|
On April 24 2012 09:21 Kerotan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 09:13 Game wrote:On April 24 2012 08:55 DoubleReed wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 Game wrote:
Honestly, the only thing I could point out is a lack of fairness, not a bias towards transgender people. Females and males have been scientifically proven for ages to not think alike, use their brains in the same manner, or identify with things the same. The old abstract vs 3D. Point is, it makes Scarlett's ability, even with hormones and treatments, to inevitably think and play like a man unfair to the female competition. Oh but Game, you're such a sexist!! Last time I checked, even the practice queen ToSsGirl (PS I love you Tossgirl) could not compete in the tier1 of the male population of progamers, and that has gone for any high level RTS. Again, there is no evidence to demonstrate any of this. Girls are a stark minority in Starcraft, so they are at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to reaching the top by sheer numbers. Even if that were biological in nature (which you have not demonstrated), that could be a lack of interest in the game rather than a lack of competence (which is more likely anyway). You are also assuming that Scarlett has a male brain, and she's transgender ffs. The point is, you just assumed like five different things and it's bullshit. You assume I care what you say enough to go and link something you could easily google. Also, BW, you know, that thing that created eSports? It had female only professional leagues, tournaments, etcetera. So you can take one assumption out of there, because it's been tested that female gamers in StarCraft can genuinely not keep up. Its been tested that foreign gamers in StarCraft can genuinely not keep up with Korean gamers, so ergo Koreans must be genetically superior.
Uhm..what? No that just makes no sense.....Koreans just have a better infrastructure for practicing than the forefingers, even then there are a few foreigners that can compete with the Koreans (Stephano, Nani, HuK, ThorZain)
|
|
|
On April 24 2012 11:06 fAnTaCy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 09:21 Kerotan wrote:On April 24 2012 09:13 Game wrote:On April 24 2012 08:55 DoubleReed wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 Game wrote:
Honestly, the only thing I could point out is a lack of fairness, not a bias towards transgender people. Females and males have been scientifically proven for ages to not think alike, use their brains in the same manner, or identify with things the same. The old abstract vs 3D. Point is, it makes Scarlett's ability, even with hormones and treatments, to inevitably think and play like a man unfair to the female competition. Oh but Game, you're such a sexist!! Last time I checked, even the practice queen ToSsGirl (PS I love you Tossgirl) could not compete in the tier1 of the male population of progamers, and that has gone for any high level RTS. Again, there is no evidence to demonstrate any of this. Girls are a stark minority in Starcraft, so they are at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to reaching the top by sheer numbers. Even if that were biological in nature (which you have not demonstrated), that could be a lack of interest in the game rather than a lack of competence (which is more likely anyway). You are also assuming that Scarlett has a male brain, and she's transgender ffs. The point is, you just assumed like five different things and it's bullshit. You assume I care what you say enough to go and link something you could easily google. Also, BW, you know, that thing that created eSports? It had female only professional leagues, tournaments, etcetera. So you can take one assumption out of there, because it's been tested that female gamers in StarCraft can genuinely not keep up. Its been tested that foreign gamers in StarCraft can genuinely not keep up with Korean gamers, so ergo Koreans must be genetically superior. Uhm..what? No that just makes no sense.....Koreans just have a better infrastructure for practicing than the forefingers, even then there are a few foreigners that can compete with the Koreans (Stephano, Nani, HuK, ThorZain)
This my point, especially with the allusions that game was making to BW. In BW we had plenty of foreigner players, none of which could beat any top foreigner any day of the week.
You reasoned out their inability to play at the same level because of a lack of infrastructure, rather than genetics.
Game did the reverse and reasoned that women where unable to play at the same level of Korean BW players because of genetics.
What I would contest is that none of here know enough about the ladies leagues of Korean BW, and the infrastructure that pertains to them. You know that ladies MSL existed, but do you know how many players entered? do you know who they practised with, how much support they got?
Not to mention this, Do you think more men or more women played Brood War casually at its peak? I'm gonna reckon more men, and by a very large margin.
In essence, I think we should stop drawing on the experiences of women in Korean BW when we know so little about how the scene worked, basing conclusions on results posted, otherwise I could do the say for non-koreans and demonstrate that the only bo3's that a non-korean could take where off some scrub on Estro or Stx.
Throwing our hands up and going! "Genetics!" is the easy and wrong answer, gender inequality in video games is albeit simplisticly, about social stigma at a grassroots level.
|
On April 24 2012 10:58 Salazarz wrote:
I still haven't seen a single argument in this thread that would explain how does WANTING to be something actually defy biology and MAKE you that. It's unfortunate for those affected perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter how much you would want to be a girl, and no matter how many surgeries you go through, you're never actually going to be the same as a biological female. Not better or worse - just DIFFERENT. Furthermore, pretty much everyone here agrees that if someone wants to view and treat a born female and a transgender female as different things (such as not wanting to be in a relationship with a transgender purely because they are such), then that's completely fine. But, if you accept that there IS a difference between the two (see above), then why does it bother you that a tournament organizer sees this difference also, and acts on it? It doesn't really matter if YOU think these differences shouldn't affect their ability to play Starcraft - as many people mentioned, there isn't even any proof that one's gender affects their ability to play Starcraft - but if someone wants to run a female-only tournament, that's their right. Likewise if someone wants to run a biological female-only tournament, they are more than entitled to do so; and expecting them to specify that this tournament is for BIOLOGICAL females only, or go to some lengths to explain why is it such, or starting some controversy about how this or that should or should not be allowed isn't 'helping the scene to be more accepting' or whatever. If anything, it's just going to annoy people and stir up useless drama.
Why would being accepting of people stir up useless drama? I totally don't understand how you got to your conclusion. Where's the controversy of accepting transgendered females into a female tournament? The whole point of female-only tournaments is getting women more involved in the scene in the first place. It's all about accepting people.
And no, I don't necessarily accept that females and transgendered females should be treated differently. Sexual preference is not even nearly enough to suggest anything of the sort. People have all sorts of arbitrary sexual preferences. That means nothing.
On April 24 2012 09:13 Game wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 08:55 DoubleReed wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 Game wrote:
Honestly, the only thing I could point out is a lack of fairness, not a bias towards transgender people. Females and males have been scientifically proven for ages to not think alike, use their brains in the same manner, or identify with things the same. The old abstract vs 3D. Point is, it makes Scarlett's ability, even with hormones and treatments, to inevitably think and play like a man unfair to the female competition. Oh but Game, you're such a sexist!! Last time I checked, even the practice queen ToSsGirl (PS I love you Tossgirl) could not compete in the tier1 of the male population of progamers, and that has gone for any high level RTS. Again, there is no evidence to demonstrate any of this. Girls are a stark minority in Starcraft, so they are at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to reaching the top by sheer numbers. Even if that were biological in nature (which you have not demonstrated), that could be a lack of interest in the game rather than a lack of competence (which is more likely anyway). You are also assuming that Scarlett has a male brain, and she's transgender ffs. The point is, you just assumed like five different things and it's bullshit. You assume I care what you say enough to go and link something you could easily google. Also, BW, you know, that thing that created eSports? It had female only professional leagues, tournaments, etcetera. So you can take one assumption out of there, because it's been tested that female gamers in StarCraft can genuinely not keep up.
Okay, so you can show certain things are biological in nature, sure. Women and men have different brains and such. But your claims make much more specific claims about women's competence levels at certain tasks, which are simply absurd. They have not been proven and they are blatantly false anyway.
Really, and have all factors been taken out of testing of female gamers in Starcraft? Have you dismantled all the social and cultural issues? Have you made sure of their practice routines? Have you given them the same support as the male teams? Has the numbers advantage been taken away? "It's been tested that female gamers in Starcraft can genuinely not keep up" is one of the dumbest, stupidest things I have heard. There are so many possibilities beyond biology that could cause correlation in a single game in a single culture. Come on man. You're not even trying.
I'm sorry, but the world doesn't work on "common sense." It works in counter-intuitive ways among all the sciences. I don't care about your anecdotes or your pseudoscience. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's dangerous to assume that the world is overly simplistic because you can fall into an "affective death spiral", where all positive evidence you notice from your life are used to justify your views and all negative evidence is ignored.
|
On April 24 2012 08:48 Game wrote:
Honestly, the only thing I could point out is a lack of fairness, not a bias towards transgender people. Females and males have been scientifically proven for ages to not think alike, use their brains in the same manner, or identify with things the same. The old abstract vs 3D. Point is, it makes Scarlett's ability, even with hormones and treatments, to inevitably think and play like a man unfair to the female competition. Oh but Game, you're such a sexist!! Last time I checked, even the practice queen ToSsGirl (PS I love you Tossgirl) could not compete in the tier1 of the male population of progamers, and that has gone for any high level RTS.
Tossgirl beat [NC]Yellow, FreeMura, Reach, and Flash. If you were to say "Oh, well, she sucks now.", so does Nal_Ra, Boxer, Reach, July, and a lot of other old-school players. "But silly Nina, Tossgirl never even qualified for a Starleague, therefore your argument is invalid." and yeah, that's true. Making it past the qualifiers is tough. Think about how talented Sea[Shield] was a couple years ago. He never could make it past a ro32, but still was able to beat Jaedong (When Jaedong was still good) and beat any top-tier proleague player.
But basically, Tossgirl is about as feminine as you can get, and she's still talented. Not just talented, though, but talented enough to beat Yellow at the peak of his career.
|
I understand your point. But I also beat YellOw. I'm white. Not to mention, she trained in progaming houses for around 7 years, there's no way she wasn't bound to take key wins off of people whether they were in their prime or simply up and comers at that point and time. It's a pretty moot point. Being a progamer for 5+ years and having 2 notable wins isn't exactly flattering to your skill. But if you want to argue that Tossgirl was indeed a top tier progamer, have at it.
|
I think it comes down to whether or not males have a biological advantage at SC2 over females.
It's likely they don't, and the domination of males is simply do to them being a vast majority of serious gamers. That said, I feel males might have an advantage in some areas like reflexes, bigger hands, and stamina (to practice) so it might not be a completely moot point. The female only leagues are all fairly small prize pools anyway though, and it should be up to the organizers, so there doesn't seem to be an issue with Scarlett competing if the organizers don't mind.
|
|
|
On April 24 2012 08:43 zany_001 wrote:
Perhaps a better question is, why are there female only tournaments at all? I'm not aware of any male only tournaments. If the purpose is to get more girls interested in the game then fine, but any reason other than that is sexist, IMHO.
1.) Female tournaments are to encourage the growth of females being involved. It is something that is needed at the moment.
Reading the thread usually helps.. :x
On April 24 2012 05:53 krndandaman wrote:
Also, I really don't like the 'argument' where people say that you are what you identify yourselves as. If I thought I was black but I was actually born asian am I black? Did you consider Michael Jackson white?
I think you miss the point that gender != sex. While gender and sex may be the same for most people it's not necessary true for everyone. A bit simplified:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kIWo5.jpg)
So gender is purely about identifying yourself.
While you can influence/change your sex (at least to a certain degree as Tesla pointed out) as far as I know you don't have a possibility to change orientation or gender via treatment. Ask some Brits, they lost one of their brightest minds by trying to change his orientation with hormone treatment.
What's confusing for me is that mostly male people are questioning/complaining that she can participate in female only tournaments while the female community seems to be cool/okay with it.
|
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html
Using the above link as my source, Scarlett is a person with the sex of male and the gender of feminine. Scarlett is and will forever be male, as that body is the only constant as a persons mind can change. What if she no longer desires to have the body of a female? She wouldn't be the first one. Would Scarlett's female tournament wins become null?
I think most people from what I have read in this thread, want Scarlett come across as what Scarlett actually is, a feminine male, which according to the source above, is what Scarlett actually is.
So we have established that Scarlett is a feminine male.
Next, we have to define what a female tournament is. This is actually where the opinions diverge.
The ones arguing for Scarlett to be allowed to participate in female only tournaments must agree that for entrance into a female only tournament, ones gender must be feminine regardless of the sex.
A few problem arise from that train of thought. Think of the gender roles in your country. Now make a pretend country where the gender roles are swapped. For clarification lets say F1 = feminine in your country, M1 = masculine in your country, F2 is feminine in the opposite country, and M2 for masculine in the opposite country. So we established that F1 = M2 and M1 = F2. If your country held a F1 tournament, would the M2 be allowed to participate? You would have to answer yes. If you asked the M2 if they were masculine, they would say yes, although you would say that they are not masculine. Obviously this would cause tension and be in general somewhat confusing.
Secondly, what is feminine is and always be loosely defined because it is based of the culture of which you are a part of. Using loosely defined definitions of what is feminine deteriorated the integrity of the tournament. What is feminine today might not be feminine tomorrow. If female tournament means people with the gender of feminine can play, while it would be full of females today, it could be full of males down the road.
Thirdly, because feminine is hard to define, its also impossible to measure. What is the amount of feminine needed to enter a tournament? Do you need to go shopping every weekend? Carry a purse? Wear a dress? According to the 'Scarlett should be able to participate' crowd, Scarlett meets the requirement of what it means to be feminine. But what are those requirements? A person who identifies as feminine doesnt have to do 100% feminine things, but what is enough to say that "You can enter, you are feminine enough." What if Wladimir Klitschko decides to be feminine? Would you let him into female boxing? You would have to say yes.
Having tournaments based on sex, do not run into these issues.
Males of your country will always be males of another. Same with females.
What a male is today will always be a male of tomorrow.
Sex is also measurable in a true false sense. You are either male or female, baring few rare unfortunate occurrences.
+ Show Spoiler +This also ignores that fact that both sides of the argument keep calling the tournaments as female, which implies that it is based on sex, not gender.
|
I am fine with ppl feeling they are in a wrong body, a person can run around however he wants, as a female or male, gay or not i don´t care since in normal life it does´t hurt anyone. In sports cases i think different and everyone should stay on it´s side.
This discussion is not a problem of Scarlett, it´s the orgaproblem of the Iron Lady tournament.
If you think there is no different between male and female in SC2, do not start a tournament called "Lady" and add ppl by your own opinion, males, females whatever.
You just can't think or talk away the biological truth.
|
Lockitupv2, as someone else in the thread corrected me, transgender does not refer to simply feminine characteristics for a man. There are plenty of feminine men who are not at all transgender. So clearly what you're saying makes no sense. Please do not make sweeping conclusions about something that you even admit that you have little knowledge of.
|
On April 25 2012 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Lockitupv2, as someone else in the thread corrected me, transgender does not refer to simply feminine characteristics for a man. There are plenty of feminine men who are not at all transgender. So clearly what you're saying makes no sense. Please do not make sweeping conclusions about something that you even admit that you have little knowledge of.
According to http://geneq.berkeley.edu/lgbt_resources_definiton_of_terms#transgender, a "female with a masculine gender identity" would be considered a transgender person but also a person "who identifies as a man" is as well, which is Scarlett's case, but reversed.
|
This needs to be at the beginning of every thread about transgender issues, so that people actually understand the science behind this, and can realize that gender and sex are not the same thing.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote:I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly. First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments. Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed. First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people. White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging studyThe microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatmentRegional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualismGiven then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like? No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing. Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he". First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them. Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)? Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things. Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.** * Harry Benjamin Standards of Care** Psychosocial characteristics of applicants evaluated for surgical gender reassignmentI ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting). Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings. That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
|
On April 25 2012 05:45 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Lockitupv2, as someone else in the thread corrected me, transgender does not refer to simply feminine characteristics for a man. There are plenty of feminine men who are not at all transgender. So clearly what you're saying makes no sense. Please do not make sweeping conclusions about something that you even admit that you have little knowledge of. According to http://geneq.berkeley.edu/lgbt_resources_definiton_of_terms#transgender, a "female with a masculine gender identity" would be considered a transgender person but also a person "who identifies as a man" is as well, which is Scarlett's case, but reversed.
So, essentially, you associate "gender" with "gender stereotypes"?
Transgenderism has nothing to do with men wanting to wear purses and women wanting to play football.
|
I know I called my school friend a she...But that situation has always been very weird. I've known her since we were both children, in elementary school. I remember when she was feminine. However, I knew her in middle school too...When she decided to act more like a he and live her life more as a male. He also went on and started having all the social websites list that profile information under that of a guy. He continued to act male...even in High school, however...After high school, she has started acting more like a she. She now has her social websites list her as female, not male... It is a very odd and weird situation. It is also a little hard for me to think of her as a guy, when I've known her most of my life and I've seen her go back and forth between male and female over the years. Currently she still acts quite a bit like a guy but much more like a female than in earlier years and she now lists herself as a female...So for now, I call her "her"...Not "he". I hope that makes better sense. I am not sure if she has truly identified herself as one gender over the other or if she is just gender confused. However, I respect my friend, none the less and I do my best to refer to her by whatever gender she is telling the rest of the world that she is.
|
Well, males and females think differently, so they do play and approach the game a bit differently. Their ability to do specific tasks is different, so I do not agree it's completely fair to have a transgender in the competition. I don't think the brain functions the same, transgenders may think very similar, but there's still some difference.
That being said, I don't know if I support it or not. I'd need more detailed information on that, and on every specific person/case to actually make a objective decision, but since that's not really possible, I guess we have to leave everything in the hands of the tournament admins/organizers.
|
On April 25 2012 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 05:45 Lockitupv2 wrote:On April 25 2012 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Lockitupv2, as someone else in the thread corrected me, transgender does not refer to simply feminine characteristics for a man. There are plenty of feminine men who are not at all transgender. So clearly what you're saying makes no sense. Please do not make sweeping conclusions about something that you even admit that you have little knowledge of. According to http://geneq.berkeley.edu/lgbt_resources_definiton_of_terms#transgender, a "female with a masculine gender identity" would be considered a transgender person but also a person "who identifies as a man" is as well, which is Scarlett's case, but reversed. So, essentially, you associate "gender" with "gender stereotypes"? Transgenderism has nothing to do with men wanting to wear purses and women wanting to play football.
I dont make the definitions but I play by them. You want to change the definition of transgendered take it up with them.
|
On April 25 2012 14:46 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2012 05:45 Lockitupv2 wrote:On April 25 2012 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Lockitupv2, as someone else in the thread corrected me, transgender does not refer to simply feminine characteristics for a man. There are plenty of feminine men who are not at all transgender. So clearly what you're saying makes no sense. Please do not make sweeping conclusions about something that you even admit that you have little knowledge of. According to http://geneq.berkeley.edu/lgbt_resources_definiton_of_terms#transgender, a "female with a masculine gender identity" would be considered a transgender person but also a person "who identifies as a man" is as well, which is Scarlett's case, but reversed. So, essentially, you associate "gender" with "gender stereotypes"? Transgenderism has nothing to do with men wanting to wear purses and women wanting to play football. I dont make the definitions but I play by them. You want to change the definition of transgendered take it up with them.
So, when we're talking about one definition you make all your conclusions and arguments about another definition? Wow that sounds like a very intelligent discussion.
|
On April 25 2012 20:01 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 14:46 Lockitupv2 wrote:On April 25 2012 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2012 05:45 Lockitupv2 wrote:On April 25 2012 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Lockitupv2, as someone else in the thread corrected me, transgender does not refer to simply feminine characteristics for a man. There are plenty of feminine men who are not at all transgender. So clearly what you're saying makes no sense. Please do not make sweeping conclusions about something that you even admit that you have little knowledge of. According to http://geneq.berkeley.edu/lgbt_resources_definiton_of_terms#transgender, a "female with a masculine gender identity" would be considered a transgender person but also a person "who identifies as a man" is as well, which is Scarlett's case, but reversed. So, essentially, you associate "gender" with "gender stereotypes"? Transgenderism has nothing to do with men wanting to wear purses and women wanting to play football. I dont make the definitions but I play by them. You want to change the definition of transgendered take it up with them. So, when we're talking about one definition you make all your conclusions and arguments about another definition? Wow that sounds like a very intelligent discussion.
What are you talking about? I use the same definition through out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
