Babylon Bee felt attacked and refused to delete the tweet, so they just left their own account locked.
Sex and gender are both significantly more complex than just chromosomes, genitalia, or organs. If you are interested, I'm happy to dive into a good faith discussion of where the science actually falls.
Sex, scientifically, is determined by the kind of gametes an organism produces in sexual maturity. Males produce small sex cells, females produce large sex cells. There is no overlap among mammals (i.e. human sex is “binary”)
Gender is a concept made up by feminists with no consistent definition, use mainly to confuse.
Which restrooms should they use?
It's only after you dive into the science at a collegiate level or higher that you learn there's a small percentage, maybe 1-2% of people, for whom this binary understanding is not a good model.
I'm not saying it's bad to only have a high school understanding, just that it's an incomplete understanding.
I wouldn't deliberately misgender someone just to be a jerk, but the idea suite you're referencing had way less purchase 7 years ago or so, it'd be considered a niche view.
It's kind of incredible to go from there to "this is a settled mandatory philosophical viewpoint and disagreement is banished" in such a short time.
We used to think that being gay was a mental disease. We now recognize it as something that many animals have as a part of their population, including humans. 20 years ago, being gay was like, pretty much not accepted in public and the science was developing.
Trans identities are coming a bit later, but we're still learning and developing our models.
It's massively overstating things to call it "settled science" or even "science" at this point. It's philosophy in theory and public opinion in practice.
Consider: you would probably agree with me that a butch tomboy and a valley girl fashionista are both women. But they represent different extremes on what we, socially, agree femininity is. We might say the butch woman is less feminine than the valley girl.
Likewise, we'd typically say Clint Eastwood is more manly than, say, Bill Gates. A similar spread of "manliness" for men.
If we're on the same page so far, we're comfortable with the idea that gender has a spectrum - two separate spectrums, one for men and one for women. I don't need you to agree that they intersect at all, just that the concept of "manliness" and "femininity" are not single points in their respective genders.
Now let's look globally. Are the same spectrums universal? In the Middle East, east Asia, Russia, central Africa, and Polynesia... Does feminity look the same?
I'd argue no. A hijab or niqab might evoke feminity in some parts of the world but not in others. Following this, there must be a social component to feminity and manliness. And this component is not genetic. So there must be "something" that exists that's a social construct related to sex.
What should we call this social construct, assuming we agree there is no chromosomal need to wear a niqab?
Academically, gender has evolved to be the word that describes the cultural expectations placed on men and women. These expectations allow for some flexibility for culture and personality.
If you are comfortable with this so far, and we can agree on the above, I'm happy to dive into the fluidity, non-binary, and forget separation of gender and sex as a follow on discussion. But if we disagree about the above, we should sort that before moving on.
I'm not even saying I have a problem with those norms, I like everyone, I just think it's an overreach.
It's an accurate observation to say that higher-income liberals tend to think this way and enforce these norms but the norms themselves are in the realm of culture and politics.
Similarly, it's accurate to say conservatives tend to think people who flout traditional gender norms matched to their genetics are weirdos. Not scientific on their part either.
But also, gender is beyond just US liberal and conservative. Plenty of cultures around the world and throughout recorded history have had third genders and trans people, and they were not considered "weird". I believe sociologists are attempting to review human behavior across all spans and across cultures and compare even to animals (there are recorded instances of animals fulfilling reversed gender roles for their species).
Where this all gets cleared up is that you should use more specific terms such as "Gender norms", "gender presentation", etc. Someone of the male gender can present as very feminine, but that doesn't make them a woman. It is not bad that their gender presentation is at odds with the gender norms expected of their gender, but their gender is not fluid and doesn't change. Only their gender presentation.
I realize I'm probably tilting at windmills here, but if everyone realized that gender is simply sex as it relates to social contexts and got more specific with their terminology, there'd be a lot less talking past each other.
There's a wide variety of genders in the rest of the world as well. While this is a newer concept in American and Western cultures, there are non male, non female genders dating back to mesopotamia.
And sure, there's historically been a wide range of gender roles, norms, and expectations, but there's only ever been two genders.
I like to invite folks, rather than make assumptions about their preferences. The invitation is open to the community, of course!
I'd argue that most women, in fact probably 99% or more, fall into a fairly straightforward definition - two X chromosomes, raised to behave like whatever their society expects from women. (I think we can agree that "woman" might have different cultural/social expectations depending on where they were raised? E.g. in some parts of the world a niqab or hajib is expected, for instance.)
But there exists a small group of people who don't fit in with that definition. They might have been born with a penis but two XX chromosomes, they might have been born without functional ovaries or an abnormal set of genitalia.
They might have been born with XY chromosomes but never developed a penis.
These folks are intersex, and are often raised as women.
I would say, in these cases, that we might agree that they are women - their chromosomes might not always be XX, but all their features and body development and social upbringing in the world suggests that they are women.
Then we come to another group. A group whose bodies are functionally male but who feel a deep revulsion at being a man.
But before we dive in to that case, are you comfortable with the other two cases and have any disagreements about the 99% or intersex cases?
The goal is to explain that it is not as simple as XX or XY, not to say trans and intersex people face the same challenges.
To say that gender issues are piggybacking on homosexual issues is revisionism, full stop.
Trans people have spanned history, and much like people who experience same-sex attraction have experienced a variety of acceptance and rejection based on the culture at the time.
In what way is this piggy backing? In addition, as far as western contexts pre-GLBT, both transgender and same sex attracted people have been related since pre-nazi Germany and both were persecuted by the Nazis (to be clear, this is not an invitation to invoke Godwin's Law, nor me comparing you to a Nazi. It's just an example of a case where gay and trans individuals have been joined together).
E: Fixed spelling and expanded second paragraph.
Everyone reading this needs to look up John Money. The founding father of "sex and gender are different".
That doesn't change the truth that gender and biological sex are both characteristics of the human experience - usually they line up, and sometimes they don't.
I think it does, as that's the foundation of the notion. Prior to that, they were completely interchangeable and authors would use "gender" to mean "sex" where it was considered more crass to say "sex". Gender is just a euphemism for sex.
It was believed that since they were not the same thing it would be possible to safely raise someone as an arbitrary gender despite that not being the case.
The failure is in that both gender and sex are biological characteristics, and at that point in time Money believed that gender was strictly social - which is _clearly_ inaccurate.
In short - Reimer was forced into the life of being a trans person, despite having been born cis.
Are there peer reviewed papers or something on Arvix that explicitly dive into the "beyond high school level of biology" where sex is not defined at the cellular level (wrt Autosomes)? I am not interested in debating the sociological version, to be perfectly honest.
But there exist people whose sex doesn't work into that model.
Consider some 46 XX intersex people. In these cases, outside conditions (typically an endocrine imbalance in the mother) leads to the development of a penis, and the loss of a vagina. These children may be raised as boys. Similarly, some XY people are born with autosomal defects that prevent them from effectively processing testosterone into dihydrotestosterone. As a result, their bodies develop into what we would consider typically female. They are often raised as girls.
There are dozens of conditions similar to these.
"XX male syndrome" might be one example of specifically what you are looking for - people who are scientifically discussed as male despite having XX chromosomes, a typically female karotype. It can be caused by autosomal origins
Ultimately, we cannot remove the discussion of sociological science from biology, because we make choices for kids in these cases. And those choices differ depending on culture. The US preferentially gives intersex people male gender, while Saudi Arabia does the opposite, even for the same conditions. In this way, even biological sex has some social component.
Or to bring it full circle, I doubt the Bee would petition to get someone banned for satirizing "God" or saying "God is not real".
Because you're making these zero-transparency and zero-due process systems fill this role. Which is naive and idealistic in the worst ways.
I would probably believe in these exact things when I was an ill-formed and very socially concerned 16 year old, but I can't honestly take that position today. The only people I see taking this position are people willing to gamble for today for short term gains of their pet ideologies while ignoring long term harm.
A comedian gets up during his stand up routine and comments on your big nose, which you're sensitive about and wish no one would comment on, since you've always wanted a small, delicate nose, and in fact you've scheduled surgery to 'fix' it.
After they comment on your nose you loudly protest and ask the comedian to cease, since you really don't think the nose represents the true 'you.'
Is it 'hate' for the comedian, against your wishes to continue to make jokes that night, and in fact, he finds the whole exchange (and you) so funny that he incorporates the exchange into all his routines going forward?
I'd argue that it is maybe a bit rude, but it is exactly why we have people like comedians- they are the court jesters for our society, they point out when our good intentions turn into pathologies and give us room to reflect on progressive and regressive overreach.
Taking that out of the public sphere removes a good chunk of society's ability to make course corrections.
Except:
A) Gender != biological sex.
B) Even biological sex has a lot more shades of grey
C) Even if the Bee were referring to biological sex, it would be Male/Female of the year, not Man/Woman.
D) It's the Bee. Everyone knows the intent.
What makes you thing they weren't talking about biological sex?
> B) Even biological sex has a lot more shades of grey
Which are not applicable in this case, since the sex of the individial in question is inambiguous.
C) Even if the Bee were referring to biological sex, it would be Male/Female of the year, not Man/Woman.
A man is defined as an adult male.
> D) It's the Bee. Everyone knows the intent.
Yes, the intent of satire is to make fun of absurd situations.
This evolution of language has been very rapid in some circles, and slow in others, but everyone uses it to some degree.
For example, when people say, "Be a man!" Or "man up!", they aren't saying, "show your adult male body".
They are saying, "meet our standards for what a man in our culture is!" Mulan's famous song, "I'll make a man out of you" has nothing to do with chromosomes or penises. It has everything to do with the social side of the term "man".
So at the very least, the word man is ambiguous and could mean adult male or it could mean someone who is manly in behavior.
No, some people are artificially trying to create this distinction. In normal speech, “man” and “male” are pretty much interchangeable.
> For example, when people say, "Be a man!" Or "man up!", they aren't saying, "show your adult male body".
They're saying “show properties that are traditionally associated with males”. These stereotypes have to place in modern society and I find it appalling that the people who claim to want equality are continuing to perpetuate them.
Biological sex is unrelated to the topic at hand, unless of course they were working on some genetics homework, or working on a eugenics project I suppose.
> Which are not applicable in this case, since the sex of the individial in question is inambiguous.
Is it - where do you draw the line? If it's production of gametes, what if she doesn't? If it's hormonal balance, she's now biologicaly female. If it's presence/absence of a penis/vagina, she could have either. If it's X/Y chromosomes, she could be XY, XXY, XX[0], or chimeric.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
More importantly, in what way does her biological sex impact her public influence? I certainly hope her chromosomes or genetalia have little to no impact on her public life.
> A man is defined as an adult male.
From Trans Man in Webster: Definition of trans man
: a transgender man : a man who was identified as female at birth
Making it acceptable per webster to use singular man/woman for a trans individual.
> Yes, the intent of satire is to make fun of absurd situations.
That's The Onion. The Bee is propaganda wrapped up in "it's just a joke bro". The Onion punches both ways, the Bee doesn't.
> Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.
I'm on main and will be willing to continue this discussion when you or someone else comes back with yours/theirs.
E: And if you or someone else _isn't_ willing to come back and attache their name to that statement, I guess you understand the point.
So is hormonal balance or whatever you use for defining gender. Why do we care about gender at all?
> Is it - where do you draw the line?
When a person's body has all typical characteristics of a specific sex, then it's unambiguously that sex. Otherwise, they can rightfully identify as intersex, but that has nothing to do with transgenderism, where the body is unambiguous and only the mind seems to differ (and that's only considering people with gender dysphoria, aka “truscum”, and not those that are doing it for other reasons).
> From Trans Man in Webster: Definition of trans man
: a transgender man : a man who was identified as female at birth
If politically motivated people create a dictionary entry, then it agrees with them. What a surprise.
The word “assigned” is nonsense. The doctor doesn't flip a coin to determine the sex. The sex is observed.
> The Onion punches both ways, the Bee doesn't.
The Bee makes fun of conservatives too quite often.
Gender is defined by the person who is experiencing it. More specifically, gender is clearly biological to an extent (source: every trans person, as well as Reimer who was discussed elsewhere in the thread), but tends to represent itself with various social norms for a given gender (see: Various trans and third gender people across history, who align with gender roles not matching their birth sex).
Gender is relevant here due to that second section - it impacts how one sees and interacts with the world.
> When a person's body has all typical characteristics of a specific sex, then it's unambiguously that sex. Otherwise, they can rightfully identify as intersex, but that has nothing to do with transgenderism, where the body is unambiguous and only the mind seems to differ
The point is that far more people could be defined as 'intersex' then are, and many people who could have any of the conditions I listed above and not realize it. As there is no biological definition that doesn't need an exception to match many people who would be traditionally considered male or female, trying to argue this point is meaningless.
A simple Male/Female model is Good Enough for most peoples understanding, but is fundamentally flawed.
> If politically motivated people create a dictionary entry, then it agrees with them. What a surprise.
This argument can be used to dismiss anything, and thus cannot prove anything. Do you have other examples of political motivation here, or is it just that it is political because it disagrees?
> The word “assigned” is nonsense. The doctor doesn't flip a coin to determine the sex. The sex is observed.
Sex is observed, and gender is assigned based on sex. Usually, this matches up just fine. Sometimes, it doesn't.
> (and that's only considering people with gender dysphoria, aka “truscum”, and not those that are doing it for other reasons).
Truscum != people who have gender dysphoria. Truscum == Trans people who believe that you require gender dysphoria to be trans _and_ try to prevent other trans people from seeking treatment based on that belief.
> The Bee makes fun of conservatives too quite often.
Of eight articles on their landing page, four articles clearly attack the left from the headline, one could ambiguously attack either, but becomes clearly about the left in two paragraphs, One appears to be about the Bee itself - but actually is anti-left, and two appear to be benign "haha people funny[0]".
[0] "Batman In Hospital After Gotham Thugs Realize They Can Attack All At Once Instead Of Just One At A Time" was subscriber only, but "Man Celebrates 40th Birthday With Finely-Aged, Single Malt Bottle Of Advil " made me actually laugh.
E: Trimmed bad copy at the bottom and some spelling errors/phrasing.
My hot take is that it's OK to mock senior government officials, actually.
Mocking senior American government officials is the most protected speech in the country, in fact. I do it liberally an encourage others to. It's the most fundamental part of holding them accountable.
Alicia Keys or Keri Hilson she ain't....
If she were an absentee First Lady and less proactive, I could totally see someone calling her "Sasquatch" (a big mythical ape-creature rarely captured on camera) as a criticism and I'd be ok with that.
Babylon Bee attacked a high-profile trans public servant in a way meant to (IMO) provide commentary on society's approach to trans issues and the implications for biological females? I'm ok with that too. I think some comedian, maybe Bill Burr or Andrew Schulz, had a similar bit: "Men are so awesome we're even better at being women than actual women. That's why a Man[Bruce Jenner] is Woman of the Year[Caitlyn Jenner], in his first year as a woman." or something to that effect.
Twitter is the defacto online public square for a great number of people in politics, journalism, academia and many other fields.
Twitter's TOS was, for whatever reason, deliberately written to disenfranchise half the voter base, half the country more or less by making it so simply expressing deeply held political or religious views would get half of them banned.
I'd argue that if Twitter has a liberal bias, it reflects the mostly majority opinions. (Speaking as a leftist whose friends are constantly banned for trivial nonsense, Twitter also hates the left. Not the Democrats, they aren't leftist.)
No, they were attacked.
You act on the feeling.