever looks that might be an unfair advantage if similar modifications are illegal for the xx chromosome contestants

 

You know what the stupid thing is? They say they want 'naturally born women' but they are happy to accept chicks who have bleached hair, boob jobs and facial cosmetic surgery. You can look like a barbie doll and enter that contest but you can't enter if you are transgender.

 

ya thats (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up

 

my face when...

 

I personally know people who have went through the surgery and they are there mental health is far better than it was.

 

Same here, but don't bother trying to tell the cons that, they won't listen to personal experiences.

 

women are competitive enough among themselves. Can't imagine the grief if they were to have a guy turned gal beating them.

 

I personally know someone who's mental health became worse after they decided were transsexual. Though, to be fair, he never very stable in the first place. So much for that anecdote.

What does this have do to with whether or not a man is a woman because he says he's a woman. If I say I'm a cow and you humor me and agree with me that I am a cow and I become less suicidal thereby, does that mean I'm a cow? No. Does it mean 7 billion other people should pretend I'm a cow? No. The truth is more important than my being a basket case.

 

this is the part i think is credible

although i do have some questions about how you type with hooves

 

Just because science can't quantify something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that that unquantified "thing" doesn't have effects!

Has science quantified "love"? "Male machismo"? "Female motherliness"? Yet none of these types of obvious gender attributes are inextricably linked to the reproductive organs.

 

I don't see how that is an apt analogy.

It is possible for a person to change genders as we hormones change the body to one more like the assumed gender and surgery gives people the genetalia of their assumed gender whereas that is not possible with an animal.

I really think the general condensending and bigoted tones contained in this thread are based off assumptions on a matter that not many of this forum are very familar with.

 

of course they're not accepting of new discoveries regarding human sexual development and roles, they want to go back to the seemingly simple ways of the 19th century and lunacy of lysander spooner

 

You are evading. You have provided no evidence or any reason I should believe that there is such a thing as gender distinct from one's biological sex.

 

You haven't even shown that there is such a thing as gender, let alone that people can change it. Besides, I thought the whole idea was that people are born with genders distinct from their sexes that they can't change. Furthermore, surgery doesn't change one's gender, sex, or genitalia. A fake vagina isn't a real vagina. It's just an gash where the penis should be.