Court rules it's unconstitutional to require surgery for change of gender on documents

Court rules it's unconstitutional to require surgery for change of gender on documents

This is where I get confused on the conflation of sex and gender. Gender is a social concept, but sex is a biological one. What is actually being recorded in Japanese documentation sex or gender?

Obviously this person has gone half way by having their breasts removed, and I can appreciate that forcing infertility on someone to allow them to live as their gender is not fair, so I guess it makes sense.

Anyway, cue plenty of reactionary outrage and slippery slope fallacies below.

This ruling is just going to make things more confusing for people.

Currently Japan does not allow same sex marriage, however if this case stays as is, if one person chooses to change their "gender" on the paperwork filed for marriage, yet do not go through the procedure to have their "sex" altered/changed, it basically means then that same sex marriage would be legal.

Oh wait, different "gender" same "sex" marriage!

“an irreversible loss of reproductive functions, “

Living as a man, isn’t it the functions that Gen Suzuki has decided not to use ? Or is he planning to have a baby? It’s a family court decision. It’ll be overturned at a district court.

The verdict sets only a limited precedent, but a similar case before Japan’s Supreme Court could set legal precedent nationally.

As I understand it, Japanese courts are not bound by precedent other than reference. So unfortunately I'm not sure that setting a precedent would matter.

I'm interested if someone has further information on how precedent and Japanese law work together.

This ruling is just going to make things more confusing for people.

Too bad for them, but the court need not worry about those people, that's not within their purveyance. The law is often confusing to people, that's why confused people can hire lawyers to get it explained to them.

Court rules it's unconstitutional to require surgery for change of gender on documents.

The first step towards making it easier for transgender people to simply self-identify.

I hope this ruling does not lead to a threat for ... Women and Girls safe spaces.

A safe space is a formal or informal place where women and girls feel physically and emotionally safe. The term 'safe,' in the present context, refers to the absence of trauma, excessive stress, violence (or fear of violence), or abuse.

Women's Rights, Facts, Science, Law - Our Beliefs.....

https://fairplayforwomen.com/about-us/our-beliefs/

1) Biological sex exists, and in certain situations it is vitally important – objective truths are not bigoted or transphobic.

*For dignity and privacy. In all those places where a person is vulnerable or exposed, women and girls, and also men and boys, generally feel more comfortable where there is no one of the opposite sex.*

Randy DaytonaToday 07:59 am JST

What's ignorant is think believing something your not wont get criticism or to say others don't know the difference is ridiculous

What's truly, willfully ignorant is someone who thinks they understand sex and gender constructs better than the psychologists and other social scientists who have been studying the subject for decades and have done thousands of hours of research to come to the conclusions that are widely accepted as the standard for care.

Obviously a male is male and a female is female

See above.

Your sex cannot be changed with surgery

See above.

It's a disability to have an identity issue because the majority of the population of planet earth doesn't have that problem

If it is a disability (it is not) then why would you be so dead set against those people getting the care that they need? This is akin to saying "blind people are a minority so why should we have braille" or "the majority of the population of the planet can walk, so why should we have ramps and wheelchair accessibility laws."

This comment is a particularly good one for showcasing that this hatred towards transgender people is a personal prejudice from willful ignorance and stubborn resistance to societal change.

Obviously it's wrong to require surgery to change genders.

Sex, well you can't change sex.

Strangerland,

Introduction: Nature of the Japanese legal system

https://www.daiichihoki.co.jp/store/upload/pdf/025965_pub.pdf

In practice, case law interpreting statutes continues to grow in importance and is in reality a vehicle for making new law, as well as interpreting existing legislation. Case law, however, is limited in scope by the systemic absence of a doctrine of precedent, so that although in practice judges monitor case law throughout the system and there is policy coordination of judicial decision- making in areas such as tort compensation, decisions of individual courts — other than those of the Supreme Court — do not bind other courts or the same or lower rank in the hierarchy

Sorry I am at a loss to give a full and detailed explanation. i was under the impression precedence is a key factor in judicial decision making..?

But it is a start

If you have the organs then you is what you is.

Call yourself trans——-, whatever you are happy with, being male or female is down to your biology.

*What's truly, willfully ignorant is someone who thinks they understand sex and gender constructs better than the psychologists and other social scientists who have been studying the subject for decades and have done thousands of hours of research to come to the conclusions that are widely accepted as the standard for care.*

Obviously a male is male and a female is female

See above.

Your sex cannot be changed with surgery

See above.

So in 200 years when your remains are exhumed and they do a DNA test they can determine if you were a transgender?

ROFL, too funny!

Sorry I am at a loss to give a full and detailed explanation. i was under the impression precedence is a key factor in judicial decision making..?

It's been explained to me that they can (should?) use precedence as a reference, but are not bound to it, as in American law.

I think that's what this is saying, but it's a bit more legalese than my brain works well with:

Case law, however, is limited in scope by the systemic absence of a doctrine of precedent, so that although in practice judges monitor case law throughout the system and there is policy coordination of judicial decision- making in areas such as tort compensation, decisions of individual courts — other than those of the Supreme Court — do not bind other courts or the same or lower rank in the hierarchy

The verdict sets only a limited precedent, but a similar case before Japan’s Supreme Court could set legal precedent nationally.

We'll find out soon enough.

But how is it done in other countries? Is sex being recorded in addition to gender?

It's important at least medically

So in 200 years when your remains are exhumed and they do a DNA test they can determine if you were a transgender?

They may actually be able to, if they figure what what the genetic combination is that leads one to gender dysphoria.

So in 200 years when your remains are exhumed and they do a DNA test they can determine if you were a transgender?

They can by the dress they are wearing.

Such a crazy precedent in the first place. You must be sterilized if you want to change sex physically etc. like… why? Nothing but pure government bureaucratic nonsense. It’s a policy that has no benefit to anyone

You can no more change your sex than you can change your race, age, or species.

Yes, even the trans people agree with this. You cannot change sex, only gender.

Is gender actually put on documents (here or abroad) now?

Which ones and for what purpose?

I haven't seen one. Only ones I've seen have designations only for male or female. Obviously that's sex

Is gender actually put on documents (here or abroad) now?

No, only sex. So, trans people have to work with an outdated system as best they can, until the system catches up with society.

They just should abide and understand that also individual freedom and personal wishes have some limits. Children, don't get a driver's license, people in wheelchair can't participate in marathon runs, poor people can't sail with an own yacht around Bahamas, we all can't leave our solar system and galaxy, and these ones here simply can't change their gender they were biologically born with. Isn't that common sense, easy to understand and to accept, that there are limits for everyone and everything? And if not so, why not?

""A court in central Japan ruled Thursday that it is unconstitutional to require a transgender person to undergo surgery to remove their current reproductive organs in order for them to receive documentation under their new gender.""

Smart Move, so Private, people should have the choice of how they wish to live their lives without Big Boys in governments telling them how.

He said the requirement to undergo surgery was inhuman 

Human was being born as a female or male.

Inhuman is confused people trying to alter that.

Well done.

I really genuinely don't have any issues with a gender-inclusive society.

If people are uncomfortable to be associated by there biological birth gender then life's too short to rain on there parade.

Look, I read recently about a guy who spent $12,000 to become a canine, Border/Bearded Collie.

I just want to enjoy private time with my nieces in 'Spa,' 'Hot Springs,' or 'Onsen'.

I would be mortified/acutely embarrassed if a biological man was present.

Wandora

Today 10:25 am JST

Official forms refer to 性別, which is sex. 'No answer' is being introduced,

'No answer'? That's preposterous.

Can't be done with medical related forms or shouldn't anyway.

What they should do is add a field for gender that includes that no answer as option if they want gender indicated

Amen. I mean this is like prima facie unethical.

A temporary victory by this verdict in the Shizuoka family court, just a hiccup as everyone knows the radically right Japanese Supreme Court will ultimately overturn this ruling!

Whether one has a female or male body, what you are is a what you feel in your mind. I knew 2 male identified students at my Uni who's every action was female, their only difference to me (I am a female) was their voice. I accepted them as friends and we remained so through Uni years, and the fact that I am gay drew us even closer. These two (males) are the only males I have ever become close to, I usually stay well clear of men and have little or no contact with men.

I usually stay well clear of men and have little or no contact with men.

That doesn't sound healthy.

Gender reassignment surgery is not for he faint hearted, or to be taken lightly.

Gender/identity political agendas adds another complex, may I suggest fractious layers that can have far reaching consequence for children that struggle with the sometime trauma of adolescence, gender dysphoria.

All needing professional psychiatric guidance.

I just think politics, judiciary, this court ruling it's unconstitutional to require surgery for change of gender on documents needs to set aside for professional clinicians, psychiatric experts in gender dysphoria, especially in children to analyze and advise.

Hmm…the Shizuoka family court does not recognize that objective reality exists. Ms. Suzuki is a woman yet they hold the view that she can rewrite history, and her biology, to be male. Hence, she can be male, she can change her blood type, she can change her ethnicity, and so on.

The Japanese judicial system is now dumber today. That is the only REAL change.

As I understand it, Japanese courts are not bound by precedent other than reference. So unfortunately I'm not sure that setting a precedent would matter.

I'm interested if someone has further information on how precedent and Japanese law work together.

Lower court decisions like this are not binding on future judges in Japan, even within the same court system (so in other words, even other judges in Shizuoka are not bound to follow this, let alone judges in other courts).

This is a constitutional case, and the Supreme Court of Japan's decisions on constitutional issues are the only ones binding on lower courts, so the strategy for the plaintiffs here would be to try to have the case appealed up to there (not something they can do themselves since they won the case, but the government will probably appeal).

They face pretty long odds though. The Supreme Court has a very long track record of rejecting cases in which a plaintiff claims that a given piece of legislation violates a constitutional right, with only a very small number of cases succeeding.

You can no more change your gender than you can change your race, age, or species.

But there are those who state they "identify" with being another race than the one they were born with, and the argument is that yes you can change your "gender" but NOT your sex.

I do believe you have it wrong here.

It appears the general population doesn't really give a gosh darn anyway

I doubt many of them are as concerned with it as you are.

You are coming across as a bit manic.

I think in most countries reassignment surgery is not required for a gender change.

Ah_so

This is where I get confused on the conflation of sex and gender. Gender is a social concept, but sex is a biological one. What is actually being recorded in Japanese documentation sex or gender?

Actually, the terms used to have the same meaning (and in most languages I know there are no separate terms for this, so new ones had to be invented). The distinction in English was introduced by the American psychologist John Money, famous for his disastrous treatment of David Reimer. Sadly, his ideology has been widele adopted in Western academia now.

Court rules it's unconstitutional to require surgery for change of gender on documents

But documents ask for (or indicate) "sex", not "gender", right?

tokyo_mToday 09:35 am JST

You can no more change your gender than you can change your race, age, or species.

You haven't seen what puberty blockers can do. They would have you fooled about transwomen and transmen can fool you even without that.

applying for a passport renewal recently, there was the option to choose: male, female, other..... and I've come across this in other contexts too, so it's getting to be mainstream.

personally, I think that if someone (anyone) relies on a label for their identity, then they're none too secure in that identity. certainly no-one should be expected to surgically alter their 'parts'.... some choose that path anyway of course. the people I know and hang out with are all at perfectly ease with who they are, and make no issue whatsoever about labels.

TaiwanIsNotChina

You haven't seen what puberty blockers can do.

They can stunt normal genital development, leaving the patient infertile and with stunted genitals. Not as a member of the opposite sex. And children should not be able to consent to such a radical decision, so that entire "puberty blocker" thing should be illegal in a sane society.

They would have you fooled about transwomen and transmen can fool you even without that.

That sort of thing happens regularly with the famous ladyboys in places like Thailand and the Philippines. They have long been socially accepted there, but they they do NOT claim to be actual women. They have to show up for military draft screening, and if e.g. they want to compete something like Thai Boxing, of course they compete as their birth gender.

diagonalslip

applying for a passport renewal recently, there was the option to choose: male, female, other..... and I've come across this in other contexts too, so it's getting to be mainstream.

I have seen this in my passport application too. It is insane... all the other identification items (age, height, etc.) are objectively verifiable, and not optional. If sex is now optional, it should not be on any official document. We should all be unisex and be done with it.

ZaphodToday 02:01 pm JST

TaiwanIsNotChina

You haven't seen what puberty blockers can do.

They can stunt normal genital development, leaving the patient infertile and with stunted genitals. Not as a member of the opposite sex.

Since they pass as a member of the opposite sex for "society", some people might not care about the negatives. Also there is a window where the blockers can be discontinued and puberty proceeds as normal, as I understand it.

And children should not be able to consent to such a radical decision, so that entire "puberty blocker" thing should be illegal in a sane society.

Says who? Not everybody believes that procreating is everything. You can't do this treatment as an adult.

They would have you fooled about transwomen and transmen can fool you even without that.

That sort of thing happens regularly with the famous ladyboys in places like Thailand and the Philippines. They have long been socially accepted there, but they they do NOT claim to be actual women. They have to show up for military draft screening, and if e.g. they want to compete something like Thai Boxing, of course they compete as their birth gender.

But you still seem to agree that they pass perfectly well in society as their chosen gender.

But documents ask for (or indicate) "sex", not "gender", right?

I think either can be used. I remember a move to using "gender" on forms because stupid little boys like me would write "Yes, please" if the document used "sex". To me, the words have always carried the same meaning, but with one of them having an additional meaning.

albaleo

Today 02:59 pm JST

But documents ask for (or indicate) "sex", not "gender", right?

I think either can be used. I remember a move to using "gender" on forms because stupid little boys like me would write "Yes, please" if the document used "sex". To me, the words have always carried the same meaning, but with one of them having an additional meaning.

That is indeed stupid (the form).

Good forms will just have you circle a choice/pick an option for those info types

girl_in_tokyo 08:30 am JST

What's truly, willfully ignorant is someone who thinks they understand sex and gender constructs better than the psychologists and other social scientists who have been studying the subject for decades and have done thousands of hours of research to come to the conclusions that are widely accepted as the standard for care.

Indeed, “Trust the science.” But then, psychology is not really science now is it? Psychology is to science what “chiropractic medicine” is to science. It is an endlessly speculative exercise. Actual science, as it pertains to the mind, is to be found in cognitive neuroscience.

Sigmund Freud’s conclusions too were “widely accepted as the standard,” but are laughable these days. John Money, a pioneer in gender reassignment, was likewise “widely accepted” but his treatment methods, which most famously traumatized the Reimer twins, are now better seen as child sexual abuse. Then there is Helmut Kentler who for nearly 30 years intentionally placed foster children with male pedophiles (sorry, “minor attracted persons”) all with the government’s backing. And I would be remiss to mention all the psychologists who promoted drugs as a means to control the “unruly” behavior of children, drugs which are no longer legal for that purpose in many places. And yes, to all of these there have been “willfully ignorant” detractors who dared to question these “experts.” I know, I know, like Greta says “How dare you!”

But to tell the truth, I accept that there is a spectrum as it relates to sex. While biology intends to produce either a male or a female, biological systems being imperfect, there are indeed times when the traits of a male are blended into a female and vice-versa. Intersex people are the most visible evidence of this. Of course accepting that sexual dimorphism also exists in brain structure, I can also readily accept that there are instances where individuals may externally appear fully male or female while their mind works in a way similar to the opposite sex. And while I do not think such individuals should ever be persecuted because of what biology has bequeathed to them, I think it goes beyond all reason to place such individuals on a pedestal as the ideal of what we should all aspire to be as modern society in the West is wont to do.

But I understand that there is an effort from the top in the West to normalize such things at the expense of the traditional family. Yet it is a fact that the seed of every functional society is to be found in the traditional family. Any society that does not place the respective societal roles of men and women in the forefront, roles which are themselves grounded in biology, and promote men and women working together, each contributing their respective talents to the larger society as a team, is doomed to failure. With this in mind, it is entirely understandable why Japan has resisted socially normalizing exceptional cases in the interest of society, even while people such as Matsuko Deluxe appear regularly on television in the interest of humanity.

And speaking of “gender roles,” it is ironic to me that while so many have confused the “pursuit of happiness” of individualism with unbridled selfishness, I still remember how in the 2003 movie “Mona Lisa Smile” all the other ladies in the finishing school got on the character of Betty because she chose to get married and follow the traditional path even after her exposure to a feminist perspective in class. What is the message here? Is her choice as a woman only valid if she agrees with a particular social agenda? A real life example is Gina Carano, a strong woman to be sure, but one whose political views were deemed unacceptable to the larger social agenda which ultimately lead to her firing. While the feminist movement has alleviated women from their social responsibilities (sorry, “given women a choice”), men must continue on in their social responsible roles. And if a man dare follow women in advocating for their own rights in an attempt to opt out of their social responsibilities, well, that is obviously sexist. I can state with absolute certainly that this societal path is not going to work. But if there are women like Gen Suzuki who say, “Hey, I am a man! Others should accept me as a man!” Well, the first rule as a man in this society is that you can’t complain about anything related to being a male. You exist only to endure. Complaining will in fact only prove how unmanly you are. Only women who do not want to endure their own social responsibilities so that they may pursue a self-fulfilling life have the option to complain. And complain they do! So welcome to the team! Like they say in Japan, gambare!

Like they say in Japan, gambare!

....or..... Fighto （＾＿－）

jeffy Today 03:32 pm JST

Indeed, “Trust the science.”

That's what is great about science - it continually corrects itself. Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would just stop. And trusting decades of research with proven results is far better than making wild guesses based on personal prejudices fueled by hatred and homophobia.

I think it goes beyond all reason to place such individuals on a pedestal as the ideal of what we should all aspire to be as modern society in the West is wont to do.

Literally no one is doing this.

But I understand that there is an effort from the top in the West to normalize such things at the expense of the traditional family.

Why do you think that there can't be both traditional and non-traditional families at the same time?

roles which are themselves grounded in biology,

Gender roles are not grounded in biology. Any biologist would tell you that gender roles are the purview of the social sciences.

What is the message here? Is her choice as a woman only valid if she agrees with a particular social agenda?

The message is that there can be people who are happy with traditional gender roles at the same time there are people who are not, and that neither is wrong.

Why do you think there can't be women who follow traditional gender roles and those who don't?

But if there are women like Gen Suzuki who say, “Hey, I am a man! Others should accept me as a man!” Well, the first rule as a man in this society is that you can’t complain about anything related to being a male. You exist only to endure.

If you had a feminist girlfriend, she would listen to you, make sure you knew that you could complain about anything, and that she would support you, always, no matter what.

You wouldn't have to just endure, because feminist women don't believe in traditional gender roles like "men just endure" or "men can't complain." Ever thought of that?

@ GIrl: There is no Randy Datona at 7:59 so I cannot understand what you are talking about. Sorry.

girl_in_tokyoToday  08:30 am JST

Randy DaytonaToday 07:59 am JST

What's ignorant is think believing something your not wont get criticism or to say others don't know the difference is ridiculous

What's truly, willfully ignorant is someone who thinks they understand sex and gender constructs better than the psychologists and other social scientists who have been studying the subject for decades and have done thousands of hours of research to come to the conclusions that are widely accepted as the standard for care.

Obviously a male is male and a female is female

See above.

Your sex cannot be changed with surgery

See above.

It's a disability to have an identity issue because the majority of the population of planet earth doesn't have that problem

If it is a disability (it is not) then why would you be so dead set against those people getting the care that they need? This is akin to saying "blind people are a minority so why should we have braille" or "the majority of the population of the planet can walk, so why should we have ramps and wheelchair accessibility laws."

This comment is a particularly good one for showcasing that this hatred towards transgender people is a personal prejudice from willful ignorance and stubborn resistance to societal change.

Let adults be what they want to be, marry who they want to and let's move away from this insequential bullshiz.

If looking down your nose, getting sanctimonious about what gender another person chooses to identify as, or who two or three consenting adults choose to marry is your main concern, take a good long look in the mirror. The pathetic reflexion in that mirror is where the problem starts.

JayToday  04:34 pm JST

Yikes, the crazy liberal, A_girl_in_Tokyo has arrived.

Yep, it is in every article that involves gender topics, female victims, male crimes. As if there are no other problems in the world. Only one agenda. Others should just give up having their own opinions. Otherwise, you are just a homophobic bigot.

Life used to be so simple.

There used to be two sexes, male and female. And sex was the same as gender.

“One step forward and two steps back.”

girl_in_tokyo:

That's what is great about science - it continually corrects itself. Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would just stop. And trusting decades of research with proven results is far better than making wild guesses based on personal prejudices fueled by hatred and homophobia.

Yes, but science works off of the scientific method with experiments validating or invalidating hypotheses. Psychology does not work this way. Psychology is based on the interpretations of the observer with little in the way of outside empirical evidence to support those observations. There are case studies, but no real hard facts. True, others may come to the same conclusions, but then, there are always those who disagree. And this speaks to the point. If there are some who speak as you do with regard to gender issues, cool. And if there are those who speak otherwise, cool. But what in fact is the truth of the matter is what I want to know. For me, in terms of mental disposition, a more reliable method than psychology is found in real science, specifically, cognitive neuroscience. Even here though, because of political agendas, there are some obstacles—certain things may be published because it is deemed acceptable apart from scientific rigor, other things not. But it is clear that men and women, as fully biologically intended, are different. But that is OK. It does not mean anything so simplistic as “men are better” or “women are better.” Sometimes the majority of women are better at something (gasp!), sometimes the majority of men are better at something (gasp!). And even here, it depends on the particular man or woman in view. So there is no hatred here, as you seem to want to impute. And as for those who may have a mixture of male and female traits, whether physical or mental, I think I explained myself sufficiently in my previous post.

Literally no one is doing this.

Actually this is precisely what Western societies are doing. It is evident in the media where there is little to no representation of a traditional family structure without dysfunction all while representing “alternative lifestyles” as fun and cool. But don’t investigate the rates of domestic violence in same sex relationships vis-a-vis “hetero-normative” relationships!

Why do you think that there can't be both traditional and non-traditional families at the same time?

I never said there can’t be both. But the fact of the matter is that a child living with both a mother and a father learns to respect both sexes far better than a child raised solely by a man or by a woman.

Gender roles are not grounded in biology. Any biologist would tell you that gender roles are the purview of the social sciences.

If you have a group of 5 people, some may have a natural talent (biology) in drawing, some may have a natural talent (biology) in hunting, some may have no natural talent at all (biology). If you are interested in eating, you will no doubt come to rely on those who have talent in hunting to get your dinner. True, those who are talented in drawing and those without any talent might get you dinner sometimes, but they would be far less reliable. It is the same with gender roles. Yes, there are indeed women whose heart is as hard as the toughest man. And there are men who are as delicate as the daintiest woman. But society cannot be structured on the outliers. The majority of men are thus, the majority of women are thus. And so the structure of society has traditionally proceed from thus. The reasonableness of this is proved by thousands of years of history across every ethnic group and society. But if the biologist, in their capacity as a biologist, hands all this off to the “social scientist,” what is that to me? Men, as biologically the stronger sex, will naturally be call upon in a group to fight whatever enemy may confront the group. This is part of what I mean by “grounded in biology.” To think any group would first send the women to attack is non-existent in the annals of history. Women of course may make their attack on other ways, as they often do …

The message is that there can be people who are happy with traditional gender roles at the same time there are people who are not, and that neither is wrong.

Why do you think there can't be women who follow traditional gender roles and those who don't?

I think women are various just as men are various. Who am I to tell some particular person how they should live? Yet there is what is best for the continuance of society and what is not. Some men absolutely love to have their genitals stomped by a woman, some women absolutely love becoming a sex slave to a man. To each their own it seems. And yet, while may be confident nobody would complain about the man who gets his genitals stomped, most would find it sad that a woman would degrade herself to such an extent as to become an abject slave to a man. Again, who are any of us to interfere with that choice? Yet only in the instance of women do people think “they must be helped,” even though it is the woman who decided to be in that situation herself. But I see, obviously she was deceived by the man. Out the window goes personal agency in the case of women, even though we are told they are just as capable as a man. But the man who enjoys such pleasures, well, he is just sick. No woman could have possibly deceived him and of course no help will be forth coming for him.

If you had a feminist girlfriend, she would listen to you, make sure you knew that you could complain about anything, and that she would support you, always, no matter what.

You wouldn't have to just endure, because feminist women don't believe in traditional gender roles like "men just endure" or "men can't complain." Ever thought of that?

Perhaps how I spoke confused things. There is the society that we live in now where men are to be rocks without emotion—tough, brave and protective. This is part of the story. Think back to past, all those men who, while being tough, brave and protective, nevertheless wrote poetry and music, designed buildings, aqueducts, whole cities, literally changed the course of rivers for whole populations to thrive, etc. Men are not mere beasts of strength. This too is a problem with society. You mention that feminism understands. Apologies, but it is not really appropriate for feminists to fight for the cause of men any more than it is for men to fight for the feminist cause. Women have their issues that woman best understand. Men also have issues that men best understand. The problem is that only women get to speak while men can only speak so long as it is through the lens of feminism. Men are too savage to have a voice to speak for themselves it seems. So no, I do not need a feminist girlfriend. My lady is no feminist, but she is a strong lady nevertheless who is in every way my equal. I am about traditional gender roles. But tradition has been caricatured for the modern cause to subvert society.

Folks - this is what a country looks like in the stages right before it becomes a "failing country".

Ignore what all the rising sun flag waving, "Ganbare Nippon" shouting, wannabe samurai nationalist crowd tells you. They want you to believe that Japan is some incredible resilient bastion of traditionalism. It's not. Politically Japan is really actually not that far off from western European countries or the United States. They are up to all of the same shenanigans here with regard to woke culture and post-modern ideas. It's just that with Japan, you get a side of xenophobic sentiment. So if youre a foreigner, and you move to Japan, you get to live in a woke country that also won't grant you any rights because you weren't born here. Oh and you will earn a fifth of what people in the US are making for equivalent work.

In ten years, they will force parents to accept their children's gender reassignment surgery without consent, and arrest parents for refusing to comply. This is Japan's future. The future of the land of the rising sun and the home of the samurai.

girl_in_tokyoToday 03:48 pm JST

That's what is great about science - it continually corrects itself. Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would just stop. And trusting decades of research with proven results is far better than making wild guesses based on personal prejudices fueled by hatred and homophobia.

I think his point is that while the "hard sciences" evolve, its solutions and recommendations don't swerve around as much as psychology. For example, Newtonian physics and relativity physics produce practically identical solutions for "simple" cases within common (non-specialist) experience, and classical physics and quantum physics produce practically identical solutions for things at human scale. Even something like caloric theory can reasonably predict something like conduction. 

Recommendations from psychologists would be the equivalent of such everyday use, and the recommended course of action shouldn't change that much.

A big win for a transgender plaintiff in Japan legal system. That a rarity. Good for the plaintiff. But how is it a win for gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals. As the article states. The change or no change would not or did not affect these groups. So it a win for transgender and people who want to identify any gender what they feel approperite at any give time on any given day only. So ha- ray. Party on. The street of Mishima will be rocking tonight.

Is a male identifying as a woman with male partner the same as a homosexual?

Is a female identifying as a man with a female partner the same as a lesbian?

Is a transvestite the same as a male identifying as a woman?

Is gender dysphoria still considered a mental illness?

I'm just wondering if this was taken into consideration by the court and how

jeffyToday 06:23 pm JST

Yes, but science works off of the scientific method with experiments validating or invalidating hypotheses.

I'm not sure how to explain it more clearly, so I'll just say it again: you're trying to say that a random person with no knowledge of the social sciences, making guesses based on personal prejudices and hate towards LGBTQIA, somehow know better than the scholars who have studied the social sciences for decades to come up with treatments and recommendations that WORK.

No. Just stop.

Actually this is precisely what Western societies are doing.

No. It is not. Your insistence is ridiculous.

I never said there can’t be both. But the fact of the matter is that a child living with both a mother and a father learns to respect both sexes far better than a child raised solely by a man or by a woman.

Provide evidence.

But society cannot be structured on the outliers.

Society is MADE of outliers. No one is "normal". There is no such thing - and any biologist would tell you that

Your Gish Gallop is a total waste of my time. We done.

Kazuaki ShimazakiToday 06:40 pm JST

I think his point is...

I know what his point is. And my point is that his point is utter nonsense. He's basically saying that the social sciences aren't real science, and therefore any random person's opinion is valid. That is truly, so mind-boggling stupid that it makes my head ache just thinking there is someone that stupid, here, on this planet. It makes me want to stop the spinning and get off.

They aren’t scientists. They’re academics looking for something to write about to be relevant and fulfilling absurd requirements to spit out X number of papers to get tenure.

Let us get our terms right. Sex=gender. They are synonymous. Sex, however, has a wider meaning since it describe a physical act. Gender is not a social construct. Societal roles are social constructs, not gender.

Human was being born as a female or male

Yet there are people born as hermaphrodites, with both female and male genitalia. Some of whom are genetically male and some genetically female.

We also have some who are born as physical females but have male DNA.

While these are all unusual quirks of nature, they are all otherwise healthy human beings. But the binary sex /binary gender crowd never mention them. Perhaps because their existence refutes their only argument.

girl_in_tokyo

I'm not sure how to explain it more clearly, so I'll just say it again: you're trying to say that a random person with no knowledge of the social sciences, making guesses based on personal prejudices and hate towards LGBTQIA, somehow know better than the scholars who have studied the social sciences for decades to come up with treatments and recommendations that WORK.

No. Just stop.

Here you characterize my views as “making guesses based on personal prejudices and hate towards LGBTQIA” and earlier as “making wild guesses based on personal prejudices fueled by hatred and homophobia.” Yet for a third time I will inform you that my views are based on science, specifically, biology, which shows that sexual dimorphism exists in terms of physical structure between sexes, and cognitive neuroscience, which shows that sexual dimorphism exists in terms of brain structure. My views are thus not “making guesses,” but are based on real science. The problem is that you base your conclusions on psychology which I maintain is not science in the real sense of the word. I explained to you how science actually works from the scientific method: form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis. I explained how psychology does not work in this manner, but from the opinions of researchers based case studies, or in your parlance, “making wild guesses.” So I will reiterate to you that your characterization of my view as “prejudice” and “hatred” is false. I explained from a scientific view how I can reasonably see both intersex people as well as less visible persons who might not visually align with their apparent sex as biologically determined and that such individuals should not be persecuted. Your characterization of my view as “prejudice” and “hatred” simply follows from your love of psychology on the one hand and my view that psychology is not true science on the other. I note that you did not address any of the examples I gave of problematic psychologists, but preferred to write all them off with a sweeping “science moves forward” argument. This, even in the face of one of those examples being a pioneer in gender reassignment.

No. It is not. Your insistence is ridiculous.

It is not simply my insistence. All one need do is compare any 10 television shows from the 1950s that feature a family with any 10 television shows from the 2020s which feature a family. It will be readily apparent how poorly men are represented in the more recent decade as compared to the earlier decade. There is an episode of the show “Queen for a Day” from the 1950s and 1960s that I watched on Youtube in which the woman requested the wood to make beds for her two sons. She did not ask for the beds themselves or anything for herself, she asked for the wood to build the beds herself or perhaps her husband. Wow. That is a strong woman. Now imagine the same show today and it will be obvious how self-centered individuals in contemporary society are relative to previous generations. This selfishness, not individualism, is indeed actively promoted in media. Example: Sex and the City.

Provide evidence.

Here’s an article for you I found in about three seconds: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02184-x .

Society is MADE of outliers. No one is "normal". There is no such thing - and any biologist would tell you that

No. There is a statistical norm around which a population clusters and then there are statistical outliers. That is what determines the norm. What you are advocating is that the minority of people should dictate to the majority how society should be structured regardless of what is found to be the case with the majority of people, e.g. “You must respect my pronouns!” What I am advocating is that society should be structured around the majority people while respecting the rights of the minorities that exist within that society, e.g. “You are free to be who you see yourself to be, but do not expect others to share that view.” As a woman, you might disagree with my firmly entrenched view that I am God’s gift to women and hate when I act in a manner that follows from that view. Why persecute me for how I identify?

Your Gish Gallop is a total waste of my time. We done.

My views are fully supported by science in contrast to the creationist Gish whose views are not. I reject the false association here.

Jeremiah Today 01:47 am JST

Let us get our terms right. Sex=gender. They are synonymous. Sex, however, has a wider meaning since it describe a physical act. Gender is not a social construct. Societal roles are social constructs, not gender.

Yes, let's define our terms according to how they are commonly used in psychology, which is the branch of science dedicated to the academic study of mind and behavior in humans: https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression

What is the difference between sex and gender?

*Sex is assigned at birth, refers to one’s biological status as either male or female, and is associated primarily with physical attributes such as chromosomes, hormone prevalence, and external and internal anatomy. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women. These influence the ways that people act, interact, and feel about themselves. While aspects of biological sex are similar across different cultures, aspects of gender may differ.*

Looks like you didn't know what you were talking about, huh.

Let us get our terms right. Sex=gender. They are synonymous. Sex, however, has a wider meaning since it describe a physical act. Gender is not a social construct. Societal roles are social constructs, not gender.

No. Sex does not equal gender. That is why they are are two different words. Gender is the social aspects that relate to a sex and sex is biological. Gender is more about how you express your sex. Wearing a patterned skirt is a demonstration of your male gender for a Scotsman wearing a kilt to a party.

If a foreign male living in Japan uses language associated with the female gender, it doesn't make him a woman, it makes likely that he's been getting it on with a Japanese girl.