There is a record-setting high school runner on Nor Cal at that 3200 distance that I assumed was a trans female. Nobody mentions it though, and it’s possible I made a gross mis-assumption.
There is a record-setting high school runner on Nor Cal at that 3200 distance that I assumed was a trans female. Nobody mentions it though, and it’s possible I made a gross mis-assumption.
thank you thank you wrote:
Are you sure - I just need to say I really appreciate your voice here. Thank you, thank you. (I’m a cis female, not that should matter), but just want you to know you are not alone in understanding gender (different from sexuality which some people don’t seem the grasp) is not defined by genitals.
_________________
What neither of you seem to understand is that the definition of "gender" is at the very heart of current debates about sex-based rights. The popular queer theory-based definition of gender, which is basically a circular definition rooted in a person's subjective sense of self vis-a-vis...biological sex? gender roles?, is not factual. It's ideological because it is not based on anything observable, measurable, or falsifiable. Many definitions define gender as a person's sense of self with regard to gender without ever defining what gender is. If you push these definitions to their logical conclusions many either become nonsensical or reveal that the implicit definition of gender is a sex-based stereotype.
If you look at scientific research, rather than postmodern philosophy, you'll find that sex, sex role conformity, and sexual orientation are linked, though not in a deterministic way. This makes sense because we are a sexually dimorphic, sexually-reproducing species. Somehow, Judith Butler's chaotic theory arguing that human beings are exempt from evolutionary history and that the links between sex, gender, and sexuality are an effect of power, has caused people to lose sight of basic facts. What Judith Butler refers to as the hetrosexual matrix (the causal links between sex, behavior, and heterosexuality) exists because human beings are mammals, not because some nebulous power structure (a copy of a copy of a copy with no original) duped most of society into following a social script.
It's obviously possible to acknowledge the moral equality of people who do not fit with their sex category for whatever reason without saying that the existence of these people proves that sex, gender, and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other. Human beings are mammals, and this has an impact on the way we live. We're still embodied creatures, not disembedded personalities that can think themselves into being by sheer will.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
seen it with my own eyes wrote:
Wasn't there semi trendy news about a few boys competing in girls' track in New England? I've also seen a boy win a girls' high school 3200 at a track meet in California. Not sure what the threshold is for how many boys need to be competing against girls before it's considered more than a theory, but it's clearly not something that never happens.
What HS 3200 race in California did the kid win? The results are undoubtedly available online.
Feels a little weird to dox the person (I understand you think I'm lying unless I provide a link, which is totally reasonable). But, I'll just say it was a heat of a 3200 at a track meet in the Bay Area a few years ago. So, it wasn't the invitational heat and thereby technically meaningless to us big talkers on LetsRun, but it did happen and maybe was meaningful to others in that heat.