RIP Ellen Page (1987-2020)
I liked her for her body. She hated hers.
sharePETULANT CHILD.🙄
shareThat's harsh. She was 33 at the time!
share
MovieChat Forums > Elliot Page Discussion > RIP Ellen Page (1987-2020)
I guess it's a good thing that what he does with his body has never and will never have anything to do with you.
shareWho? I'm writing about Ellen Page, dude.
shareYes, Ellen Page is now a dude and goes by Elliot. Glad you're catching on. :)
shareShe wasn't a dude when I had sex with her in '07
shareGood for you. He is now.
shareDig her up in 500 years and she will be identified as a woman.
shareYou are most likely very correct. Although in 500 years I have no idea what they will think of gender and if they will even consider gender. I'm not arguing that Page's sex is female, and as far as I know he hasn't had bottom surgery so those sex organs would still be female. Gender is different than sex.
If you want to disagree that's fine, I don't have the expertise to argue either way. I think that science is always changing as we learn more, and if that's the consensus with the people who study that, I'm not going to argue it. I feel fortunate that my gender and my sex are the same, I can't understand it, but I can empathise with those who don't match and I can make them feel accepted while they figure things out with their doctors, and most importantly themselves. Sex and gender don't matter to me. Never have.
"I think that science is always changing"
Not in this case. For gender at the present time it's social constructs attempting to reshape and reinterpret the science. The biological science underlying sex and gender (usually) hasn't changed appreciably, certainly not enough to make any plausible case that men can be women and vice-versa.
You are referring to sex when you say that it can't be changed. That's why we have two different words. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of people. Gender came about in the early 80s and by the mid 90s gender was used more than sex. The problem is that only recently has there been discussion on the inconsistencies of the use of the word gender.
To say that there is no research into this is completely false. There were more articles and studies done in the early 2000s than the previous 50 years, and as the researchers learn more, what is accepted will change over time. That is what I meant by the science is changing. This is not my field and I am not an expert, but there are a lot of physiologists who are. I tend to defer to them.
Word games. What you state is valid if you accept the premise that "male" and "female" should be descriptors for both sex and gender, and that these are both categories that the law should respect. I reject that newfangled "progressive" construct. In my view you cannot be one sex if your biology indicates otherwise. Among other things, this dance with the word "gender" has led to men competing in women's sports. It's a totally indefensible disgrace. Even worse is the stylish notion that kids as young as three or four years old should be allowed by their parents to change their "gender" if they see fit. Somehow kids that young have the wisdom to know themselves and where truly fit into this crazy world, yet haven't even figured out how to wipe their ass efficiently. Uh huh.
shareYou have some valid concerns with sports. I'm not weighing in on that because there are still studies being done and regulations and laws being passed and I honestly don't know what is the answer to that problem.
This progressive construct of which you speak has been around since the 80s. Again, if you've not experienced it, how can you say that something cannot be? There is evidence of transgenderism back to ancient Greek times, so this is nothing new. If you've never had a question of who you are, who you are attracted to, or why you don't feel at home in your own body, then how can you say that your view is concrete. Talk to a trans person. Also, maybe take some child psychology classes, you'd be surprised to learn what a four year old is capable of knowing about themselves.
ONCE AGAIN...THANK YOU FOR THE RATIONAL,PLEASANT READ.🙂
shareNot being "at home" in your own body is wholly a social construct, not a scientific one. By "scientific" I don't mean polls and data analysis. I'm talking about anatomical and physiological correlates to this feeling, unless you're prepared to justify scientifically why women are more prone to wearing lipstick and pantyhose. Laws and rules dealing with bathroom and locker room usage, sports, scholarships, etc. (things where male vs female can come into play) should be based on sex, not the newfangled and highly confused concept of "gender."
shareOkay, so do you want trans men in women's washrooms? Do you think trans women are actually safe in men's washrooms?
Hormones are science btw. Physiology is a science. Most of the studies that I was referring to were physiological studies. Psychiatry is a science as well. I'm not just talking psychology and social sciences here. But that being said they all work together in identifying who we are.
You keep saying that the concept of gender is newfangled. Check out the actual history of two spirited people in NA Native cultures. Check out the Hijras of India. These are just two off the top of my head, but there are so many more. Just because there wasn't a legal term for it doesn't mean that it didn't exist.
No, what I'm really saying in the previous comment is that laws, rules, and regulations based on gender rather than sex is new. I don't dispute that the concept of "gender" has existed for a long time. I do think the science underlying "gender studies" is shoddy and certainly provides little to no justification for altering laws and conventions that previously did not distinguish gender and sex. Males who are males by virtue of their body parts do not belong in women's sports, women's restrooms, or women's locker rooms, and vice-versa. I think the reasons underlying those separations, which used to be perfectly fine, are still valid. Namely, biological males generally have a competitive advantage over biological women in sports, and our cultural convention has been - prudish or not - that men and women who are mainly strangers don't undress and shower in front of one another. All the gender bullshit is trying to upend that, and I don't believe the motivation is purely rooted in noble concepts like civil rights. I happen to believe that there are more purposefully destructive forces at work (my opinion only).
shareAgain, do you think that a trans woman would be safe in a men's washroom? Women's washrooms have private cubicles and I have been in several washrooms that are for anyone and I've never seen a damn thing. Nor have I felt unsafe.
When it comes to change rooms, the rec centres in my city have family change rooms that have private change rooms for everyone. No one is allowed to change outside of those. Why can't that be the norm?
That being said, I would much rather share my washroom with both trans men and trans women so that they can be safe. When the big "scare" happened about allowing trans people in the washroom of their preference, the only people who were threatening were the men who felt it was their duty to protect women. Find me a case where a trans person has attacked someone in a washroom. I've looked but not been able to find one. I'm not saying it's never happened, but it's certainly not common.
When it comes to sports, I have said that I have no opinion on it. I think that more studies need to be done to really know the effect of hormones on athletic ability. I respect those who have disallowed trans individuals, like women's rugby, because of possible injuries and I hope that other sports are having serious conversations about it. I can't say that someone who has been lower their testosterone since they were 12 will still have an advantage when they are 16 or 17. I simply don't know.
"Again, do you think that a trans woman would be safe in a men's washroom? Women's washrooms have private cubicles and I have been in several washrooms that are for anyone and I've never seen a damn thing. Nor have I felt unsafe."
What makes you think the one and only issue surrounding mixing men and women in bathrooms is safety? You keep trotting out this old warhorse just like the media did a couple years ago. Just parroting the propaganda.
And it's awfully convenient of you to have "no comment" on the obvious injustice done to women in having men competing in their sporting events. There's plenty of science on the issue already. It is well known that men in general have a competitive advantage in many, if not most, sports due to higher bone density, higher muscle mass, greater ability for their blood to transmit oxygen, etc. It's completely unknown whether hormone therapy is able to wipe out this difference, and if it could whether it can be done safely. There are plenty of studies indicating such therapy is at best transitory and even then incomplete. The only rational thing to do is to hold off mixing men and women in sports until all the science is in, not bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and say "no comment" because it suits your political agenda.
I only brought up the safety issue with washrooms because that's what seems to be the issue. You brought up washrooms and locker rooms. I responded. If it's not a safety issue, why did you bring up?
Why do you think that it's convenient for me not to have an opinion? I don't know enough about the situation!!!!! I have read studies that say that there is no advantage, and then I read others that said that after 2 years of hormone therapy that there still is an advantage. So, what I supposed to think. I am not an expert. Do I think it's fair? Again I don't know. I think that there are enough "athletes" who cheat that I don't really think that any of it's fair. I lost faith in olympic athletes with Ben Johnson. I don't want anyone getting hurt and I think I said that in my comment about Rugby. If not, this is my opinion, if cis women are getting physically hurt, then I have a problem with it.
Also, what political agenda?? This has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS! This has to do with human rights. Fuck your right and left. I care about the trans people in my life and I don't like the way people talk shit about them all the time. Not everyone wants to partake in sports, they just want to be who they are. It's not up to me to tell them what is right. That is up to them and their doctors who know them and know their situation. All I've ever advocated for here is kindness. That's all. I don't care if you understand or agree. There is no reason not to be kind.
You are a refreshing change of ideas here. Science has discovered that a trans individuals brain conforms with the gender that they are transitioning too. It's an amazing new insight that we are scratching the surface of. So interesting to me!
shareGender has been anthropologically different from sex for centuries.
The left's choice to obfuscate this (in part from uneducated ppl on that), which elicits an aggressive reaction from ignorant people like yourself is unfortunately a matter of party politics.
But don't be as dimwitted as the folks you're describing and misconstrue the difference between these terms.
I didn't care one bit about this issue until "progressives" began their attempt to convince the world that 4 year olds had the wherewithal and self-knowledge to assert that their sex and "gender" were misaligned. And speaking of dimwits, progressive-minded parents began acting on these opinions and dressing up their young boys in skirts and lipstick (conforming to gender stereotypes that feminists had been battling for decades) in order to ease their transition. It's all garbage. The idea that kindergartners who can't even blow their noses effectively are able to discern from their experience within society that they're the wrong "gender" is incredibly dumb, so dumb that there has to be an underlying agenda that has little to do with promoting the psychological health of children. I completely disagree with your implication that there is much positive value in distinguishing "gender" and "sex," and would in fact argue that the emphasis in its current incarnation is far more destructive than beneficial.
shareShe went from being merely an actress to a global icon for a whole new movement.
shareIt's no longer hot
shareLOL!