[socialismisok]

For sure. I've had this discussion many times with many people.

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?

[oska]

You're using intersex ppl and the very real issues they have faced to then push gender ideology (your transition at the end to "A group whose bodies are functionally male but who feel a deep revulsion at being a man"). That's exploitative of intersex people but is sadly consistent with gender ideologues always trying to piggyback on other group's issues (e.g. the attempt to piggbyback on the struggles that same sex attracted people have faced).

[socialismisok]

I'm starting a discussion about the definition of women and men, first by discussing cis people, then introducing the idea that the simple label doesn't always apply, and if there is agreement, I planned to discuss trans and non binary identities.

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.

[Shared404]

You are aware that trans individuals have been part of the LGBT movement feom the beginning, even back before AIDS when it was the GLBT movement, right?

[oska]

I didn't say anything about your so-called 'LGBT movement'. I talked about 'the struggles that same sex attracted people have faced', struggles that span millennia and cultures. Your so-called 'LGBT movement' is highly western culture oriented (particularly US American / New York culture, see the other commenter's reference to Stonewall), historically recent and ideologically constructed. That is very different to my formulation, which is non-ideological, non-identitarian and consequently universally inclusive (for all same sex attracted people).

[Shared404]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

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.

[socialismisok]

Yeah, fuck, Stonewall was instigated by trans women, lesbians, and eventually gay men fighting back against oppression together. The Ball scene has always had a trans component.

To say that gender issues are piggybacking on homosexual issues is revisionism, full stop.