Based on a line of discussion in another thread, I started thinking about this topic, but it was very OT so I thought it best to start a separate thread rather than continue it in the OT.
This line of discussion is based in Goliath's discussion of Social Constructs;
Goliath wrote: Associations with colour would probably have been better as an example of a social construct that isn't necessarily bad, which was the point I was trying to make; my personal opinion is that the gender social construct isn't actually beneficial, and in many cases is harmful, so I wouldn't have been able to use that argument whilst remaining honest.
Note this thread is not intended to be strictly about gender (nor is it even about whether gender norms as is are good or bad) but rather about the question; "Can a social construct be purposefully altered by members of said society?" My reply;
The thing that always problems me with this is, can you purposefully alter a social construct like that? I'm not questioning at all whether the current gender roles of society are good or bad, but rather pondering if it is possible to purposefully alter something so socially ingrained as gender?
This seems a very different kind of task to me from trying to change views about gay marriage or abortion. Gender and concepts there in permeate culture so heavily (from how we perceive colors, sounds, and even body language), I wonder if you can alter it once it becomes known you are trying to alter it. It's kind of like the Observer Effect. Once society is aware you are trying to change the perceptions of gender, by say buying your son an easy bake oven and your daughter a GI Joe*, doesn't society just start becoming self aware to the point that the concept of gender itself becomes the topic rather than how to change it? So much of culture is derived somewhat spontaneously without anyone really trying to do anything and people who try to 'force' culture tend to get treated as a nuisance; a simple example is someone who tries to force a meme or joke, that simply isn't catching on. Will a concerted attempt to change the course of the river really last or even have the intended effect?
As an example outside of Gender, if I think that left being left is stupid and should actually be right (the words right and left existing as nothing more than words we use to differentiate one side from another) and I start calling my left side my right and my right side my left, am I ever going to get any traction on that notion? If I think Dress' are totally manly, am I altering any perceptions of gender, or am I just a dude in drag (I totally have the legs for it though)? If I then explain to people around me I am trying to change societal norms is society at large more likely to care than before? Is it something that will vary from one construct to another? Alternatively will change happen regardless of individual will? That is, will society alter/evolve its own norms in a manner that is beyond the control of any individual member of society (I personally tend to lean towards this last one)?
*And this kind of runs into a problem that kind of runs an opposite running issue. Is it morally/ethically correct to enforce alternative norms on children? Especially accepting that change in gender norms won't happen overnight, is it appropriate for parents 'isolate' their children within society by purposefully throwing the fish out of the pond so to speak?
Everything that isn't an on-the-ground reality (IE an outcome) is a social construct.
The term itself is a ridiculous attempt to shame/negate/delegitimize the existence of social norms, taboos, and tradition as intrinsic parts of human society. It has no real-world meaning, and is used by academics (particularly sociologists) to confuse and derail pragmatic discussion. The bottom line is that post-modern social theory is dedicated to tearing down meaning until people don't even have a frame of reference to contextualize the world around them. This is seen as a direct strike against the "relations of power" in society. Mostly rooted in the leftist binary analysis of the world, as descended from Marx.
Ex: "Gender", you can deconstruct that word all you want but "biological sex" is an absolute reality. Period.
Peter Wiggin wrote: The term itself is a ridiculous attempt to shame/negate/delegitimize the existence of social norms, taboos, and tradition as intrinsic parts of human society.
That's not really accurate. Ultimately Social Constructionism is about trying to separate 'Reality' from 'What we think about Reality.' It's not per see even about society and its norms so much as it is about what parts of reality only exist because we perceive them to exist (i.e. how much of reality is subjective to the human observer). For example, we have the thread talking about Quantum Entanglement, and a poster mentioned the issue of Causality. Does 'causality' really exists or does it only exists because people perceive it to exist? If it only existed because humans perceive it as a frame of reference, then it would solve one of the issues in unifying Physics and Quantum Physics (If I understand my physics that is, which I might not )
The bottom line is that post-modern social theory is dedicated to tearing down meaning until people don't even have a frame of reference to contextualize the world around them.
Then we are that much closer to achieving the Ubermensch
Mostly rooted in the leftist binary analysis of the world, as descended from Marx.
That's kind of oversimplifying Marx.
Ex: "Gender", you can deconstruct that word all you want but "biological sex" is an absolute reality.
Gender != Biological Sex. I mean we can talk about that relationship, because biological sex certainly informs our perceptions of gender and inherently complicates any attempt to change gender norms, but treating them as though they're the same thing is kind of just coping out of any kind of pragmatic discussion.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Everything that isn't an on-the-ground reality (IE an outcome) is a social construct.
The term itself is a ridiculous attempt to shame/negate/delegitimize the existence of social norms, taboos, and tradition as intrinsic parts of human society. It has no real-world meaning, and is used by academics (particularly sociologists) to confuse and derail pragmatic discussion. The bottom line is that post-modern social theory is dedicated to tearing down meaning until people don't even have a frame of reference to contextualize the world around them. This is seen as a direct strike against the "relations of power" in society. Mostly rooted in the leftist binary analysis of the world, as descended from Marx.
Ex: "Gender", you can deconstruct that word all you want but "biological sex" is an absolute reality. Period.
GRRRRRRrrr. The people that are in charge of what the words mean because they have sufficient qualifications to define things are wrong because book learnin' just confuses things. Damn those academics and their lack of family-values common sense, why they just wanna pretend like things that are obviously obvious aren't obvious! That's why they why they gotta spend all those decades "Researchin' " and "Analyzin' " and other such mumbo-jumbo, they're spenin' that time just thinking fancy so ain't nobody gonna notice they're a bunch commies.
People want to get rid of social constructs because they have no idea of the repercussions that it would cause upon the human mind. We have these barriers up for good reason. Sorta of like white and black. White is absence of color, black full of all colors. Art, life in general have many constructs that are ingrained in the mind at a very young age.
Like left and right, it was created for rational meaning, it is more philisophical than a social construct, as it is ingrained in the human brain by hundreds of years of *training. Though it may seem to be irrational at times, we call things certain names, because they make sense. Like the wheel. Naming conventions are placed on things because of what they look like. If you look at your hand at a regular, the left hand naturally makes a L shape, (Hence why it is called the left hand. If I remember correctly, been a while since I took a class about it).
But these are constructs that human kind has made are only for reason and rationality. (At the time). Many of these constructs are willfully ignore and beset (Archaic meaning). For thats what human kind does. We ignore things till they become a problem. But in terms of constructs: aka Gender. If we want to break the social construct of gender, you have to institute something in its place. As unfortunately the general populace will not willingly accept that break.
Academic, Family Values are constructs of society, built as stereotypes of what once was true. Similar to how every century or so the economic system is changed.
Similar to going to school, where you are seen as an intellectual. But many people I know left college and started their own company, and are the most wealthy people I know.
But Sociologists like to believe themselves as philosophers, the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Locke, Confucius, and Wilber. Philosophers have argued for years about social constructs and what they do to humanity as a whole. We as a society built them for special purposes. Some are knocked down and gotten rid of. But on things like gender. IT was built on sexist values and views. It is built because of these certain things. But while we talk about this, men are inheriting feminine traits, while women are inheriting masculine traits (in the 21st century, the roles have started to reverse). Where the social construct will soon change with societies push and pull.
It is constantly evolving and changing to the societies needs and wants. The social constructs of the 50s are very different from what they are right now. As time is an absolute force.
I am indifferent on the issue, as I have seen society change in only a couple of years. As the attitudes and constructs of gender have sort of blurred. Where women are rightfully accepted for what once was a boy's hair style, has been blurred into both genders having the same type of hair style. What is socially acceptable now could of been a few years ago abhorrent .
If you take a brief moment you can see many constructs are placed down.
Meanwhile I think I drank the koolaid and all those books I read have finally gotten to me!
I think it depends on what you want to change. Things like gender has been around since, well, forever, and is a core part of our mindset. Other subjects are not so integral to society and can change between generations and cultures. Perhaps things close to the surface change constantly while subjects that make up the bedrock of other subjects have been established for ages and change much more slowly.
For example, high heels were masculine and now they are feminine.
Asherian Command wrote: f you look at your hand at a regular, the left hand naturally makes a L shape, (Hence why it is called the left hand. If I remember correctly, been a while since I took a class about it).
I think that's more a memetic tool than the reason left is left
Social constructs certainly exist and even come about as convenience, rational points of reference between individuals but I'm more curious about how those factors change. Is it willful in a society (does society willfully change its constructs), or is it involuntary and outside of individual control?Using language as an example, look at the evolution from Old to Middle to Modern English. I doubt anyone sat down one day and said "lets start spelling lyft left with an e!" and then held a vote and got everyone's agreement to replace the y with an e. Even now, there's the fcat you can siltl raed tihs eevn toghuh I've jbulemd the lteetrs, a well recognized phenomenon. So is spelling even really that important except in so far as we consider good spelling a sign of proper education?* You're brain is capable of understanding the words and their meanings through context and familiarity. And this gets back to my thoughts about the Observer Effect, as I know Linguists today actively debate the ethics of their field in relation to how their own study of language can influence how people use language, i.e. the academic study of language could disrupt the natural evolution of language.
*A good example of this may also be African American Vernacular English (aka AAVE, or more commonly Ebonics), which many people deride as 'not real' even though it's use can be observed and it's differences from mainstream American English defined.
At the same time though we most certainly see various ideas change like general attitudes towards Gay Marriage and people are most certainly actively working against the traditional view.
Asherian Command wrote: f you look at your hand at a regular, the left hand naturally makes a L shape, (Hence why it is called the left hand. If I remember correctly, been a while since I took a class about it).
I think that's more a memetic tool than the reason left is left
Social constructs certainly exist and even come about as convenience, rational points of reference between individuals but I'm more curious about how those factors change. Is it willful in a society (does society willfully change its constructs), or is it involuntary and outside of individual control?Using language as an example, look at the evolution from Old to Middle to Modern English. I doubt anyone sat down one day and said "lets start spelling lyft left with an e!" and then held a vote and got everyone's agreement to replace the y with an e. Even now, there's the fcat you can siltl raed tihs eevn toghuh I've jbulemd the lteetrs, a well recognized phenomenon. So is spelling even really that important except in so far as we consider good spelling a sign of proper education? You're brain is capable of understanding the words and their meanings through context and familiarity. And this gets back to my thoughts about the Observer Effect, as I know Linguists today actively debate the ethics of their field in relation to how their own study of language can influence how people use language, i.e. the academic study of language could disrupt the natural evolution of language.
At the same time though we most certainly see various ideas change like general attitudes towards Gay Marriage and people are most certainly actively working against the traditional view.
Time is a harsh mistress they do say.
I think it is a mixture of both willful and involuntary. Generation Y for example is the most accepting of all the generations so far, we don't know how or why they are.
Social Constructs such as the spelling thing is very important, as it is seen as a sign of intelligence, much similar to how whenever I write the word Responsibility on a chalk board or black board, people perk up a bit. (They are drawn to attention by that word). Because it usually has a negative connotation to it, because people believe they have done some wrong whenever that word is brought up.
Wisdom for example is seen to be gained by age. (Another social construct)
Linguists debate about quite a few things like how language is a construct that is temporary and will one day change radically.
And I do agree with you on the linguists part, as they is something actively preventing the language from evolving, which may be willfully done.
In terms of language progression I believe it is much similar to the evolution of the Latin Language. People slur it and it slowly starts to change because of the ease of it. Languages naturally evolve over time, but it is more due to human stupidity and laziness.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Everything that isn't an on-the-ground reality (IE an outcome) is a social construct.
The term itself is a ridiculous attempt to shame/negate/delegitimize the existence of social norms, taboos, and tradition as intrinsic parts of human society. It has no real-world meaning, and is used by academics (particularly sociologists) to confuse and derail pragmatic discussion. The bottom line is that post-modern social theory is dedicated to tearing down meaning until people don't even have a frame of reference to contextualize the world around them. This is seen as a direct strike against the "relations of power" in society. Mostly rooted in the leftist binary analysis of the world, as descended from Marx.
Ex: "Gender", you can deconstruct that word all you want but "biological sex" is an absolute reality. Period.
GRRRRRRrrr. The people that are in charge of what the words mean because they have sufficient qualifications to define things are wrong because book learnin' just confuses things. Damn those academics and their lack of family-values common sense, why they just wanna pretend like things that are obviously obvious aren't obvious! That's why they why they gotta spend all those decades "Researchin' " and "Analyzin' " and other such mumbo-jumbo, they're spenin' that time just thinking fancy so ain't nobody gonna notice they're a bunch commies.
Are you honestly going to try and deny that the vast majority of post-modern theory is derived from Marxist thought? Are you going to try and tell me that social science "theory" is simply BS spouted to justify more research grants to come up with additional theory? Are you going to tell me that social "science" doesn't have a fundamentally different defninition of what "theory" means, as compared to the actual sciences (STEM track)?
I base my statements 100% off of my own current experiences in the Ivory Tower. I also make them as someone with degree's in sociology and behavioral science. What expertise does your snarky comment spring from?
*A good example of this may also be African American Vernacular English (aka AAVE, or more commonly Ebonics), which many people deride as 'not real' even though it's use can be observed and it's differences from mainstream American English defined.
My god, this is utterly ridiculous.
If you write a research paper it had better be in proper MLA or APA format English. No creative liberties with the written word, and you had better understand that vernacular and dialect ARE perceived as ignorance by the observer. There's a damn reason I killed my Southern accent when I came to California. See what I'm saying?
I'm note sure if the accent makes certain things sound stupid or if it's the actual words. Just wondering because it's hard to read accents on the Internet...
d-usa wrote: I'm note sure if the accent makes certain things sound stupid or if it's the actual words. Just wondering because it's hard to read accents on the Internet...
In some fairly large circles, the accent gets conceived as used by stupid people as can be noted in this thread and others on Dakka. How many times have we seen posts or heard people in real life or in media affecting a Southern countrified accent to ridicule people holding an idea that was thought stupid by the ones putting on the accent? Case in point, from this thread:
"The people that are in charge of what the words mean because they have sufficient qualifications to define things are wrong because book learnin' just confuses things. Damn those academics and their lack of family-values common sense, why they just wanna pretend like things that are obviously obvious aren't obvious! That's why they why they gotta spend all those decades "Researchin' " and "Analyzin' " and other such mumbo-jumbo, they're spenin' that time just thinking fancy so ain't nobody gonna notice they're a bunch commies."
My wife, for example was made to feel self concious about her East Texas accent when she moved away and worked to get rid of it.
The thing comes back on her, though when we visit her family!
It's an evolutionary process. A lot of how they're shaped is unintentional, but we can work at it deliberately, too. All of that plays a part in how they evolve.
I think a place you can see the evolution is in how toxic masculinity has developed. We have the notion that certain things are masculine or feminine and that they're mutually exclusive, so a feminine thing can't be masculine and vice versa. As feminism (a deliberate effort to change the social constructs) has expanded what women can do, it's eroded what is masculine. At the same time, our society still screams at men that being masculine is the most important thing and if you're not masculine you're some kind of horrible inferior. But a lot of men don't really know how to make sense of it, and the set of behaviours that we mark as super masculine (like violence or sexual conquest) can be really negative.
So we have shaped what gender means, and that has caused another aspect of it to evolve as well, in a way that isn't very good. Now we can try to shape that to make people happier.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: It's an evolutionary process. A lot of how they're shaped is unintentional, but we can work at it deliberately, too. All of that plays a part in how they evolve.
I think a place you can see the evolution is in how toxic masculinity has developed. We have the notion that certain things are masculine or feminine and that they're mutually exclusive, so a feminine thing can't be masculine and vice versa. As feminism (a deliberate effort to change the social constructs) has expanded what women can do, it's eroded what is masculine. At the same time, our society still screams at men that being masculine is the most important thing and if you're not masculine you're some kind of horrible inferior. But a lot of men don't really know how to make sense of it, and the set of behaviours that we mark as super masculine (like violence or sexual conquest) can be really negative.
So we have shaped what gender means, and that has caused another aspect of it to evolve as well, in a way that isn't very good. Now we can try to shape that to make people happier.
But a big part of the reason why so many men can't make sense of it is precisely because, for so long, masculinity has been characterized as a bad, destructive thing. Pathological masculinity exists, but so does constructive masculinity, yet we rarely hear about that. The current gender discourse really hasn't made people happier at all, at least, not if you believe statistics on happiness.
And, I would even go so far as to say that the reason why we see this negative behavior is precisely because of the erosion of what is masculine. That is to say, men engage in destructive behaviors because they are confused. not the other way around. ie. sexual conquest fills a void that used to be filled by a sense of well being that is harder and harder to attain.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: It's an evolutionary process. A lot of how they're shaped is unintentional, but we can work at it deliberately, too. All of that plays a part in how they evolve.
I think a place you can see the evolution is in how toxic masculinity has developed. We have the notion that certain things are masculine or feminine and that they're mutually exclusive, so a feminine thing can't be masculine and vice versa. As feminism (a deliberate effort to change the social constructs) has expanded what women can do, it's eroded what is masculine. At the same time, our society still screams at men that being masculine is the most important thing and if you're not masculine you're some kind of horrible inferior. But a lot of men don't really know how to make sense of it, and the set of behaviours that we mark as super masculine (like violence or sexual conquest) can be really negative.
So we have shaped what gender means, and that has caused another aspect of it to evolve as well, in a way that isn't very good. Now we can try to shape that to make people happier.
But a big part of the reason why so many men can't make sense of it is precisely because, for so long, masculinity has been characterized as a bad, destructive thing. Pathological masculinity exists, but so does constructive masculinity, yet we rarely hear about that. The current gender discourse really hasn't made people happier at all, at least, not if you believe statistics on happiness.
And, I would even go so far as to say that the reason why we see this negative behavior is precisely because of the erosion of what is masculine. That is to say, men engage in destructive behaviors because they are confused. not the other way around. ie. sexual conquest fills a void that used to be filled by a sense of well being that is harder and harder to attain.
Its more a stereotype constructed by social contionations, and this whole "Boys will be boys." Or "Men are Evil and the culprits of everything." 9 times out of 10 you are going to hear about a male murder over a females, but a females will be used for shock value on news networks. Its really interesting.
Asherian Command wrote: People want to get rid of social constructs because they have no idea of the repercussions that it would cause upon the human mind. We have these barriers up for good reason. Sorta of like white and black. White is absence of color, black full of all colors. Art, life in general have many constructs that are ingrained in the mind at a very young age.
This bugs me way more than it should, but it's actually the opposite in that. White is every color on the light spectrum combined, whereas black is the absence of light (aka no color). When it comes to drawing, when you combine all of the basic colors, you get black because the resulting combination absorbs 90% of the light that hits it rather than reflecting it; meaning that it gives off an absence of light (which is what composes color) rather than a combo of colors.
Asherian Command wrote: People want to get rid of social constructs because they have no idea of the repercussions that it would cause upon the human mind. We have these barriers up for good reason. Sorta of like white and black. White is absence of color, black full of all colors. Art, life in general have many constructs that are ingrained in the mind at a very young age.
This bugs me way more than it should, but it's actually the opposite in that. White is every color on the light spectrum combined, whereas black is the absence of light (aka no color). When it comes to drawing, when you combine all of the basic colors, you get black because the resulting combination absorbs 90% of the light that hits it rather than reflecting it; meaning that it gives off an absence of light (which is what composes color) rather than a combo of colors.
At the school I am at. We aren't told the scientific reason, we are given the art reason. My bad D:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: It's an evolutionary process. A lot of how they're shaped is unintentional, but we can work at it deliberately, too. All of that plays a part in how they evolve.
I think a place you can see the evolution is in how toxic masculinity has developed. We have the notion that certain things are masculine or feminine and that they're mutually exclusive, so a feminine thing can't be masculine and vice versa. As feminism (a deliberate effort to change the social constructs) has expanded what women can do, it's eroded what is masculine. At the same time, our society still screams at men that being masculine is the most important thing and if you're not masculine you're some kind of horrible inferior. But a lot of men don't really know how to make sense of it, and the set of behaviours that we mark as super masculine (like violence or sexual conquest) can be really negative.
So we have shaped what gender means, and that has caused another aspect of it to evolve as well, in a way that isn't very good. Now we can try to shape that to make people happier.
But a big part of the reason why so many men can't make sense of it is precisely because, for so long, masculinity has been characterized as a bad, destructive thing. Pathological masculinity exists, but so does constructive masculinity, yet we rarely hear about that. The current gender discourse really hasn't made people happier at all, at least, not if you believe statistics on happiness.
And, I would even go so far as to say that the reason why we see this negative behavior is precisely because of the erosion of what is masculine. That is to say, men engage in destructive behaviors because they are confused. not the other way around. ie. sexual conquest fills a void that used to be filled by a sense of well being that is harder and harder to attain.
Its more a stereotype constructed by social contionations, and this whole "Boys will be boys." Or "Men are Evil and the culprits of everything." 9 times out of 10 you are going to hear about a male murder over a females, but a females will be used for shock value on news networks. Its really interesting.
Males are pumped full of testosterone; they're naturally more violent than females, as females, biologically, were designed to be caretakers. There's a reason that females are generally softer, lovelier, kinder, and more caring than men; men have always been the killers and the protectors, while the females have always basically been the psychological caretakers of the species. For thousands of years, females raised and taught the children. If you think about, everything feminism is against was a direct consequence of how females taught their children for thousands of years. After all, what woman would be proud of her son being the coward? What woman would be proud of a chandler when that other son became a renowned warrior? What woman would rather have her son be a scribe when he could be a big, brawny, rich* Blacksmith?
* Many Blacksmiths, prior to the Medieval Era, and post-Medieval Era, ended up being much richer than their neighbors, as Blacksmiths were the only merchants that could be guaranteed business from virtually everybody in the village/town.
I think the term "social construct" itself is somewhat loaded. Certainly, it has become a pejorative. The word "construct" implies that it is a falsehood. It is artificial, and can be easily knocked down or destroyed. Maybe not the case for everyone but in my experience, the people most likely to use the term social construct in the first place, are the most likely to believe these things to be bad, and that they should be knocked down.
But this really isn't always the case. I mean, a handshake is a social construct, as is a kiss. I could easily pull a reversal by going all Hobbes and replacing social construct with social contract. A social contract being something that is mutually agreed upon so that a society can function. Really, you could even argue that's the only thing that separates us from animals. (I'd argue there is more than just that, but certainly our ability to form larger communities than other primates is a huge factor in our evolution.)
As for the OP, I think a guy wearing a dress, is a guy wearing a dress. Perhaps a more productive route, rather than trying to abolish all lines between genders/sexuality, would be to just acknowledge that the lines are real, and that we should simply treat people who chose the fall outside the lines the same as anyone else.
Delicate Swarm wrote: As for the OP, I think a guy wearing a dress, is a guy wearing a dress. Perhaps a more productive route, rather than trying to abolish all lines between genders/sexuality, would be to just acknowledge that the lines are real, and that we should simply treat people who chose the fall outside the lines the same as anyone else.
Why should we keep those lines, especially for something as arbitrary as "men don't wear dresses"? After all, fashion changes and it could be the case that in 100 years men wear dresses all the time and it's considered the height of masculinity. Or consider gender stereotypes in jobs: computer programming used to be a job "for women", until we decided that it should be a job "for men". So many of the lines involving gender are just like that, completely arbitrary things that might be true in 2015 but certainly aren't inherent qualities of men and women. So we should oppose attempts to enforce those lines or to treat them as anything more than just coincidental trends.
Why should we not keep those lines? What benefit is there to discarding them? Especially when a huge portion of people are perfectly content to be within them?
You need reason to change them, you need no reason to keep them unless they are actively causing harm. And in nearly all cases they do not cause harm. There is absolutely nothing wrong with traditional gender roles, and I'm not talking about something as superficial as dress codes.
Delicate Swarm wrote: As for the OP, I think a guy wearing a dress, is a guy wearing a dress. Perhaps a more productive route, rather than trying to abolish all lines between genders/sexuality, would be to just acknowledge that the lines are real, and that we should simply treat people who chose the fall outside the lines the same as anyone else.
Why should we keep those lines, especially for something as arbitrary as "men don't wear dresses"? After all, fashion changes and it could be the case that in 100 years men wear dresses all the time and it's considered the height of masculinity. Or consider gender stereotypes in jobs: computer programming used to be a job "for women", until we decided that it should be a job "for men". So many of the lines involving gender are just like that, completely arbitrary things that might be true in 2015 but certainly aren't inherent qualities of men and women. So we should oppose attempts to enforce those lines or to treat them as anything more than just coincidental trends.
Because the process of changing those lines would probably require far more social engineering than what put them there in the first place. The only reason why there are more men in computer programming today, is because over time more men gravitated to the field. No one got together and just decided it had to be that way.
Delicate Swarm wrote: As for the OP, I think a guy wearing a dress, is a guy wearing a dress. Perhaps a more productive route, rather than trying to abolish all lines between genders/sexuality, would be to just acknowledge that the lines are real, and that we should simply treat people who chose the fall outside the lines the same as anyone else.
Why should we keep those lines, especially for something as arbitrary as "men don't wear dresses"? After all, fashion changes and it could be the case that in 100 years men wear dresses all the time and it's considered the height of masculinity. Or consider gender stereotypes in jobs: computer programming used to be a job "for women", until we decided that it should be a job "for men". So many of the lines involving gender are just like that, completely arbitrary things that might be true in 2015 but certainly aren't inherent qualities of men and women. So we should oppose attempts to enforce those lines or to treat them as anything more than just coincidental trends.
Since when has computer programming been a job for a single gender?
Because they have very little, if any, reason to exist.
What benefit is there to discarding them?
The benefit is not forcing people into arbitrary boxes based on nothing more than what's in their pants.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with traditional gender roles, and I'm not talking about something as superficial as dress codes.
Sure there's something wrong with them: they assign roles to people based on a fact that has nothing to do with what they actually want, and people are very often uncomfortable in those roles. But even if that harm isn't universal it still raises the question of what is right with traditional gender roles. And I have yet to see any kind of convincing argument in favor of having them, besides "they exist already".
My point was, if it is true that gender roles developed organically, rather than being assigned, then trying to reverse that will be more harmful than simply allowing people to make their own choices. But that is rarely what I see. Rather we hear things like, the lack of women in STEM is a serious problem that needs to be solved. I think that is far more likely to result in shoehorning people into roles they don't want.
Why would you expect the opposite? I really have no idea what you're trying to argue here.
My point was, if it is true that gender roles developed organically, rather than being assigned, then trying to reverse that will be more harmful than simply allowing people to make their own choices. But that is rarely what I see. Rather we hear things like, the lack of women in STEM is a serious problem that needs to be solved. I think that is far more likely to result in shoehorning people into roles they don't want.
I think you're kind of missing the point there. People don't want to see more women in STEM because they have a quota to fill, it's because they believe (with good reason) that there are a lot of women who want to get into those fields but are discouraged from doing so because of gender stereotypes and sexism. They aren't free to make their own choices, and that's a problem.
Grey Templar wrote: Why should we not keep those lines? What benefit is there to discarding them? Especially when a huge portion of people are perfectly content to be within them?
What benefit is there to keeping them?
I find both those questions rather pointless. Looking for cost benefit analysis is something like gender roles is a fruitless pursuit and amounts to nothing more than anecdotal sentiments.
A more appropriate question I think is; Does your comfort/indifference in traditional gender roles justify indifference towards people who are uncomfortable/isolated in traditional gender roles? Is a shift in gender roles, presumably to a set that is less judgmental, going to inconvenience anyone who likes traditional gender roles? If for example my proposal is not to discard gender roles but rather to move the goal posts to positions where individuals have a lot more freedom in what expected of them or what assumptions are associated with their choices, is that really in any way going to effect people who choose to continue living more traditional roles? It would seem to me that such a change has no effect on people comfortable with traditional roles while having the bonus of allowing people who don't live traditional roles to enjoy the comfort that comes with their choices being taken for granted.
And that's still not getting into another issue; Given a minority population that is uncomfortable with traditional gender roles, is it morally correct for the comfortable majority to dismiss them? Why should the majority's comfort be given more weight than the minority's discomfort? That is a rather tyrannical line of thought.
Delicate Swarm wrote: As for the OP, I think a guy wearing a dress, is a guy wearing a dress. Perhaps a more productive route, rather than trying to abolish all lines between genders/sexuality, would be to just acknowledge that the lines are real, and that we should simply treat people who chose the fall outside the lines the same as anyone else.
Why should we keep those lines, especially for something as arbitrary as "men don't wear dresses"? After all, fashion changes and it could be the case that in 100 years men wear dresses all the time and it's considered the height of masculinity. Or consider gender stereotypes in jobs: computer programming used to be a job "for women", until we decided that it should be a job "for men". So many of the lines involving gender are just like that, completely arbitrary things that might be true in 2015 but certainly aren't inherent qualities of men and women. So we should oppose attempts to enforce those lines or to treat them as anything more than just coincidental trends.
So, basically, what you're saying is that simple evolution of societies should be abolished? What else should be abolished? Maybe the ocean's tides? How about economic fluctuations?
dusara217 wrote: So, basically, what you're saying is that simple evolution of societies should be abolished? What else should be abolished? Maybe the ocean's tides? How about economic fluctuations?
Are you seriously attempting to argue that strict enforcement of gender stereotypes is something as inevitable and unchangeable as the tide? Or that we are helpless and passive in the face of this "evolution", rather than society being the result of the things we choose to do?
Grey Templar wrote: Why should we not keep those lines? What benefit is there to discarding them? Especially when a huge portion of people are perfectly content to be within them?
What benefit is there to keeping them?
I find both those questions rather pointless. Looking for cost benefit analysis is something like gender roles is a fruitless pursuit and amounts to nothing more than anecdotal sentiments.
A more appropriate question I think is; Does your comfort/indifference in traditional gender roles justify indifference towards people who are uncomfortable/isolated in traditional gender roles? Is a shift in gender roles, presumably to a set that is less judgmental, going to inconvenience anyone who likes traditional gender roles? If for example my proposal is not to discard gender roles but rather to move the goal posts to positions where individuals have a lot more freedom in what expected of them or what assumptions are associated with their choices, is that really in any way going to effect people who choose to continue living more traditional roles? It would seem to me that such a change has no effect on people comfortable with traditional roles while having the bonus of allowing people who don't live traditional roles to enjoy the comfort that comes with their choices being taken for granted.
And that's still not getting into another issue; Given a minority population that is uncomfortable with traditional gender roles, is it morally correct for the comfortable majority to dismiss them? Why should the majority's comfort be given more weight than the minority's discomfort? That is a rather tyrannical line of thought.
So, what you're saying is that biology doesn't matter. My high testosterone levels, as a male, don't preclude me from such activities as nursing (wherein I will likely lose my temper at the idiocy of my patients) and teaching preschool (wherein I would have a similar problem as nursing)? You're saying that my natural increase in aggression and muscle mass means that I would make a poor soldier or construction worker? You're saying that my mother's natural affinity for empathy and kindness would preclude her from nursing or kindergarden teaching? You're saying that because she's sick and tired of being physically and/or mentally less capable than a male at certain jobs, she should begin trying to become a world-class men's wrestler? Or perhaps she should start landscaping and do backbreaking work for minimal pay? You're saying that she should, instead of doing things that she, as a female, is biologically inclined to do, she should pursue things that men are biologically more capable of doing?
I'm very sorry about the condescending attitude, really it does make me feel a little guilty. But this is exactly my issue with feminism. the fact of the matter is that men and women have different physiologies, with varying hormone levels, muscle densities, even bone densities. Continued rant here. It's a little OT, but this kind of thing always annoys me.
Spoiler:
Women naturally get colder than men because they have smaller hearts than men (the muscle, not the symbol), which means that women would best let men do outdoor work in cold environs, as men are naturally more cold-resistant than women, due to the size of their heart muscles. Men naturally develop muscle mass faster than women due; making them more suited to manual labor. Women are (usually) more patient and caring than men (not that this is always the case, but it usually is), due to millennia of evolving as the caretakers of the species. Because of this, they make better teachers and oftentimes better doctors/psychologists/nurses. These difference aren't even a matter of any innate intellectual or neural differences, it's more a matter of hormonal differences. The hormones make men naturally more ambitious, and therefore more likely to end up in leadership positions, while also making women more likely to become (quite literally) less intelligent when they fall in love; which severely impedes the female's capabilities of rising in the ranks when she starts seriously dating. You are either male or female, I don't give a rat's ass about any "gender confusion" because the fact of the matter is that, no matter who you choose to be, you are either male or female, as dictated during the embryonic stage of human development. /end rant
Basically, the gist of it boils down to: You can't choose your sex. That is decided for you long before you have the mental capacity to even know what a "boy" or a "girl" is. What can I say, sometimes social structures are there for a fething reason.
So, what you're saying is that biology doesn't matter.
And again, gender != biological sex. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. Now if I were arguing a complete discarding of gender norms, you might have a point cause it's pretty far fetched that gender norms can be completely abandoned when biological sex will always inform to some degree our interactions with others. But it's equally far fetched in an age where a person can switch their apparent sex from one to another, that arbitrary gender norms (especially ones that have 0 connection at all to biology beyond the basic social association) are a must or can't be changed.
My high testosterone levels, as a male, don't preclude me from such activities as nursing (wherein I will likely lose my temper at the idiocy of my patients) and teaching preschool (wherein I would have a similar problem as nursing)? You're saying that my natural increase in aggression and muscle mass means that I would make a poor soldier or construction worker? You're saying that my mother's natural affinity for empathy and kindness would preclude her from nursing or kindergarden teaching? You're saying that because she's sick and tired of being physically and/or mentally less capable than a male at certain jobs, she should begin trying to become a world-class men's wrestler? Or perhaps she should start landscaping and do backbreaking work for minimal pay? You're saying that she should, instead of doing things that she, as a female, is biologically inclined to do, she should pursue things that men are biologically more capable of doing?
I honestly have no idea how you got any of that from my post, or any post in this thread really.
Basically, the gist of it boils down to: You can't choose your sex.
Reality would beg to differ. Unless we're going to adopt some practice that requires us to check every macho man for chest reconstruction and every girly girl for hormone therapy to make sure we're actually interacting with a genetically born member of a specific sex, sex can as a matter of social perception be changed. Functionally beyond that social perception, and lacking a full body inspection, you have no straight forward way of knowing what someone's genetic sex is. You can only use their apparent sex (gender) to inform your interactions with that person (T-Shirts reading "I was born a boy but decided I want to be a girl" not withstanding).
sometimes social structures are there for a fething reason.
And? if the reason for some expectations is arbitrary, why should we care the reason it came about? What does it matter if a family has a stay at home dad and a working mom? Is there some hard biological necessity that women be caretakers? Will she die from some chemical imbalance in the brain if she decides she'd look better if she started lifting some weights? If a man decides to wear a skirt is his penis gonna fly off? Congratulations, you've reached the obvious conclusion that biology has a strong effect on us as people. I'm not sure who is challenging that notion, or why you're taking it to an illogical extreme. You're having a nice discussion with that straw man, but maybe it could go to its own thread?
There's plenty of evidence that biological behaviour can stem from social expectations. The studies into the influence of alcohol conclusively prove that drunks behave differently depending on what society they have been raised in, reflecting that societies social construct of how drunks behave.
dusara217 wrote: So, what you're saying is that biology doesn't matter.
No, we're saying that supposed biological differences are often nothing more than social stereotypes, not inherent qualities.
My high testosterone levels, as a male, don't preclude me from such activities as nursing (wherein I will likely lose my temper at the idiocy of my patients) and teaching preschool (wherein I would have a similar problem as nursing)?
Don't blame biology for your poor anger control. Plenty of men can do those jobs just fine, and plenty of women can't.
You're saying that my natural increase in aggression and muscle mass means that I would make a poor soldier or construction worker?
Now you're talking about physical differences, not gender differences. Obviously the male body has advantages in certain areas where physical strength is a high priority, but even those aren't automatic. You aren't a good construction worker or soldier just because you have male genes.
You're saying that my mother's natural affinity for empathy and kindness would preclude her from nursing or kindergarden teaching?
Plenty of men have empathy and kindness. Really, you should be objecting to gender stereotypes that say you, as a man, are a violent sociopath.
You're saying that because she's sick and tired of being physically and/or mentally less capable than a male at certain jobs, she should begin trying to become a world-class men's wrestler? Or perhaps she should start landscaping and do backbreaking work for minimal pay?
Nobody is saying that. Please don't create straw man arguments.
You're saying that she should, instead of doing things that she, as a female, is biologically inclined to do, she should pursue things that men are biologically more capable of doing?
Why are you focusing on such a narrow subset of jobs and assuming that those are the only cases where gender stereotypes exist, or that all men/women are qualified for their "appropriate" jobs? I'm a man and I have no ability at all to be a soldier or wrestler. Meanwhile my actual career choice, engineering, is stereotypically male despite male genes giving no meaningful advantage in that area.
the fact of the matter is that men and women have different physiologies, with varying hormone levels, muscle densities, even bone densities.
And those differences are relevant in only few situations. Sure, it's unlikely that there will ever be any female NFL players, but that's such a rare situation that it doesn't really matter. And in other areas the differences between an individual man and an individual woman are far more relevant. I have male genes, but there are women who are stronger/tougher/etc than I am and better qualified for jobs like construction or the military. Things like time spent at the gym are more important than what genes a person starts with.
Women naturally get colder than men because they have smaller hearts than men (the muscle, not the symbol), which means that women would best let men do outdoor work in cold environs, as men are naturally more cold-resistant than women, due to the size of their heart muscles.
Are you aware that we've invented this thing called clothing?
The hormones make men naturally more ambitious, and therefore more likely to end up in leadership positions, while also making women more likely to become (quite literally) less intelligent when they fall in love; which severely impedes the female's capabilities of rising in the ranks when she starts seriously dating.
...
Did you even read your own articles? You know, the one that says supposed gender differences are pseudoscientific garbage? Rather than blaming hormones perhaps you should consider that women who are "too ambitious" are often criticized and looked down on as unfeminine, while men who are ambitious are praised for their masculine virtue. Is it really hard to imagine why women might be less aggressive in seeking promotions?
You are either male or female, I don't give a rat's ass about any "gender confusion" because the fact of the matter is that, no matter who you choose to be, you are either male or female, as dictated during the embryonic stage of human development.
It must be nice to have the privilege of believing this. Too bad it has nothing to do with reality.
On an absolute scale the differences between men and women are pretty much indistinguishable. It is only when you get to situations on the extreme edges of performance and behaviour that there is any meaningful difference.
A lot of gender/sex based behaviour is as a result of social programming. The example of drunken behaviour above is a fantastic one for the kind of latent conformation to social expectation that exists.
Also, there are or have been plenty of societies and periods of time where men wore dresses, and there was a time in western society when pink was for boys and blue was for girls...
That is decided for you long before you have the mental capacity to even know what a "boy" or a "girl" is. What can I say, sometimes social structures are there for a fething reason.
Except when it isn't. 1 out of 20,000 people are born with malformed genitals 'in between' sexes. 1 out of 2000 are born opposite sex of their chromosomes and won't show signs until puberty, if at all.
Physical Biological sex (which is indisputable fact to some of you) isn't binary... why would a construct based upon that foundation be binary?
Delicate Swarm wrote: As for the OP, I think a guy wearing a dress, is a guy wearing a dress. Perhaps a more productive route, rather than trying to abolish all lines between genders/sexuality, would be to just acknowledge that the lines are real, and that we should simply treat people who chose the fall outside the lines the same as anyone else.
Why should we keep those lines, especially for something as arbitrary as "men don't wear dresses"? After all, fashion changes and it could be the case that in 100 years men wear dresses all the time and it's considered the height of masculinity. Or consider gender stereotypes in jobs: computer programming used to be a job "for women", until we decided that it should be a job "for men". So many of the lines involving gender are just like that, completely arbitrary things that might be true in 2015 but certainly aren't inherent qualities of men and women. So we should oppose attempts to enforce those lines or to treat them as anything more than just coincidental trends.
Since when has computer programming been a job for a single gender?
To People outside of the industry. And those who are not in game development.
That is decided for you long before you have the mental capacity to even know what a "boy" or a "girl" is. What can I say, sometimes social structures are there for a fething reason.
Except when it isn't. 1 out of 20,000 people are born with malformed genitals 'in between' sexes. 1 out of 2000 are born opposite sex of their chromosomes and won't show signs until puberty, if at all.
Physical Biological sex (which is indisputable fact to some of you) isn't binary... why would a construct based upon that foundation be binary?
No, sex is definitely binary. Except where there is a horrible biological accident which creates an individual who is malformed. They are not normal and we should not use their existence to redefine the normal.
Should the fact that people are born without arms or legs change the statement that "Humans have 2 arms and 2 legs" to be a false one? No. Exceptions do not create the 'rules'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: Regardless, what "fething reason" is there to have a binary definition of gender?
Because that is the baseline. Thats what is normal.
Sure, people do get born with malformed genitals or the wrong genitals, but thats not normal. If that occurs something went very very wrong in their physical development. They do not warrant a redefining of gender. There isn't a mythical 3rd gender. There are males and females. Sometimes members of either sex are deformed for some reason. Not really any different than dwarfism, gigantism, being born with missing limbs, or any other unfortunate deformity.
Sure, people do get born with malformed genitals or the wrong genitals, but thats not normal. If that occurs something went very very wrong in their physical development. They do not warrant a redefining of gender. There isn't a mythical 3rd gender. There are males and females. Sometimes members of either sex are deformed for some reason. Not really any different than dwarfism, gigantism, being born with missing limbs, or any other unfortunate deformity.
You actually don't understand the difference between biological sex and gender, do you? That's fine and all, everyone learns something somewhere, but the way you're conflating the two is just making it extremely clear that you do not know how to separate the two for the purposes of the discussion being had.
And I am still waiting for a good explanation as to why one needs to have a binary definition of gender. Why one must accept the social constructs relating to those genders, especially the harmful constructs which in no way relate to reality (women are no good at maths and men are no good at empathy, etc).
I am however far past the point with you where I will bother to discuss your views on non-majority physical and non-physical sexual and gender states and how those people are un-natural deviant freaks...
Way to put words in people's mouth dude. Yes, they are deformed and not normal. That's not some slur or demeaning thing to say. Its an accident of biology, not anybody's fault. But we shouldn't be scrambling to redefine the binary gender because of very uncommon deformities.
Grey Templar wrote: Way to put words in people's mouth dude. Yes, they are deformed and not normal. That's not some slur or demeaning thing to say. Its an accident of biology, not anybody's fault. But we shouldn't be scrambling to redefine the binary gender because of very uncommon deformities.
Grey Templar wrote: Way to put words in people's mouth dude. Yes, they are deformed and not normal. That's not some slur or demeaning thing to say. Its an accident of biology, not anybody's fault. But we shouldn't be scrambling to redefine the binary gender because of very uncommon deformities.
Again, sex =/= gender.
Only in very very very odd corner cases. For the vast majority they are the same, or one is determined by the other.
What about sports and competition? Segregating into Mens' and Womens' teams is a social construct but it is done in an attempt to be fair to women.
It isn't fair to make women compete alongside men in things like mixed martial arts, American football, hockey, rugby, baseball, etc. Men are simply more physically capable than women simply by virtue of genetics and evolution. We thus create a social construct of "women's athletics" so as to allow women the opportunity to compete without subjecting them to predation from men in the process.
Following this reasoning, it becomes clear why society generally frowns on the idea of letting transsexuals (M->F) compete alongside women in women's sports. It simply isn't fair to the women.
Grey Templar wrote: Only in very very very odd corner cases. For the vast majority they are the same, or one is determined by the other.
No, that's not true at all. Even when sex and gender match they're not at all the same thing.
Sex is something determined by genes and development. You don't control it, it's just there.
Gender is the result of choices and the society you live in. You can choose to go along with those standards or rebel against them (or simply not care either way), and they can change over time. For example, pink is currently considered a feminine color, but that's indisputably an arbitrary social construct. People with female genes don't inherently identify with pink, and the exclusive association with women is a relatively new thing. Consider a quote from 1918:
The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink , being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.
And now 100 years later we have completely reversed that rule. If you can't see how that is completely different from physical sex then really, I don't know what else to say.
Grey Templar wrote: Way to put words in people's mouth dude. Yes, they are deformed and not normal. That's not some slur or demeaning thing to say. Its an accident of biology, not anybody's fault. But we shouldn't be scrambling to redefine the binary gender because of very uncommon deformities.
Please go and do some reading on this. You're currently the crazy guy in the corner insisting the earth is flat. By any rational standard, calculation, or understanding, sex and gender are completely different things.
Grey Templar wrote: Way to put words in people's mouth dude. Yes, they are deformed and not normal. That's not some slur or demeaning thing to say. Its an accident of biology, not anybody's fault. But we shouldn't be scrambling to redefine the binary gender because of very uncommon deformities.
Again, sex =/= gender.
Agreed here.
Gender is a choice, to a limited degree. But But both gender and sexuality are spectrums and are pretty large in scope.
But are we talking about sex as in terms of sexuality (what you prefer to romantically inclined with) or biological sex?
Asherian Command wrote: Gender is a choice, to a limited degree. But But both gender and sexuality are spectrums and are pretty large in scope.
Functionally we can divide Gender into two types; Psychological Gender and Social Gender. The former comprises how you identify yourself, the later comprises the expectations and norms of society at large.
Breotan wrote: What about sports and competition? Segregating into Mens' and Womens' teams is a social construct but it is done in an attempt to be fair to women.
It isn't fair to make women compete alongside men in things like mixed martial arts, American football, hockey, rugby, baseball, etc. Men are simply more physically capable than women simply by virtue of genetics and evolution. We thus create a social construct of "women's athletics" so as to allow women the opportunity to compete without subjecting them to predation from men in the process.
Following this reasoning, it becomes clear why society generally frowns on the idea of letting transsexuals (M->F) compete alongside women in women's sports. It simply isn't fair to the women.
Personally, I wouldn't use the term "physically capable" in the same way you are, even though I know exactly what you are referring to. To me, I think it's more that there's an equal capability, but there IS a scale of difference that we're talking about.
As for the OP, I think that there are some constructs that are easier to change than others. Some can be relatively easy to change on purpose, others seem to only be able to be altered "accidentally". The sports example is a good one, IMO. Because in the US, until the 1970s and Title IX, women were generally only allowed to do cheerleading or other insipid "low impact" activities and agreed with their "frail constitutions". Obviously, we haven't completely eradicated some of these stupid notions, but more and more scientific studies are showing that harder, more physical activities at the High School age have long term impact on women's lives.
Another example of a social construct, and one that I'm seeing change a bit, is the double standards regarding sexual relations.... When I was in school, the guys would be giving each other high fives and "celebrating" the fact that they had a large number of sexual partners, but would deride a female who had done basically the same thing. I think that there was a very real, if unacknowledged idea that men should "know what they're doing" on their wedding night, while their bride was to keep herself "pure" for him.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think that there was a very real, if unacknowledged idea that men should "know what they're doing" on their wedding night, while their bride was to keep herself "pure" for him.
Grey Templar wrote: Way to put words in people's mouth dude. Yes, they are deformed and not normal. That's not some slur or demeaning thing to say. Its an accident of biology, not anybody's fault. But we shouldn't be scrambling to redefine the binary gender because of very uncommon deformities.
Please go and do some reading on this. You're currently the crazy guy in the corner insisting the earth is flat. By any rational standard, calculation, or understanding, sex and gender are completely different things.
I've had this conversation with Grey Templar more times than I care to remember. He's stuck.
Also, the 'horrible biological accidents' (as he so politely phrased it) are slightly more common than ginger hair, depending upon the measures used.
Grey Templar wrote: Way to put words in people's mouth dude. Yes, they are deformed and not normal. That's not some slur or demeaning thing to say. Its an accident of biology, not anybody's fault. But we shouldn't be scrambling to redefine the binary gender because of very uncommon deformities.
Please go and do some reading on this. You're currently the crazy guy in the corner insisting the earth is flat. By any rational standard, calculation, or understanding, sex and gender are completely different things.
I've had this conversation with Grey Templar more times than I care to remember. He's stuck.
Also, the 'horrible deformities' (as he so politely phrased it) are slightly more common than ginger hair, depending upon the measures used.
Really? Where did he say that, exactly? I found horrible biological accident, but not horrible deformities. If you are going to put something in quotes, make sure that term actually exists. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to skew someone's opinion. Also, is ginger hair really less common than being a male born without a penis?
Grey Templar wrote: Way to put words in people's mouth dude. Yes, they are deformed and not normal. That's not some slur or demeaning thing to say. Its an accident of biology, not anybody's fault. But we shouldn't be scrambling to redefine the binary gender because of very uncommon deformities.
Please go and do some reading on this. You're currently the crazy guy in the corner insisting the earth is flat. By any rational standard, calculation, or understanding, sex and gender are completely different things.
I've had this conversation with Grey Templar more times than I care to remember. He's stuck.
Also, the 'horrible deformities' (as he so politely phrased it) are slightly more common than ginger hair, depending upon the measures used.
Really? Where did he say that, exactly?
I found horrible biological accident, but not horrible deformities.
If you are going to put something in quotes, make sure that term actually exists. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to skew someone's opinion.
Also, is ginger hair really less common than being a male born without a penis?
You're right; I conflated two of his statements from memory rather than conscious malice. Fixed in my original post.
The ginger hair thing is a tenuos example, and I don't like the measures of the study involved (it includes hormonal variations, rather than just gonads).
It would be more defensible to say that being intersex is more common than being Jewish, and that there are enough intersex individuals of voting age in America that if all voted for a single candidate, that candidate would win by a fair margin.(Groveman, 'Intersex in the age of ethics')
Relating this to the first post, I would say that the above statements taken against peole's surprise at said statements suggests the power of gender as a social construct - a large number of people are being hidden by the idea that people come in two flavours.
I believe that such constructs (including but not limited to gender) can and are being changed consciously by people within a system - just look at the changing roles and perception of women after the advent of feminism.
Please go and do some reading on this. You're currently the crazy guy in the corner insisting the earth is flat. By any rational standard, calculation, or understanding, sex and gender are completely different things.
It could also be that most people just don't give a single damn about what others call themselves or not. Or don't even see the smallest merit in engaging in another discussion that leads nowhere. Not that this happened on Dakka before. Nah.
Sex and gender are different. The former is a natural term, the latter is a construct. You are a man / woman (sex) but you can identify as a man / woman even if not being a man / woman. You can choose to identify as whatever you want, be it man, woman, something in between, an airplane, a box, a cat, a wolf, a black despite being white etc. You can choose to do so because it's your choice and it's your personal freedom. The problem is that there's an extremely loud group of extremists who defy all common sense and expect everyone else to identify them as what they identify themselves - and that isn't how social life works. That's how forcing your opinion down other people's throat works. How it actually works is that you (kindly) ask others to idenfity you as you want to be identified, acknowledging that they may turn that favor down if they don't want to. It's that simple. It's how socializing /works/. Being a loud person asking everyone to do everything to satisfy you and doing anything you ask for or else calling in your tumblr army is just slowed and highly inappropriate.
What really makes me physically disgusted and angry is people seriously considering Bruce Jenner to be braver than soldiers who actually went to war. In reference to the wise Louis CK: what a waste of oxygen.
Please go and do some reading on this. You're currently the crazy guy in the corner insisting the earth is flat. By any rational standard, calculation, or understanding, sex and gender are completely different things.
It could also be that most people just don't give a single damn about what others call themselves or not. Or don't even see the smallest merit in engaging in another discussion that leads nowhere. Not that this happened on Dakka before. Nah.
Sex and gender are different. The former is a natural term, the latter is a construct. You are a man / woman (sex) but you can identify as a man / woman even if not being a man / woman. You can choose to identify as whatever you want, be it man, woman, something in between, an airplane, a box, a cat, a wolf, a black despite being white etc. You can choose to do so because it's your choice and it's your personal freedom. The problem is that there's an extremely loud group of extremists who defy all common sense and expect everyone else to identify them as what they identify themselves - and that isn't how social life works. That's how forcing your opinion down other people's throat works. How it actually works is that you (kindly) ask others to idenfity you as you want to be identified, acknowledging that they may turn that favor down if they don't want to. It's that simple. It's how socializing /works/. Being a loud person asking everyone to do everything to satisfy you and doing anything you ask for or else calling in your tumblr army is just slowed and highly inappropriate.
What really makes me physically disgusted and angry is people seriously considering Bruce Jenner to be braver than soldiers who actually went to war. In reference to the wise Louis CK: what a waste of oxygen.
I think 'extremists' there is something of a loaded term, but what the hey.
Thing is, there are plenty of speech actions that are controlled by fairly extreme social pressures (and the government in countries other than the US), like racist utterances. The thing that trans interests and opposed groups differ on is whether the use of chosen pronouns/ names/ not being obsessed with what is on somebody's birth certificate is just how nasty these utterances are. Society on the whole is starting to come around to the trans perspective on this, so I think we're going to see the sex=pronouns lot go the way of white people who insist on using the n-word. I mean, sure, they might be able to get away with it, but the rest of society is going to think that they're a bit of an unsavoury character.
And I get angry that people insist on believing that the only form of bravery is shooting people. Sure, its brave going to war, but I also believe that Caitlyn's coming out in the face of a minority of individuals who are very vocally disbelieving and often insulting can also reasonably be termed 'brave'.
The problem is that there's an extremely loud group of extremists who defy all common sense and expect everyone else to identify them as what they identify themselves - and that isn't how social life works. That's how forcing your opinion down other people's throat works. How it actually works is that you (kindly) ask others to idenfity you as you want to be identified, acknowledging that they may turn that favor down if they don't want to.
Errr.....not really. Otherwise a lot of people would be entitled to identify other people as 'sub-human' for various unsavoury motivations. In polite society, the done thing generally is to allow others to get on with things as best suits them, and identify them however they wish to be identified. They have no obligation to tug their forelocks, accept things and say, 'As you will, M'lud' when someone laughs and says, 'Jenkins my dear boy, there's no way you're a woman'.
If someone chooses to be a woman, man, or anything else in between, and somebody insist on calling them something different, it's disrespectful to them, and more symptomatic of bad manners and poor taste on that persons part. A person can choose to do those things if they wish, but then they can expect to be shunned by the rest of society who don't suffer from such a neglectful and pitiable upbringing. THAT, my friend, is how socializing works.
If someone chooses to be a woman, man, or anything else in between, and somebody insist on calling them something different, it's disrespectful to them, and more symptomatic of bad manners and poor taste on that persons part.
It works in the exact same way the other way around. If someone simply has a very conservative opinion / mindset and doesn't believe in the sex-gender distinction, then you have to accept that. Period. It's his respective opinion and as long as he doesn't go out on an orange box yelling at others and violating laws, his opinion is exactly equal to the other side's opinion. Just because one side is more appreciated doesn't make it more legit. Giving such people names and calling them bigots is on the same level as calling people identifying differently names. Calling a man who identifies as a woman a man is disrespectful towards them, sure. That's not in question. Calling others bigots because they do so is the very same thing. You insult people because of their mindset. That's the problem.
It's like those extremist vegans who'd shame normal people eating meat. It's an opinion. It's a choice you made, not the people around you did.
If someone chooses to be a woman, man, or anything else in between, and somebody insist on calling them something different, it's disrespectful to them, and more symptomatic of bad manners and poor taste on that persons part.
It works in the exact same way the other way around. If someone simply has a very conservative opinion / mindset and doesn't believe in the sex-gender distinction, then you have to accept that. Period. It's his respective opinion and as long as he doesn't go out on an orange box yelling at others and violating laws, his opinion is exactly equal to the other side's opinion. Just because one side is more appreciated doesn't make it more legit. Giving such people names and calling them bigots is on the same level as calling people identifying differently names.
It's like those extremist vegans who'd shame norman people eating meat. It's an opinion. It's a choice you made, not the people around you did.
I'm not sure it does work the same way the other way around. We're happy calling racists 'racists'. One does not have to accept another's opinion, but may attempt to change it by providing counter arguments and examples. The bit where people get called bigots is one of the stronger factors in engineering the change in social constructs that the OP was talking about - social ostracisation is a pretty strong behavioural modifier.
The vegan thing is not a working comparison - veganism (except in cases of allergy) is an obvious choice, whereas gender is not believed to be by most people, most theorists, my government or yours.
The only real cases where I have seen someone change gender 'out of choice' is because they are in fact
1. Genderfluid 2. Still trying to figure out which gender they belong to, if any (so it's a matter of understanding yourself rather than something like choosing your favourite car).
Contrary to popular belief, this is not a decision made on a whim. It is a key part of your self-image and how you are viewed by those around you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: You can choose to identify as whatever you want, be it man, woman, something in between, an airplane, a box, a cat, a wolf, a black despite being white etc. You can choose to do so because it's your choice and it's your personal freedom. The problem is that there's an extremely loud group of extremists who defy all common sense and expect everyone else to identify them as what they identify themselves - and that isn't how social life works. That's how forcing your opinion down other people's throat works. How it actually works is that you (kindly) ask others to idenfity you as you want to be identified, acknowledging that they may turn that favor down if they don't want to.
Fortunately, most people are polite, compassionate and generally nice enough to actually refer to people as the correct gender.
From what I can see, misgendering is widely considered a TFG flag, and rightly so.
It works in the exact same way the other way around. If someone simply has a very conservative opinion / mindset and doesn't believe in the sex-gender distinction, then you have to accept that. Period. It's his respective opinion and as long as he doesn't go out on an orange box yelling at others and violating laws, his opinion is exactly equal to the other side's opinion.
Sure. He can do whatever he wants, in the privacy of his own home, in the same way people are free to have swastika tattoos and throw darts at pictures of black people.
Just because one side is more appreciated doesn't make it more legit. Giving such people names and calling them bigots is on the same level as calling people identifying differently names.
You are correct. This does not mean you are right. Objectively speaking, no moral stance is better than another. Objectively speaking, I also cannot be sure anyone or anything else exists. Meanwhile, back in the realm of empirical reason, we all accept that there's a more objective version of morality defined by society as a collective whole (as opposed to the purely subjective by the individual) which we measure, and are measured against. If people are bigots by the standards of that morality, than they are bigots.
Calling a man who identifies as a woman a man is disrespectful towards them, sure. That's not in question. Calling others bigots because they do so is the very same thing. You insult people because of their mindset. That's the problem.
No, I'm saying that people who are disrespectful are people who are disrespectful. If those disrespectful people insist on addressing others in a way that they have been specifically and politely asked not to address someone, then they are rude and ill-bred. If you investigate into why that is, one will possibly find that they reason they insist on behaving that way is due to a bigoted world view. It might also be for other reasons. 'Bigot' is not an insult however, it is merely a phrase with a specific definition.
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
Intolerant:
showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.
Calling someone by their sex is not intolerant. Doing so is not restricting or removing another opinion or person with a differing opinion. Intolerant would be like the teacher refusing to allow people to wear blue at school or refusing to let kids have nick names. It's not intolerant for the teacher to say he is against nick names and not call kids by nick names.
Unless there is some new meaning for these terms...
I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
Intolerant:
showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.
Calling someone by their sex is not intolerant. Doing so is not restricting or removing another opinion or person with a differing opinion. Intolerant would be like the teacher refusing to allow people to wear blue at school or refusing to let kids have nick names. It's not intolerant for the teacher to say he is against nick names and not call kids by nick names.
Unless there is some new meaning for these terms...
Bigot is incorrect in this case by strict definition, but the common usage of the word differs somewhat from its definition.
However, as has already been mentioned, other monikers such as 'unsavoury individual', 'rude' and 'inconsiderate twonk' might also be used.
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
Intolerant:
showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.
Calling someone by their sex is not intolerant. Doing so is not restricting or removing another opinion or person with a differing opinion. Intolerant would be like the teacher refusing to allow people to wear blue at school or refusing to let kids have nick names. It's not intolerant for the teacher to say he is against nick names and not call kids by nick names.
Unless there is some new meaning for these terms...
Intolerance would be something like a situation I've very recently come across at my university.... There's a person that I'm on a "friendly acquaintance" basis with. During a conversation I said, "she was talking about blah blah blah"... to which "she" responded with, "I identify as male"
Intolerance on my part would be to continue to address this person as "she". Instead, I've taken it to my head that, as I rather enjoy conversations with him, that I will remember to use "masculine" descriptors when referring to this person. Really, for me, it's not much of a stretch because of the location and manner in which I grew up, nearly everyone is potentially "dude" if I don't refer to the person as Bob, Joe, Jill, Sarah or whatever "proper" name that person has.
There is absolutely nothing for me to gain or lose by NOT referring to a person in the manner in which they wish to be addressed. I mean, obviously I would draw a line somewhere if a person said, "I prefer to be called your Royal Highness" or "I prefer to be called Jesus, Son of God Returned to this Earth, peace be upon my father"
d-usa wrote: I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".
That would make me a jackass.
It's not rocket science.
A name for 100% of people is different person to person. You have to learn someones name. Gender to 99% of people in this world is based entirely on sex with the exception of a few disorders etc.
It's very easy to understand why most people will refer to you as your sex.
If you think the person is a jackass, well that's just as fine as them thinking that a female is a women. is either opinion bigoted? No not really. All I was saying is at the very least find the correct words to be using. Dictionaries are all over the internet.
d-usa wrote: I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".
That would make me a jackass.
It's not rocket science.
A name for 100% of people is different person to person. You have to learn someones name. Gender to 99% of people in this world is based entirely on sex with the exception of a few disorders etc.
It's very easy to understand why most people will refer to you as your sex.
If you think the person is a jackass, well that's just as fine as them thinking that a female is a women. is either opinion bigoted? No not really. All I was saying is at the very least find the correct words to be using. Dictionaries are all over the internet.
What I took from d-usa's post, was illustrated in my post... What I got out of his post was that if someone says, "I am X'" and you insist on continuing to call them Y, even if they correct you 3 or 4 times or whatever, then yeah, that makes "you" a jackass.
d-usa wrote: I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".
That would make me a jackass.
It's not rocket science.
A name for 100% of people is different person to person. You have to learn someones name. Gender to 99% of people in this world is based entirely on sex with the exception of a few disorders etc.
It's very easy to understand why most people will refer to you as your sex.
If you think the person is a jackass, well that's just as fine as them thinking that a female is a women. is either opinion bigoted? No not really. All I was saying is at the very least find the correct words to be using. Dictionaries are all over the internet.
What I took from d-usa's post, was illustrated in my post... What I got out of his post was that if someone says, "I am X'" and you insist on continuing to call them Y, even if they correct you 3 or 4 times or whatever, then yeah, that makes "you" a jackass.
Yes but not a bigot or intolerant. That is unless you have made up your own meaning for things. That is all I was trying to say.
d-usa wrote: I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".
That would make me a jackass.
It's not rocket science.
A name for 100% of people is different person to person. You have to learn someones name. Gender to 99% of people in this world is based entirely on sex with the exception of a few disorders etc.
It's very easy to understand why most people will refer to you as your sex.
If you think the person is a jackass, well that's just as fine as them thinking that a female is a women. is either opinion bigoted? No not really. All I was saying is at the very least find the correct words to be using. Dictionaries are all over the internet.
What I took from d-usa's post, was illustrated in my post... What I got out of his post was that if someone says, "I am X'" and you insist on continuing to call them Y, even if they correct you 3 or 4 times or whatever, then yeah, that makes "you" a jackass.
Yes but not a bigot or intolerant. That is unless you have made up your own meaning for things. That is all I was trying to say.
It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant. Not always, they could just be an ass, but usually.
d-usa wrote: I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".
That would make me a jackass.
It's not rocket science.
A name for 100% of people is different person to person. You have to learn someones name. Gender to 99% of people in this world is based entirely on sex with the exception of a few disorders etc.
It's very easy to understand why most people will refer to you as your sex.
If you think the person is a jackass, well that's just as fine as them thinking that a female is a women. is either opinion bigoted? No not really. All I was saying is at the very least find the correct words to be using. Dictionaries are all over the internet.
What I took from d-usa's post, was illustrated in my post... What I got out of his post was that if someone says, "I am X'" and you insist on continuing to call them Y, even if they correct you 3 or 4 times or whatever, then yeah, that makes "you" a jackass.
Yes but not a bigot or intolerant. That is unless you have made up your own meaning for things. That is all I was trying to say.
It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant.
Isn't that stereotyping? I suspect you also say black skin is an indicator of a criminal too.
Again, I understand the intent, but the words being used here to shame the opposition are the wrong words. You can call someone by their sex because of your views on gender while acknowledging their views on gender are different. Again intolerance is an unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own. Not calling someone by their chosen pronouns is not intolerant. It is exactly the same as insisting people call you by your chosen pronouns.
Isn't that stereotyping? I suspect you also say black skin is an indicator of a criminal too.
Again, I understand the intent, but the words being used here to shame the opposition are the wrong words.
Not really. It's based on actions, not existence. Someone actively treating a minority group who are often discriminated against negatively? Probably intolerant. Again, not all are, some are just inconsiderate donkey-caves with nothing better to do than be cruel, but most are.
And very weird accusation of racism there, badly worded perhaps.
Asherian Command wrote: But are we talking about sex as in terms of sexuality (what you prefer to romantically inclined with) or biological sex?
Biological sex. Who (or what) a person is attracted to sexually is an entirely different and unrelated subject.
Danka Schon.
As I have no expertise in Biological Sex, nor any ideas or thoughts to share. I shall defer to my textbook and say "No." You are defined by your biology, not you. You can identify as it. But technically specially biologically you are that gender. But legally you are what you identify as.
Isn't that stereotyping? I suspect you also say black skin is an indicator of a criminal too.
Sort of, but by the sounds of it, he didn't mean to imply it.
It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant.
Isn't that stereotyping? I suspect you also say black skin is an indicator of a criminal too.
Again, I understand the intent, but the words being used here to shame the opposition are the wrong words.
Not really. It's based on actions, not existence. Someone actively treating a minority group who are often discriminated against negatively? Probably intolerant. Again, not all are, some are just inconsiderate donkey-caves with nothing better to do than be cruel, but most are.
And very weird accusation of racism there, badly worded perhaps.
True, action is different from existence. Bad example on my part.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant. Not always, they could just be an ass, but usually.
Exactly. If you make a pronoun mistake once out of ignorance and use the right label once you're corrected, that's fine. Nobody is expecting perfection. If you continue to use the wrong pronoun/name/whatever because you think you know more about someone's own identity than they do you're a .
You've got it completely backwards. Sex = physical characteristics defined by biology (which reproductive organs you have, etc). Gender = social role and identity. Biology tells you sex, not gender.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant. Not always, they could just be an ass, but usually.
Exactly. If you make a pronoun mistake once out of ignorance and use the right label once you're corrected, that's fine. Nobody is expecting perfection. If you continue to use the wrong pronoun/name/whatever because you think you know more about someone's own identity than they do you're a .
You've got it completely backwards. Sex = physical characteristics defined by biology (which reproductive organs you have, etc). Gender = social role and identity. Biology tells you sex, not gender.
Wow that really confusing, If do say so myself O.o
Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?
I don't understand if you guys are so against gender being assigned (in my opinion it should be unless there is a good reason to change it) and change them at will why not just aim for the end of gender?
Instead of doing that weird thing with those long lists of genders why not just do away with them? A serious question.
Swastakowey wrote: Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?
Because that's not a realistic goal in the foreseeable future. A much more achievable goal is to acknowledge that binary gender isn't as neat as people often think it is. And the common saying is "don't let perfect be the enemy of good".
Co'tor Shas wrote: Here's a way to remember that? Which one is a physical activity, sex or gender?
Thats Easy Gender! /asherian's joking
On a more serious note.
Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?
It doesn't mean nothing, there is alot of meaning behind identifying as a gender. I mean why have political parties at all? Why have different philisophies? Its all apart of the fundamentals of human kind. We need something to identify with. Gender doesn't mean nothing, it is clearly something. That something is comfort of mind, and soul.
I don't understand if you guys are so against gender being assigned (in my opinion it should be unless there is a good reason to change it) and change them at will why not just aim for the end of gender?
We are against gender being as black and white as it currently is. It is not about gender fluidity it is about stereotypes that is bad.
Swastakowey wrote: Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?
I don't understand if you guys are so against gender being assigned (in my opinion it should be unless there is a good reason to change it) and change them at will why not just aim for the end of gender?
Instead of doing that weird thing with those long lists of genders why not just do away with them? A serious question.
Honestly, I'd love it if we could (everybody equal able to do what they want, without sociatal pressures, free to express themselves in whatever way they like), but gender and gender politics are so ingrained in the human psyche, I doubt we'll ever be able to. Maybe once we're all genetically engineered, roboticaly enhanced, post-humans.
Swastakowey wrote: Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?
Because that's not a realistic goal in the foreseeable future. A much more achievable goal is to acknowledge that binary gender isn't as neat as people often think it is. And the common saying is "don't let perfect be the enemy of good".
I thought so, so really this is just to "undermine" the idea of gender.
I don't think everyone has the memo though... otherwise more people would claim to be gender-less rather than simply choosing one of the genders society has put in place. Seems like these people are very constraned by gender and firmly believe they can be X gender rather than trying to free themselves of gender all together.
It's actually pretty straightforward, at least in terms of the difference between sex and gender. If you're talking about physical attributes in a way that you could talk about a male cow vs. a female cow then you're talking about sex. If you're talking about social roles and identity that only apply to humans you're talking about gender.
It's actually pretty straightforward, at least in terms of the difference between sex and gender. If you're talking about physical attributes in a way that you could talk about a male cow vs. a female cow then you're talking about sex. If you're talking about social roles and identity that only apply to humans you're talking about gender.
Swastakowey wrote: I thought so, so really this is just to "undermine" the idea of gender.
Depends on who you ask. Some people want to get rid of the concept entirely, some people just want to expand it to fill the needs of the people who don't fit existing gender roles.
I don't think everyone has the memo though... otherwise more people would claim to be gender-less rather than simply choosing one of the genders society has put in place. Seems like these people are very constraned by gender and firmly believe they can be X gender rather than trying to free themselves of gender all together.
But that's a legitimate belief, especially in a society where those gender roles do exist. It's much easier to say "I'm {gender}" than to have a big fight about the entire concept of gender identity in general. And many people genuinely do feel like their gender identity is close enough to the "standard" definition, even if it doesn't match their physical body yet.
Only if you want it to be. If you can handle playing 40k you can understand gender vs. sex.
They aren't the same thing. Not comparing apples to apples. Abstract thinking is not my strong suit. I am incredibly black and white. To me, sex and gender are the same thing and to call them something else is well... Heresy.
Tactical_Spam wrote: They aren't the same thing. Not comparing apples to apples. Abstract thinking is not my strong suit.
It's not abstract thinking, it's simple classification. Are you talking about a person's reproductive organs and hormone levels, or are you talking about how they think and feel and interact with society? I suspect that the issue here isn't really that it's abstract, it's that you want it to be complicated so you can just say "too complicated" and stop thinking about it.
I am incredibly black and white. To me, sex and gender are the same thing and to call them something else is well... Heresy.
Well, you're wrong. Indisputably wrong. And black and white thinking is not going to get you very far in a world that is rarely so simple.
Only if you want it to be. If you can handle playing 40k you can understand gender vs. sex.
They aren't the same thing. Not comparing apples to apples. Abstract thinking is not my strong suit. I am incredibly black and white. To me, sex and gender are the same thing and to call them something else is well... Heresy.
Same thing here in conclusion (abstract is not hard. This is easy to understand). Where I live most people are normal. Maybe it's because I live in a town, heaps of odd people live in cities, where I suspect many people having identity issues of any kind dwell, probably due to being around so many people daily that they feel the need to find their lot in life as a person. It all seems incredibly superficial and very much a young teen issue to me. Outside of the internet the only time I have seen anything close to gender issues is 2 transsexuals but technically that's sex identity not gender identity I suppose.
Really it seems like a fuss over nothing. Which begs the question, if it's a fuss over nothing does gender need to be there, or is it a fuss over nothing because it should be there and works fine? Personally I will wait to have children before I decide. Being the oldest of the nephews and nieces in my huge family I have yet to see any child related to me try break gender norms. But I also have not raised them so I have yet to see for myself fully. Right now I am definitely in the sex and gender are connected camp.
No actually. Its still heresy. Do not tell me how to think
Why, does it offend you?
No, I find the whole notion stupid. And why would it offend me? We all have free speech, so I can sit here, call everyone a heretic and in return they say how I'm wrong. It turns into an endless cluster of stupidity.
Only if you want it to be. If you can handle playing 40k you can understand gender vs. sex.
They aren't the same thing. Not comparing apples to apples. Abstract thinking is not my strong suit. I am incredibly black and white. To me, sex and gender are the same thing and to call them something else is well... Heresy.
Ok, sex = physical attributes, chromasomes.
Gender=made up bs.
In the context of this thread, saying that a woman should be at home raising children because that's "women's work" is gender constructs. Just like nursing is typically viewed as a "woman's occupation" or being a mechanic is a "man's job"
While we all know that men can be "stay at home moms" just as well as a woman can be a mechanic, society has built the idea, generally speaking, that certain jobs, career fields or even household chores are for one sex or another
Sorry, I'm kind of confused here. Are you attempting to roleplay a space marine zealot like your avatar, or do you genuinely think this? Because I really hope it's the first option.
Really it seems like a fuss over nothing. Which begs the question, if it's a fuss over nothing does gender need to be there, or is it a fuss over nothing because it should be there and works fine? Personally I will wait to have children before I decide. Being the oldest of the nephews and nieces in my huge family I have yet to see any child related to me try break gender norms. But I also have not raised them so I have yet to see for myself fully. Right now I am definitely in the sex and gender are connected camp.
Personally, I have no issues with gender identity issues. As outlined in other posts, I do have some issues with some of the stereotypes, double standards and the like that are imposed on various groups of people because it isn't "normal" for that gender.
Lucky you, having the privilege of being able to ignore the difference between sex and gender. Perhaps you should learn to understand that other people aren't so fortunate, and it isn't just a "stupid notion" to them?
Sorry, I'm kind of confused here. Are you attempting to roleplay a space marine zealot like your avatar, or do you genuinely think this? Because I really hope it's the first option.
Lucky you, having the privilege of being able to ignore the difference between sex and gender. Perhaps you should learn to understand that other people aren't so fortunate, and it isn't just a "stupid notion" to them?
Because I haven't had some emotionally scarring backstory that would require me to insecure about who I am? Or not fit in to any category and thus leading me to become insecure and then to questionning then to becoming?
I wouldn't really consider myself to fortunate in the sex/gender department
Really it seems like a fuss over nothing. Which begs the question, if it's a fuss over nothing does gender need to be there, or is it a fuss over nothing because it should be there and works fine? Personally I will wait to have children before I decide. Being the oldest of the nephews and nieces in my huge family I have yet to see any child related to me try break gender norms. But I also have not raised them so I have yet to see for myself fully. Right now I am definitely in the sex and gender are connected camp.
Personally, I have no issues with gender identity issues. As outlined in other posts, I do have some issues with some of the stereotypes, double standards and the like that are imposed on various groups of people because it isn't "normal" for that gender.
Im pretty sure gender roles are based entirely on what people find attractive in the opposite sex.
Men don't want to spend their life with an ex prostitute if they have a choice, likewise women don't want to spend their life with a husband who does a little tiding at home then lives off her paycheck. Really if you don't like those double standards then complaining wont change it, you have to change what people want in a partner. Easiest way to do that is to get into the movie making business. Try to show that women who sleep with 40 men in 6 years are perfect wives to have and that jobless men who wear panties while moping the floors are perfect husbands etc (exaggeration). Then you will more likely see those gender standards go away if ti works.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Because I haven't had some emotionally scarring backstory that would require me to insecure about who I am? Or not fit in to any category and thus leading me to become insecure and then to questionning then to becoming?
Or having development problems before you're born that cause your body to develop the wrong physical attributes for your brain. Sex/gender disagreement is more than just "an emotionally scarring backstory".
Tactical_Spam wrote: Because I haven't had some emotionally scarring backstory that would require me to insecure about who I am? Or not fit in to any category and thus leading me to become insecure and then to questionning then to becoming?
Or having development problems before you're born that cause your body to develop the wrong physical attributes for your brain. Sex/gender disagreement is more than just "an emotionally scarring backstory".
Which is why I added the addition of "Or not fit into any category." You will question what the definition of being a man is if you don't seem to be one, per say. You then look down the path of "gender identification" because society stereotyped that you should be a certain build, have this job and do this thing, but none of that sounds like you.
Im pretty sure gender roles are based entirely on what people find attractive in the opposite sex.
Men don't want to spend their life with an ex prostitute if they have a choice, likewise women don't want to spend their life with a husband who does a little tiding at home then lives off her paycheck. Really if you don't like those double standards then complaining wont change it, you have to change what people want in a partner. Easiest way to do that is to get into the movie making business. Try to show that women who sleep with 40 men in 6 years are perfect wives to have and that jobless men who wear panties while moping the floors are perfect husbands etc (exaggeration). Then you will more likely see those gender standards go away if ti works.
Used to be, this was largely religiously based (not completely). In my time as an adult, I have noticed a shift in this thinking.... As more and more people my age abandon religion and religious institutions, we're seeing the results being that more and more people are marrying each other, regardless of the number of prior sexual partners each has had. More and more families are opting for the wife with a higher level of education to be working, while the husband stays home and raises kids. It's not an overnight shift, but it most definitely is a shift that I've noticed in 10+ years.
One of my best friends is married to an army doc. She makes so much money from various bonus pay and location pay, etc. that he is a stay-at-home dad. Each time I've been over to his place, it's been immaculate due to his OCD, lord forbid you put a dirty dish in the wrong place.... seriously, I rinsed my plate, asked where I should put it, and he took the plate from me and placed it where he wanted. Part of that was being a good host, but he explained that he "needed" things a certain way when it came time to actually do the dishes.
The problem with any kind of sex essentialism is that we know the differences between men and women are wayyyyy smaller than the differences between individuals. When you try and force people into gender templates, it hurts everyone who doesn't fit into them, and because the differences between sexes are way smaller than the differences between individuals that is a lot of people getting hurt.
But you can see how a lot of this stuff is self-perpetuating. We say men are more violent, and it's possible testosterone has a small effect there, but the majority of the effect is from how we socially construct gender and say violence is super masculine and non-violence is feminine. We can see it when people's hormone levels change and they don't become markedly different people. It's the same with empathy - empathy is something you build up through use, and we discourage it in men and encourage it in women. There's nothing hormonal making men unable to empathise.
Im pretty sure gender roles are based entirely on what people find attractive in the opposite sex.
Men don't want to spend their life with an ex prostitute if they have a choice, likewise women don't want to spend their life with a husband who does a little tiding at home then lives off her paycheck. Really if you don't like those double standards then complaining wont change it, you have to change what people want in a partner. Easiest way to do that is to get into the movie making business. Try to show that women who sleep with 40 men in 6 years are perfect wives to have and that jobless men who wear panties while moping the floors are perfect husbands etc (exaggeration). Then you will more likely see those gender standards go away if ti works.
Used to be, this was largely religiously based (not completely). In my time as an adult, I have noticed a shift in this thinking.... As more and more people my age abandon religion and religious institutions, we're seeing the results being that more and more people are marrying each other, regardless of the number of prior sexual partners each has had. More and more families are opting for the wife with a higher level of education to be working, while the husband stays home and raises kids. It's not an overnight shift, but it most definitely is a shift that I've noticed in 10+ years.
One of my best friends is married to an army doc. She makes so much money from various bonus pay and location pay, etc. that he is a stay-at-home dad. Each time I've been over to his place, it's been immaculate due to his OCD, lord forbid you put a dirty dish in the wrong place.... seriously, I rinsed my plate, asked where I should put it, and he took the plate from me and placed it where he wanted. Part of that was being a good host, but he explained that he "needed" things a certain way when it came time to actually do the dishes.
I could never do that. In my family we men work until we retire and wait to die, while our wives stay at home sometimes working part time. My dad built a salon downstairs so mum could work a bit and take care of the kids. I do the same in my household. Being 21 most girls have had many sex partners already. So im thankful I got with my GF 7 years ago so it's not a problem I have to deal with trying to sift through the promiscuous girls to find a life partner. It's certainly not a religious thing, I don't know any guy who is not desperate who would settle for someone who has been around too much.
Ultimately everyone is different to a degree. For example it would be unfair to look down on a wheelchair bound man to take care of his family in a traditional way.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant. Not always, they could just be an ass, but usually.
Exactly. If you make a pronoun mistake once out of ignorance and use the right label once you're corrected, that's fine. Nobody is expecting perfection. If you continue to use the wrong pronoun/name/whatever because you think you know more about someone's own identity than they do you're a .
And, sadly, there are numerous people on Dakka who do this despite knowing full well that it's a dick move.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: What really makes me physically disgusted and angry is people seriously considering Bruce Jenner to be braver than soldiers who actually went to war.
Swastakowey wrote: I could never do that. In my family we men work until we retire and wait to die, while our wives stay at home sometimes working part time. My dad built a salon downstairs so mum could work a bit and take care of the kids. I do the same in my household.
And this, right here, is why people want to get rid of gender roles/stereotypes. Instead of making a practical decision based on things like who has the higher income potential or who is better with kids you're locked into a role because that's how your family does it.
Being 21 most girls have had many sex partners already. So im thankful I got with my GF 7 years ago so it's not a problem I have to deal with trying to sift through the promiscuous girls to find a life partner. It's certainly not a religious thing, I don't know any guy who is not desperate who would settle for someone who has been around too much.
I genuinely don't understand this attitude. I can understand caring a lot about who a person has had sex with in the past for religious reasons (even if I disagree with that religion), but if "because god said so" isn't a reason then why does it matter so much? What's the difference between someone with a single previous partner and someone with a dozen, assuming the disease tests are all clear?
I could never do that. In my family we men work until we retire and wait to die, while our wives stay at home sometimes working part time. My dad built a salon downstairs so mum could work a bit and take care of the kids. I do the same in my household. Being 21 most girls have had many sex partners already. So im thankful I got with my GF 7 years ago so it's not a problem I have to deal with trying to sift through the promiscuous girls to find a life partner. It's certainly not a religious thing, I don't know any guy who is not desperate who would settle for someone who has been around too much.
Ultimately everyone is different to a degree. For example it would be unfair to look down on a wheelchair bound man to take care of his family in a traditional way.
This is just IMHO, but I think that in order for our societies to truly work, we must learn to live in "respect" of each others beliefs, and as we settle down to whatever family we desire, that we find partners that are of a like mind. By this I mean that in your family tradition, you are looking for a partner who shares a view that women are "better" off staying home and raising kids while the men go out and work. I personally was raised in a household where, due to education levels and income, both of my parents worked 9-5s. I never went hungry, never had to worry about clothes, and I was always able to participate in the school sports that I wanted to; but at the same time, we often (basically, never) had cable TV, regularly maintained the most basic internet connections once that became a "necessity" to life (as in, I grew up with 56k while all my friends had cable/dsl connections) My own upbringing has led me to find a woman who wants to work in a professional setting (she's still in the army), and shares many of the same views as I do in regards to child-rearing and cooperative living.
I don't look down on your view, and I'd hope you don't look down on mine. Our social upbringings will produce some similar, yet different results.
Obviously, I've been vocal in this thread about the double standards, or the absurd societal pressures placed on various groups (promiscuity, "gendered" careers, sporting activities, etc)
Swastakowey wrote: I could never do that. In my family we men work until we retire and wait to die, while our wives stay at home sometimes working part time. My dad built a salon downstairs so mum could work a bit and take care of the kids. I do the same in my household.
And this, right here, is why people want to get rid of gender roles/stereotypes. Instead of making a practical decision based on things like who has the higher income potential or who is better with kids you're locked into a role because that's how your family does it.
Being 21 most girls have had many sex partners already. So im thankful I got with my GF 7 years ago so it's not a problem I have to deal with trying to sift through the promiscuous girls to find a life partner. It's certainly not a religious thing, I don't know any guy who is not desperate who would settle for someone who has been around too much.
I genuinely don't understand this attitude. I can understand caring a lot about who a person has had sex with in the past for religious reasons (even if I disagree with that religion), but if "because god said so" isn't a reason then why does it matter so much? What's the difference between someone with a single previous partner and someone with a dozen, assuming the disease tests are all clear?
If you find someone to live to fit your lifestyle then it is practical yes? Everyone in my family found a wife suited to our lifestyle which makes our lives work and practical. Nobody is locked in a roll we aren't suited for if we are raised and shown how to do it a certain way. Is it because my family does it? Partly, but it works. Only 2 divorces out of 7 on my dads side and none on my mothers side has shown it to be a practical method of raising a stable family that works. Disagree then that is fine, if you have a method that works. It certainly works for my house hold.
It shows (for me) a careless attitude towards something that should be shared between two loving people. It really comes down to how you value sex. Is it something casual to throw around for a bit of fun? Or is it something to cherish with someone important? For my GF and I it's cherish. I value chastity in a partner and my partner values my commitment. Im willing to commit if my partner is willing to be chaste. Is there a right or wrong when it comes to preferences in someone? Probably not. But unless I lower my standards a women who has slept around outside of a committed relationship is not really on the table.
Im pretty sure gender roles are based entirely on what people find attractive in the opposite sex.
Men don't want to spend their life with an ex prostitute if they have a choice, likewise women don't want to spend their life with a husband who does a little tiding at home then lives off her paycheck. Really if you don't like those double standards then complaining wont change it, you have to change what people want in a partner. Easiest way to do that is to get into the movie making business. Try to show that women who sleep with 40 men in 6 years are perfect wives to have and that jobless men who wear panties while moping the floors are perfect husbands etc (exaggeration). Then you will more likely see those gender standards go away if ti works.
Used to be, this was largely religiously based (not completely). In my time as an adult, I have noticed a shift in this thinking.... As more and more people my age abandon religion and religious institutions, we're seeing the results being that more and more people are marrying each other, regardless of the number of prior sexual partners each has had. More and more families are opting for the wife with a higher level of education to be working, while the husband stays home and raises kids. It's not an overnight shift, but it most definitely is a shift that I've noticed in 10+ years.
One of my best friends is married to an army doc. She makes so much money from various bonus pay and location pay, etc. that he is a stay-at-home dad. Each time I've been over to his place, it's been immaculate due to his OCD, lord forbid you put a dirty dish in the wrong place.... seriously, I rinsed my plate, asked where I should put it, and he took the plate from me and placed it where he wanted. Part of that was being a good host, but he explained that he "needed" things a certain way when it came time to actually do the dishes.
What's her rank and specialty? Does that have anything to do with her pay?
Im pretty sure gender roles are based entirely on what people find attractive in the opposite sex.
Men don't want to spend their life with an ex prostitute if they have a choice, likewise women don't want to spend their life with a husband who does a little tiding at home then lives off her paycheck. Really if you don't like those double standards then complaining wont change it, you have to change what people want in a partner. Easiest way to do that is to get into the movie making business. Try to show that women who sleep with 40 men in 6 years are perfect wives to have and that jobless men who wear panties while moping the floors are perfect husbands etc (exaggeration). Then you will more likely see those gender standards go away if ti works.
Used to be, this was largely religiously based (not completely). In my time as an adult, I have noticed a shift in this thinking.... As more and more people my age abandon religion and religious institutions, we're seeing the results being that more and more people are marrying each other, regardless of the number of prior sexual partners each has had. More and more families are opting for the wife with a higher level of education to be working, while the husband stays home and raises kids. It's not an overnight shift, but it most definitely is a shift that I've noticed in 10+ years.
One of my best friends is married to an army doc. She makes so much money from various bonus pay and location pay, etc. that he is a stay-at-home dad. Each time I've been over to his place, it's been immaculate due to his OCD, lord forbid you put a dirty dish in the wrong place.... seriously, I rinsed my plate, asked where I should put it, and he took the plate from me and placed it where he wanted. Part of that was being a good host, but he explained that he "needed" things a certain way when it came time to actually do the dishes.
What's her rank and specialty? Does that have anything to do with her pay?
She's a rank 15 Silver Moon Guardian, specializing in divine combat! Wait sorry wrong place... Wrong time.
I can see the old generation here. Generation Y person here wondering about the goings on of the previous generation who seem to have very traditional compared to my more rebellious generation. (Am I alone in seeing that?)
My generation is very keen on breaking traditional gender roles, sexual freedom, sexuality diversity, political leanings, and many other constructs as well. Anyone know as to why we are seeing this shift? I mean this might be why we are talking about this issue of social constructs and the changes happening. As change seems to be quite random for us humans.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: This is just IMHO, but I think that in order for our societies to truly work, we must learn to live in "respect" of each others beliefs......
Here's the issue right here, imo. In order for our societies to truly work, we may "need" to respect each other, but we don't "have" to. So things become a gakfest and stay a gakfest because why not? People generally don't learn unless they want to, and the incentive for learning respect and acting with it isn't always there. Sometimes respect is an outright liability.
Probably because we live in an era where "because god said so" and "because I said so" aren't seen as compelling arguments anymore. For example, the entire argument against homosexuality is based on religion, so if religion starts to lose its power to control society then you inevitably have to start asking why exactly should it be wrong to be gay. Same thing with a lot of other arbitrary rules. We're looking around and seeing no good answers for why they should exist, and it's very hard to support the existence of a rule just because there's a rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: If you find someone to live to fit your lifestyle then it is practical yes? Everyone in my family found a wife suited to our lifestyle which makes our lives work and practical. Nobody is locked in a roll we aren't suited for if we are raised and shown how to do it a certain way. Is it because my family does it? Partly, but it works. Only 2 divorces out of 7 on my dads side and none on my mothers side has shown it to be a practical method of raising a stable family that works. Disagree then that is fine, if you have a method that works. It certainly works for my house hold.
Sure, it works, but is it the best answer? I'm certainly not arguing that women should replace men as the primary source of income, that's just reversing gender roles without accomplishing much. Having a man working while the woman takes care of the house and kids is obviously something that can succeed. But it really seems like you're treating it as a given that it will work this way, simply because that's the way it has always worked.
It shows (for me) a careless attitude towards something that should be shared between two loving people. It really comes down to how you value sex. Is it something casual to throw around for a bit of fun? Or is it something to cherish with someone important? For my GF and I it's cherish. I value chastity in a partner and my partner values my commitment. Im willing to commit if my partner is willing to be chaste. Is there a right or wrong when it comes to preferences in someone? Probably not. But unless I lower my standards a women who has slept around outside of a committed relationship is not really on the table.
Yeah, I know the explanations for why you (and other people) believe those things, I just don't get it. It's like you're telling me all about your beloved hobby of staring at a wall and watching the paint dry. I just don't see the appeal of that position, at all. Though I guess I am the weird person who thinks that monogamy itself is highly overrated...
What's her rank and specialty? Does that have anything to do with her pay?
Ohh yeah... she's a flight surgeon of some type or other. According to my buddy, she's hit a bit of a ceiling because the the only step "up" in that officer track is basically becoming an "astronautical surgeon"
Swastakowey wrote: If you find someone to live to fit your lifestyle then it is practical yes? Everyone in my family found a wife suited to our lifestyle which makes our lives work and practical. Nobody is locked in a roll we aren't suited for if we are raised and shown how to do it a certain way. Is it because my family does it? Partly, but it works. Only 2 divorces out of 7 on my dads side and none on my mothers side has shown it to be a practical method of raising a stable family that works. Disagree then that is fine, if you have a method that works. It certainly works for my house hold.
Sure, it works, but is it the best answer? I'm certainly not arguing that women should replace men as the primary source of income, that's just reversing gender roles without accomplishing much. Having a man working while the woman takes care of the house and kids is obviously something that can succeed. But it really seems like you're treating it as a given that it will work this way, simply because that's the way it has always worked.
It shows (for me) a careless attitude towards something that should be shared between two loving people. It really comes down to how you value sex. Is it something casual to throw around for a bit of fun? Or is it something to cherish with someone important? For my GF and I it's cherish. I value chastity in a partner and my partner values my commitment. Im willing to commit if my partner is willing to be chaste. Is there a right or wrong when it comes to preferences in someone? Probably not. But unless I lower my standards a women who has slept around outside of a committed relationship is not really on the table.
Yeah, I know the explanations for why you (and other people) believe those things, I just don't get it. It's like you're telling me all about your beloved hobby of staring at a wall and watching the paint dry. I just don't see the appeal of that position, at all. Though I guess I am the weird person who thinks that monogamy itself is highly overrated...
I don't know about the best answer, but it's how the people around me got their marriages to last for 40 years. One of the longer living couples have been married for 60 years. Without sounding rude, but in your "goodbye" post you mention the end of a 5 year relationship. In my experience the people with your opinion usually have torn homes (like illegitimate one parent families) or multiple divorces. Anecdotal I know, but from my perspective it is very easy to see the best way. It's the one with proven results. Maybe when im 60 and people my age have gone through their time the answer for me will be clear who is right or wrong, but by then it will be pretty late if I am wrong. Assuming my relationship will continue on almost a decade into it.
It may very well turn into watching paint dry in the future. But right now it's something to be proud in with my partner. We share something very few people do in our situation. In a generation that encourages promiscuity in women im well past the age (already) to find someone reaches my standards... which is likely why some people don't understand it. In the same vein I don't understand why some people find the elderly or obese sexually attractive in a sexual/romantic partner. But it's what some people like I suppose.
Swastakowey wrote: I don't know about the best answer, but it's how the people around me got their marriages to last for 40 years.
But how can you say that without identical copies of them, except for reversed gender roles, to act as a control group? Maybe they would have lasted 40 years with the woman in a high-paying career and the man taking care of everything else.
Without sounding rude, but in your "goodbye" post you mention the end of a 5 year relationship. In my experience the people with your opinion usually have torn homes (like illegitimate one parent families) or multiple divorces.
Completely wrong. I'd appreciate it if you don't try to go down this path again.
Only if you want it to be. If you can handle playing 40k you can understand gender vs. sex.
They aren't the same thing. Not comparing apples to apples. Abstract thinking is not my strong suit. I am incredibly black and white. To me, sex and gender are the same thing and to call them something else is well... Heresy.
You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.
Or even English. Let's set aside gender identity issues for a moment and consider a common concept in English: being a "real man". The idea of course is that a man has courage/honor/leadership/whatever, and a person who lacks those virtues doesn't deserve to call themselves a man. It isn't sufficient to have male genes or male reproductive organs, and you'd be laughed at if your response to being called un-manly and weak was to unzip your pants and show that you are male. So there's very clearly a difference between physical sex and gender.
And I'm sure that Tactical_Spam knows this, and "it's too complicated" actually means "I don't agree with people who say that their gender identity doesn't match what's in their pants".
I'd think English would actually make it a lot easier to cope with this issue since English lacks grammatical gender. We're not French or Spanish, where nouns and verbs(? I don't know spanish XD) change when talking about the male or the female. Actually you'd think America would have a leg up on this, language being a core cultural mechanism and ours only having he, she, him, and her as gender identifiers.
Swastakowey wrote: I don't know about the best answer, but it's how the people around me got their marriages to last for 40 years.
But how can you say that without identical copies of them, except for reversed gender roles, to act as a control group? Maybe they would have lasted 40 years with the woman in a high-paying career and the man taking care of everything else.
Without sounding rude, but in your "goodbye" post you mention the end of a 5 year relationship. In my experience the people with your opinion usually have torn homes (like illegitimate one parent families) or multiple divorces.
Completely wrong. I'd appreciate it if you don't try to go down this path again.
I have only got one life, may as well take the best route based on my limited experience. Why try live based on this maybe that doesn't seem to exist anywhere? At least not around here.
Fair enough, but if you find something sensitive how about not sharing it on the internet, means nobody will mention it and there for annoy you.
Swastakowey wrote: Fair enough, but if you find something sensitive how about not sharing it on the internet, means nobody will mention it and there for annoy you.
Mentioning something once does not give you indefinite permission to play amateur psychologist in completely unrelated threads. I'm honestly amazed that I have to explain this to you.
Swastakowey wrote: Fair enough, but if you find something sensitive how about not sharing it on the internet, means nobody will mention it and there for annoy you.
Mentioning something once does not give you indefinite permission to play amateur psychologist in completely unrelated threads. I'm honestly amazed that I have to explain this to you.
Wait, mention something publicly and expect nobody to mention it? Whatever logic that involves I said I would leave it. And it's not psychology but simply, why take your advice when you have mentioned you cannot keep a 5 year relationship? That's all. The point was it's easy for people to talk it all up, but actually making something work is another thing.
Anyway as I said, fair enough. I will leave it, but don't yell out something then get upset when it's mentioned.
Kilkrazy wrote: Of course, the idea of a long marriage being 'good' is a relatively modern western social construct.
I know, hence why it is in the topic. The discussion was the best way to go about it, if going about it is even the best way at all. I wouldn't call it western but it's certainly a cultural thig.
Swastakowey wrote: Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?
Because that's not a realistic goal in the foreseeable future. A much more achievable goal is to acknowledge that binary gender isn't as neat as people often think it is. And the common saying is "don't let perfect be the enemy of good".
I thought so, so really this is just to "undermine" the idea of gender.
I don't think everyone has the memo though... otherwise more people would claim to be gender-less rather than simply choosing one of the genders society has put in place. Seems like these people are very constraned by gender and firmly believe they can be X gender rather than trying to free themselves of gender all together.
I've encountered plenty of people who identify as 'agender' i.e. genderless.
Clearly alot of people on both sides believe that gender exists and is actually quite important; not all of the people on the trans side are trying to free themselves of gender, they're just after finding the right one.
Swastakowey wrote: Fair enough, but if you find something sensitive how about not sharing it on the internet, means nobody will mention it and there for annoy you.
Mentioning something once does not give you indefinite permission to play amateur psychologist in completely unrelated threads. I'm honestly amazed that I have to explain this to you.
Wait, mention something publicly and expect nobody to mention it? Whatever logic that involves I said I would leave it. And it's not psychology but simply, why take your advice when you have mentioned you cannot keep a 5 year relationship? That's all. The point was it's easy for people to talk it all up, but actually making something work is another thing.
Anyway as I said, fair enough. I will leave it, but don't yell out something then get upset when it's mentioned.
There's a difference between bringing up a fact that somebody mentioned before, and taking a stab at how happy their family was as they were growing up. That's intensely rude.
Swastakowey wrote: Fair enough, but if you find something sensitive how about not sharing it on the internet, means nobody will mention it and there for annoy you.
Mentioning something once does not give you indefinite permission to play amateur psychologist in completely unrelated threads. I'm honestly amazed that I have to explain this to you.
Wait, mention something publicly and expect nobody to mention it? Whatever logic that involves I said I would leave it. And it's not psychology but simply, why take your advice when you have mentioned you cannot keep a 5 year relationship? That's all. The point was it's easy for people to talk it all up, but actually making something work is another thing.
Anyway as I said, fair enough. I will leave it, but don't yell out something then get upset when it's mentioned.
Well, if they mention it then commenting on it when it was mentioned might be vaguely acceptable, but even then, using it to postulate about their upbringing and going "well, X, so you must have come from a broken home" is just poor form.
Also, how does not being able to keep a relationship have anything to do with one's knowledge of gender/sex? I mean, if this thread was regarding dating advice, then yeah, maybe; but at the moment it looks like you're just going "well, you're not in a relationship so your opinion doesn't matter" which is just a really gakky thing to do.
Also, how does not being able to keep a relationship have anything to do with one's knowledge of gender/sex? I mean, if this thread was regarding dating advice, then yeah, maybe; but at the moment it looks like you're just going "well, you're not in a relationship so your opinion doesn't matter" which is just a really gakky thing to do.
Seconded.
I don't usually post one liners like that, but there are certain types of behaviour I wouldn't like to see promoted on Dakka, and taking jabs at someone's relationships or lack thereof in a separate thread is not cool.
I genuinely don't understand this attitude. I can understand caring a lot about who a person has had sex with in the past for religious reasons (even if I disagree with that religion), but if "because god said so" isn't a reason then why does it matter so much? What's the difference between someone with a single previous partner and someone with a dozen, assuming the disease tests are all clear?
Well I can say this for sure: The one with a dozen is far more likely to know what the hell she's doing, and have a clear understanding of her own desires as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: Of course, the idea of a long marriage being 'good' is a relatively modern western social construct.
Given rising divorce rates, as well as the later age at which people marry (and by extension the larger number of relationships people go through before reaching marriage) arguably Monogamy is quickly ceasing to be the standard model of relationships in Western Culture. Rather it is being supplanted by Serial Monogamy. I find it odd, as culturally we still espouse and glorify 'true love' as something that hits hard fast and never dies. It's a concept that is ever present in much of our art and entertainment media (except for comic books ) but it seems to have little real world basis.
It's a weird picture, where we culturally continue to espouse a construct that has very rapidly lost relevance to reality.
Well I can say this for sure: The one with a dozen is far more likely to know what the hell she's doing, and have a clear understanding of her own desires as well.
It's probably because I've been on a Red vs Blue bended lately but this line of discussion immediately reminded me of this;
Fortunately, most people are polite, compassionate and generally nice enough to actually refer to people as the correct gender.
This. It's a non-issue most of the time. I can guarantee you that if asked by your co-worker to refer to him as a she, most people will just do it. That's how we work. Most people want to be positively recognized by others and if referring to someone as the opposite gender will do so, people will do it. I come from a more global, rational perspective. Bird's eye, if ya want to. And opposed to actual reality and how the world works, there's media and terrible, terrible loudmouths ruining the fun for everyone.
An important point though: gender dysphoria does not have a proven reason so far. There are studies that /suggest/ reasons, but it has not been proven yet. In science, suggestion isn't proof.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.
Or even English. Let's set aside gender identity issues for a moment and consider a common concept in English: being a "real man". The idea of course is that a man has courage/honor/leadership/whatever, and a person who lacks those virtues doesn't deserve to call themselves a man. It isn't sufficient to have male genes or male reproductive organs, and you'd be laughed at if your response to being called un-manly and weak was to unzip your pants and show that you are male. So there's very clearly a difference between physical sex and gender.
And I'm sure that Tactical_Spam knows this, and "it's too complicated" actually means "I don't agree with people who say that their gender identity doesn't match what's in their pants".
Fortunately, most people are polite, compassionate and generally nice enough to actually refer to people as the correct gender.
This. It's a non-issue most of the time. I can guarantee you that if asked by your co-worker to refer to him as a she, most people will just do it. That's how we work. Most people want to be positively recognized by others and if referring to someone as the opposite gender will do so, people will do it. I come from a more global, rational perspective. Bird's eye, if ya want to. And opposed to actual reality and how the world works, there's media and terrible, terrible loudmouths ruining the fun for everyone.
An important point though: gender dysphoria does not have a proven reason so far. There are studies that /suggest/ reasons, but it has not been proven yet. In science, suggestion isn't proof.
Its quite difficult to tell what you're trying to say here.
Usually, when trying not to be viewed as one of the above-mentioned people ruining the fun for everyone, one would say 'correct gender' rather than 'opposite gender'. Makes you sound less like you know someone's gender better than they do.
What does your global, rational perspective suggest is happening?
Who are you more rational than?
What is the media doing to ruin things, in what context?
Kilkrazy wrote: You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.
Or even English. Let's set aside gender identity issues for a moment and consider a common concept in English: being a "real man". The idea of course is that a man has courage/honor/leadership/whatever, and a person who lacks those virtues doesn't deserve to call themselves a man. It isn't sufficient to have male genes or male reproductive organs, and you'd be laughed at if your response to being called un-manly and weak was to unzip your pants and show that you are male. So there's very clearly a difference between physical sex and gender.
And I'm sure that Tactical_Spam knows this, and "it's too complicated" actually means "I don't agree with people who say that their gender identity doesn't match what's in their pants".
So thats your definition of a man?
It's quite obviously not.
If I say "there is an idea in some countries that women are inferior" it doesn't mean that I believe they are inferior. It means that I'm discussing those people that do believe it, and that I'm discussing the actual belief.
Peregrine was obviously discussing the idea, not espousing it. That you don't get that is worrying.
I'm old, like I remember the last time Yosemite exploded kind of old.
Social constructs change over time. That is how it is. Today's screaming lefties become tomorrow's conservatives as society continues to change and they don't. Alternatively socieites may become MORE conservative. Go with the flow or fight it, it doesn't matter in 50 years.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.
Or even English. Let's set aside gender identity issues for a moment and consider a common concept in English: being a "real man". The idea of course is that a man has courage/honor/leadership/whatever, and a person who lacks those virtues doesn't deserve to call themselves a man. It isn't sufficient to have male genes or male reproductive organs, and you'd be laughed at if your response to being called un-manly and weak was to unzip your pants and show that you are male. So there's very clearly a difference between physical sex and gender.
And I'm sure that Tactical_Spam knows this, and "it's too complicated" actually means "I don't agree with people who say that their gender identity doesn't match what's in their pants".
So thats your definition of a man?
It's quite obviously not.
If I say "there is an idea in some countries that women are inferior" it doesn't mean that I believe they are inferior. It means that I'm discussing those people that do believe it, and that I'm discussing the actual belief.
Peregrine was obviously discussing the idea, not espousing it. That you don't get that is worrying.
I don't really understand why it requires someone to show their junk to be a man. No wonder we have issues
Frazzled wrote: Social constructs change over time. That is how it is. Today's screaming lefties become tomorrow's conservatives as society continues to change and they don't. Go with the flow or fight it, it doesn't matter in 50 years.
Guess we could apply some Max Planck; A new <Social Construct> does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
As a Historiographer, I know completely true EDIT: The Inverse is also a useful way of explaining why disproven/bad ideas continue to persist long after they've been disproven.
Frazzled wrote: I'm old, like I remember the last time Yosemite exploded kind of old.
Social constructs change over time. That is how it is. Today's screaming lefties become tomorrow's conservatives as society continues to change and they don't. Alternatively socieites may become MORE conservative. Go with the flow or fight it, it doesn't matter in 50 years.
Nail on the head right there.
Just look at the Germaine Greer debacle going on in my country at the moment - 40 years ago she was considered a firebrand, radical progressive. She's still saying the same things she always did, but now she looks stuck-in-the-mud and surpassed by the direction society is headed in.
Kilkrazy wrote: More like a car is feminine in French, and neuter in German. A boat is masculine in French and neuter in German. A girl also is neuter in German.
In English, we commonly speak of boats as feminine, although English actually doesn't have genders.
Japanese also doesn't have genders, but the way that men and women speak is rather different, different pronouns and verb declensions are used.
Quite obviously these are examples of language as a social construct.
At least with German, I'm not really familiar with other languages that do it, the "gender" of a noun has little to nothing to do with the actual item, but rather simply how it rolls off the tongue when spoken.
And for a number of subjects, I agree with Frazz and LoH. There are a number of social constructs that I think have changed, especially over the last 50 years that were not done so on purpose.... Remember way back in the day that a husband and wife would sleep on two separate bed unless they were about to bump uglies? It was considered a social faux pas for a family who could afford it to sleep in the same bed. Now, it is a sure sign of a troubled relationship if the partners get their shut-eye in separate spots. IMO, I don't think people in society called a meeting at local Elks Lodge number 247 to vote on the issue of whether a married couple sleeping in the same bed or not was none of your business.... It just sorta spawned on a certain generation that, hey, buying two beds simply because someone else says *I* can't cuddle with my partner is a dumb idea. So they stopped buying separate beds.
Frazzled wrote: I'm old, like I remember the last time Yosemite exploded kind of old. (snip) Go with the flow or fight it, it doesn't matter in 50 years.
There's a lot of truth in this, really. The older I get, the more I realize that all the causes I care about so passionately when I was young - none of it really mattered ultimately.
Frazzled wrote: I'm old, like I remember the last time Yosemite exploded kind of old. (snip) Go with the flow or fight it, it doesn't matter in 50 years.
There's a lot of truth in this, really. The older I get, the more I realize that all the causes I care about so passionately when I was young - none of it really mattered ultimately.
The discovery of a small community in the Dominican Republic, where some males are born looking like girls and only grow penises at puberty, has led to the development of a blockbuster drug that has helped millions of people, writes Michael Mosley.
Johnny lives in a small town in the Dominican Republic where he, and others like him, are known as "Guevedoces", which effectively translates as "penis at twelve".
We came across Johnny when we were filming for a new BBC Two series Countdown to Life, which looks at how we develop in the womb and how those changes, normal and abnormal, impact us later in life.
Like the other Guevedoces, Johnny was brought up as a girl because he had no visible testes or penis and what appeared to be a vagina. It is only when he approached puberty that his penis grew and testicles descended.
Johnny, once known as Felicita, remembers going to school in a little red dress, though he says he was never happy doing girl things.
"I never liked to dress as a girl and when they bought me toys for girls I never bothered playing with them - when I saw a group of boys I would stop to play ball with them."
When he became obviously male he was taunted at school, and responded with his fists.
"They used to say I was a devil, nasty things, bad words and I had no choice but to fight them because they were crossing the line."
We also filmed with Carla, who at the age of seven is on the brink of changing into Carlos. His mother has seen the change coming for quite a while.
"When she turned five I noticed that whenever she saw one of her male friends she wanted to fight with him. Her muscles and chest began growing. You could see she was going to be a boy. I love her however she is. Girl or boy, it makes no difference."
So why does it happen? Well, one of the first people to study this unusual condition was Dr Julianne Imperato-McGinley, from Cornell Medical College in New York. In the 1970s she made her way to this remote part of the Dominican Republic, drawn by extraordinary reports of girls turning into boys.
When she got there she found the rumours were true. She did lots of studies on the Guevedoces (including what must have been rather painful biopsies of their testicles) before finally unravelling the mystery of what was going on.
When you are conceived you normally have a pair of X chromosomes if you are to become a girl and a set of XY chromosomes if you are destined to be male.
For the first weeks of life in womb you are neither, though in both sexes nipples start to grow.
Then, around eight weeks after conception, the sex hormones kick in. If you're genetically male the Y chromosome instructs your gonads to become testicles and sends testosterone to a structure called the tubercle, where it is converted into a more potent hormone called dihydro-testosterone This in turn transforms the tubercle into a penis. If you're female and you don't make dihydro-testosterone then your tubercle becomes a clitoris.
When Imperato-McGinley investigated the Guevedoces she discovered the reason they don't have male genitalia when they are born is because they are deficient in an enzyme called 5-alpha-reductase, which normally converts testosterone into dihydro-testosterone.
This deficiency seems to be a genetic condition, quite common in this part of the Dominican Republic, but vanishingly rare elsewhere. So the boys, despite having an XY chromosome, appear female when they are born. At puberty, like other boys, they get a second surge of testosterone. This time the body does respond and they sprout muscles, testes and a penis.
Imperato-McGinley's thorough medical investigations showed that in most cases their new, male equipment seems to work fine and that most Guevedoces live out their lives as men, though some go through an operation and remain female.
Another thing that Imperato-McGinley discovered, which would have profound implications for many men around the world, was that the Guevedoces tend to have small prostates.
This observation, made in 1974, was picked up by Roy Vagelos, head of research at the multinational pharmaceutical giant, Merck. He thought this was extremely interesting and set in progress research which led to the development of what has become a best-selling drug, finasteride, which blocks the action of 5-alpha-reductase, mimicking the lack of dihydro-testosterone seen in the Guevedoces.
My wife, who is a GP, routinely prescribes finasteride as it is an effective way to treat benign enlargement of the prostate, a real curse for many men as they get older. Finasteride is also used to treat male pattern baldness.
A final interesting observation that Imperato-McGinley made was that these boys, despite being brought up as girls, almost all showed strong heterosexual preferences. She concluded in her seminal paper that hormones in the womb matter more than rearing when it comes to your sexual orientation.
This is still a controversial topic and one I explore later in the film when I meet Mati, who decided from the earliest age that though "he" looked like a boy, Mati was really a girl.
As for Johnny, since he developed male genitalia he has had a number of short term girlfriends, but he is still looking for love. "I'd like to get married and have children, a partner who will stand by me through good and bad," he sighs wistfully.
It effects 1 in 90 men (in that community), the wikipedia says that they assume a male role once they are found out to have this condition. Unfortunately due to the physical issues that come with the disorder they struggle later one when it comes to finding a mate etc. Really they are mistakenly raised a female despite being a male and then when it happens they finally get to be male.
Swastakowey wrote: It effects 1 in 90 men (in that community), the wikipedia says that they assume a male role once they are found out to have this condition. Unfortunately due to the physical issues that come with the disorder they struggle later one when it comes to finding a mate etc. Really they are mistakenly raised a female despite being a male and then when it happens they finally get to be male.
Fascinating still. From that we can see some problems.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I don't really understand why it requires someone to show their junk to be a man. No wonder we have issues
I have no idea how you could possibly get that out of what I wrote. Is your reading comprehension really this bad or are you deliberately pretending to misunderstand?
Tactical_Spam wrote: I don't really understand why it requires someone to show their junk to be a man. No wonder we have issues
I have no idea how you could possibly get that out of what I wrote. Is your reading comprehension really this bad or are you deliberately pretending to misunderstand?
Maybe you should work on getting your point across
Tactical_Spam wrote: I don't really understand why it requires someone to show their junk to be a man. No wonder we have issues
I have no idea how you could possibly get that out of what I wrote. Is your reading comprehension really this bad or are you deliberately pretending to misunderstand?
Maybe you should work on getting your point across
Please do not resort to insults please.
I am not a moderator, but come on. We are adults here. (I hope)
Or did they? I don't ever recall having to prove my macho (macho) manliness to prove I was a man. I feel sorry for anyone who has to grow up in that toxic environment.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or did they? I don't ever recall having to prove my macho (macho) manliness to prove I was a man. I feel sorry for anyone who has to grow up in that toxic environment.
Sigh. Do you really not understand the difference between "this is a way that 'male' and 'man' can have different meanings in English" and "every male person experiences this"?
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or did they? I don't ever recall having to prove my macho (macho) manliness to prove I was a man. I feel sorry for anyone who has to grow up in that toxic environment.
Sigh. Do you really not understand the difference between "this is a way that 'male' and 'man' can have different meanings in English" and "every male person experiences this"?
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or did they? I don't ever recall having to prove my macho (macho) manliness to prove I was a man. I feel sorry for anyone who has to grow up in that toxic environment.
Sigh. Do you really not understand the difference between "this is a way that 'male' and 'man' can have different meanings in English" and "every male person experiences this"?
And you went back to confusing again
If you are too confused to understand what is going on in this thread, then it might be better to abstain from the discussion instead of spamming it with one sentence posts that don't do anything to actually contribute to the discussion.
Even plainly asking for clarifications is better than this "I don't understand what you said, so I'm gonna take it as an insult" feeling I'm getting from a lot of your posts.
We had some interesting news today, but for the most part it almost feels like this discussion is heading towards 'locked thread' territory if this back and forth continues.
Honestly the thread has kind of confirmed one of my original assumptions. We've not really talked at all about how Gender roles might or could change. We've spent all our time reiterating that biology != gender and that the biology of sex is not the binary thing a lot of people think it is. It's hard to advocate change when significant portions of the audience don't listen long enough for you to get to that point.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly the thread has kind of confirmed one of my original assumptions. We've not really talked at all about how Gender roles might or could change.
Very true. And I'm at fault for that because I really haven't contributed on that portion either. I want to and I have pretty strong feelings about that subject, but I also have a pretty defeatist attitude about even trying to talk about it.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly the thread has kind of confirmed one of my original assumptions. We've not really talked at all about how Gender roles might or could change. We've spent all our time reiterating that biology != gender and that the biology of sex is not the binary thing a lot of people think it is. It's hard to advocate change when significant portions of the audience don't listen long enough for you to get to that point.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly the thread has kind of confirmed one of my original assumptions. We've not really talked at all about how Gender roles might or could change. We've spent all our time reiterating that biology != gender and that the biology of sex is not the binary thing a lot of people think it is. It's hard to advocate change when significant portions of the audience don't listen long enough for you to get to that point.
I think that gender roles are shifting. And I dare mention this… B word.. Bronies.
Now before you light your torches, consider that there is a sizeable, measurable amount of young men that are redefining what they are. What is acceptable amongst them and their friends. They are building communities, and standing together over a great many social issues.
I personally know a lot of them, and work with several hundred on a regular basis as part of ym job. The vast majority of the time, the horse show is purely an excuse to get together. They don’t then stand around talking about it. It symbolises their freedom to express, it is a symbol of solidarity far more than it is a symbol that “I like horses”. Nobody likes horses that much. The horse is a flag so much as a rainbow is.
They are one of the most openly accepting, and protective group I’ve encountered. I’ve not seen that level acceptance of openly being any gender or sexual minority outside of the goth/alt subculture.
If you strip away the pastel horses, you have an exceptionally interesting sign of the times.
I know this is going to devolve into something else entirely, and how icky/wrong/whatever people think that is, but I figure one person might read it and understand what I’m flashing my torch at.
I'm just joking with you I get what you're saying but I think it kind of throws back to the point Frazzled made earlier; that these things just change and caring about them now on an individual level may well be irrelevant X years from now. It's not like the makers of MLPFIM set out to make a show that would become insanely popular with boys. It just happened. Bronies weren't the result of anything purposeful. They sprung up spontaneously and ran from there.
Oh, I got that. Hence the F word. My Dad calls them "fuzzies" and I think that's marvellous.
Six years? I think? And an awful lot of the brony groups have moved on from the cartoon, and I see it more as a beacon for the disaffected. Whether they realise or not.
It's comparable as a parallel to gaming in some ways. Everyone will have their favoured system, and seek out other people. They realise that there's a predilection for certain types to gravitate towards those communities, and end up banding together.
In this case, the catalyst is horse shaped, but it's undeniably changed into something far more about expression of self
In the end, Bronies may be fleeting, but with tens of thousands of people creating bridges in a way they hadn't expected to, there will be a residual effect.
As an aside, the creators set out to create something entertaining and tolerable to parents, which I can see, much like Rugrats was a thinly veiled social commentary at times.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly the thread has kind of confirmed one of my original assumptions. We've not really talked at all about how Gender roles might or could change.
I think I did make some attempt to discuss this earlier... FWIW here's how I'd break it down:
Generally speaking there are roles/issues that we can make conscious and purposeful efforts to change.
Then, there are roles/issues that change, but when we look back at the trail of evidence for why it changed, we scratch our heads, shrug and move on with life. We may, in this case see a particular trend or event of significance and say, "that's where X really started to change" but as we go about our daily lives, there are minute changes that occur at the societal level and we just don't really notice it.
Take for instance, in the time of my grand parents. It was expected that the elementary school teacher was one of two types of women in a public school: the young, unmarried girl, fresh from college who is merely "looking for mr. right". She would generally only teach until she found Mr. Right, and then began popping out her allotted 2.5 children. The other type, was the old cantankerous B- who didn't take gak from nobody (probably why she was unsuccessful in finding Mr. Right), she may or may not be/have been married... but she's old, wrinkly, sees everything and is meaner than a crocodile with a splinter in its belly.
By the time my mother was in school, and especially by the time I was in school, this had completely changed where there are even male teachers, teachers with families and just everyday "normal" people who are teaching kids. Did society make a conscious change in this case? Did a small group of teachers make the conscious effort to change public opinion? Or did it simply happen over a prolonged period of time?
LordofHats wrote: Honestly the thread has kind of confirmed one of my original assumptions. We've not really talked at all about how Gender roles might or could change.
I think I did make some attempt to discuss this earlier... FWIW here's how I'd break it down:
Generally speaking there are roles/issues that we can make conscious and purposeful efforts to change.
Then, there are roles/issues that change, but when we look back at the trail of evidence for why it changed, we scratch our heads, shrug and move on with life. We may, in this case see a particular trend or event of significance and say, "that's where X really started to change" but as we go about our daily lives, there are minute changes that occur at the societal level and we just don't really notice it.
Take for instance, in the time of my grand parents. It was expected that the elementary school teacher was one of two types of women in a public school: the young, unmarried girl, fresh from college who is merely "looking for mr. right". She would generally only teach until she found Mr. Right, and then began popping out her allotted 2.5 children. The other type, was the old cantankerous B- who didn't take gak from nobody (probably why she was unsuccessful in finding Mr. Right), she may or may not be/have been married... but she's old, wrinkly, sees everything and is meaner than a crocodile with a splinter in its belly.
By the time my mother was in school, and especially by the time I was in school, this had completely changed where there are even male teachers, teachers with families and just everyday "normal" people who are teaching kids. Did society make a conscious change in this case? Did a small group of teachers make the conscious effort to change public opinion? Or did it simply happen over a prolonged period of time?
That seems to be the case in a variety of professions.
Nursing used to be similar in that you have the young pretty nurse just holding out until she can snatch herself a doctor to marry, and then Nurse Ratchet. Now you have guys like me running around nursing all over the place.
That seems to be the case in a variety of professions.
Nursing used to be similar in that you have the young pretty nurse just holding out until she can snatch herself a doctor to marry, and then Nurse Ratchet. Now you have guys like me running around nursing all over the place.
Lol, I thought the stereotype was that ALL male nurses back in the day worked the psych ward
Which, for some odd reason reminds me of an article I read about 5 years back or so.... Basically, Sweden had seen such a rise in the percentage of female veterinarians, that they were considering adopting an "affirmative action" program to get more men into it
Lol, I thought the stereotype was that ALL male nurses back in the day worked the psych ward
There is still a certain tendency to see male nurses in more of the fast paced high stress environments like ER/ICU/Psych and more female nurses in the "caring" environments like OB/neonatal/hospice.
And yet, you often see jokes about male nurses. Or nurses in general.
We are currently in a gender shifting stage. Where the "traditional" (by which I mean, 19 century) roles are starting to fade. Some people can keep up with the change, some can't and some don't want too. Some also want to change too much, there are extremists in both camps.
Which, for some odd reason reminds me of an article I read about 5 years back or so.... Basically, Sweden had seen such a rise in the percentage of female veterinarians, that they were considering adopting an "affirmative action" program to get more men into it
Not only did we consider it, it's currently in effect IIRC.
Which, for some odd reason reminds me of an article I read about 5 years back or so.... Basically, Sweden had seen such a rise in the percentage of female veterinarians, that they were considering adopting an "affirmative action" program to get more men into it
Not only did we consider it, it's currently in effect IIRC.
I couldn't "IIRC" so I didn't put whether it got put in place.... good to know though
Which, for some odd reason reminds me of an article I read about 5 years back or so.... Basically, Sweden had seen such a rise in the percentage of female veterinarians, that they were considering adopting an "affirmative action" program to get more men into it
Not only did we consider it, it's currently in effect IIRC.
Generally speaking, our accepted "public manners" are social constructs. Things as simple as saying please and thank you in restaurants, holding doors open for others.
Generally speaking, our accepted "public manners" are social constructs. Things as simple as saying please and thank you in restaurants, holding doors open for others.
You could also have virginity, identity, political standing, as a construct.
And of course the perception of fortune and beauty. (which are obvious)
I'd pose virginity itself is not a construct. It's based in a fact; that you are someone who hasn't had sex yet. But all the assumptions we make about virginity are definitely constructs (like that a virgin man isn't a real man, or that a virgin woman is more pure).
LordofHats wrote: I'd pose virginity itself is not a construct. It's based in a fact; that you are someone who hasn't had sex yet. But all the assumptions we make about virginity are definitely constructs (like that a virgin man isn't a real man, or that a virgin woman is more pure).
It's also a social construct because "sex" does not have a single definition.
Generally speaking, our accepted "public manners" are social constructs. Things as simple as saying please and thank you in restaurants, holding doors open for others.
Oh man, I'd love to talk about sneezing and the bizarre social requirement to acknowledge a sneeze; even for strangers. Typically that acknowledgment is in the form of saying "Bless You" but there are other variants too. What I find interesting is how upset people get if you don't say something after they sneeze. Again, even strangers.
I am familiar with why we say bless you, but I doubt most people who utter it reflexively when someone around them sneezes truly believe the superstitious elements that are embedded in the phrase.
But still, people get irritated if you don't say something after they blow mucus. Why we feel the need to elevate one gross bodily function over others is beyond me, but acknowledging a sneeze is definitely one social construct I'd like to see fade away.
The fact that the status of virginity is significant is a social construct.
In most cases is no physical way of knowing for certain if someone is a virgin or not. It's even possible to have a hymen reconstruction operation. In other words, only the individual themself can know if they are a true virgin. (And unicorns, of course.)
All the psycho-sexual baggage around the putative status of virginity is social construction.
There might be arbitrary rules some societies further place on the concept that qualify as constructs, but there is a point where virginity is based on a 'yes' 'no' status. To me that fits my previous statement XD Virginity is a thing, but we make mountains of assumptions about it that are fundamentally arbitrary. That real value is placed on being or not being a virgin is pretty subjective.
LordofHats wrote: There might be arbitrary rules some societies further place on the concept that qualify as constructs, but there is a point where virginity is based on a 'yes' 'no' status. To me that fits my previous statement XD Virginity is a thing, but we make mountains of assumptions about it that are fundamentally arbitrary. That real value is placed on being or not being a virgin is pretty subjective.
It's a yes/no status that in general can't be proved and has no specific objective value either way.
LordofHats wrote: There might be arbitrary rules some societies further place on the concept that qualify as constructs, but there is a point where virginity is based on a 'yes' 'no' status.
No there isn't. There is no single physical state that everyone would agree on to define "virgin". If you disagree, please try to define the term.
LordofHats wrote: I'd pose virginity itself is not a construct. It's based in a fact; that you are someone who hasn't had sex yet.
But what is sex? Conceptions differ.
virginity, as in someone who has not engaged in intercourse with another member of the same species....
The social construct part does come into play if we wanted (I hope we dont) to discuss various orifices, masturbation and other actions which many would consider foreplay.
LordofHats wrote: There might be arbitrary rules some societies further place on the concept that qualify as constructs, but there is a point where virginity is based on a 'yes' 'no' status.
No there isn't. There is no single physical state that everyone would agree on to define "virgin". If you disagree, please try to define the term.
An just-born infant is a true virgin. Totally uncorrupted by anything.
Tactical_Spam wrote: An just-born infant is a true virgin. Totally uncorrupted by anything.
And at what point do they cease to be a virgin? Your definition is only half complete.
Also, thanks for proving my point about it being a social construct, by bringing in this idea of "uncorrupted" being the defining quality rather than a specific physical state.
The most commonly held definition of virginity is one in which a person has not engaged in intercourse with another being.
Of course, where we get into the social construct part is if we begin discussing orifices used (please don't), masturbation and other sometimes frowned upon activities.
LordofHats wrote: I'd pose virginity itself is not a construct. It's based in a fact; that you are someone who hasn't had sex yet.
But what is sex? Conceptions differ.
virginity, as in someone who has not engaged in intercourse with another member of the same species....
The social construct part does come into play if we wanted (I hope we dont) to discuss various orifices, masturbation and other actions which many would consider foreplay.
Things that are based in fact can still be social constructs.
Fact is, I stole a Mercedes. It has been determined by my society that stealing is bad. Laws are constructs. I'm still in prison though.
The social-constructedness of virginity is in play throughout.
For the record, I have never stolen a Mercedes, and I am not in prison. Also, I am not as opposed to talking orifices as the above poster.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The most commonly held definition of virginity is one in which a person has not engaged in intercourse with another being.
I would strongly disagree with that. The whole "technical virgin" thing is something we laugh at, because we "know" that the hypothetical person isn't a virgin. And it's a joke that most people understand just fine. So I'd argue that the commonly-held definition includes at least some additional sex acts, with the exact list being up for debate.
Of course, where we get into the social construct part is if we begin discussing orifices used (please don't), masturbation and other sometimes frowned upon activities.
Exactly! The common use of the term includes at least some of those things, and turns it into a mess where you can no longer point to one specific physical state as defining virgin/non-virgin.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The most commonly held definition of virginity is one in which a person has not engaged in intercourse with another being.
I would strongly disagree with that. The whole "technical virgin" thing is something we laugh at, because we "know" that the hypothetical person isn't a virgin. And it's a joke that most people understand just fine. So I'd argue that the commonly-held definition includes at least some additional sex acts, with the exact list being up for debate.
Of course, where we get into the social construct part is if we begin discussing orifices used (please don't), masturbation and other sometimes frowned upon activities.
Exactly! The common use of the term includes at least some of those things, and turns it into a mess where you can no longer point to one specific physical state as defining virgin/non-virgin.
Am I wrong it is in the same vein as the social construct of a slut or a stud?
Being that it is constructed simply as a put down, and is seen as less than?
Because I know the pressure and societal want for people to express themselves sexually is a pretty abundant thing.
Oh man, I'd love to talk about sneezing and the bizarre social requirement to acknowledge a sneeze; even for strangers. Typically that acknowledgment is in the form of saying "Bless You" but there are other variants too. What I find interesting is how upset people get if you don't say something after they sneeze. Again, even strangers.
I am familiar with why we say bless you, but I doubt most people who utter it reflexively when someone around them sneezes truly believe the superstitious elements that are embedded in the phrase.
But still, people get irritated if you don't say something after they blow mucus. Why we feel the need to elevate one gross bodily function over others is beyond me, but acknowledging a sneeze is definitely one social construct I'd like to see fade away.
There are a bunch of body things that I query occasionally.
Why do we care about other people's teeth? If they're not causing pain, I mean.
Why is it acceptable to see in someone ears, but not their mouth (yawning) or up their nose?
Why do we care about the weight of folk we don't personally know, outside of situations that affect us?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The most commonly held definition of virginity is one in which a person has not engaged in intercourse with another being.
I would strongly disagree with that. The whole "technical virgin" thing is something we laugh at, because we "know" that the hypothetical person isn't a virgin. And it's a joke that most people understand just fine. So I'd argue that the commonly-held definition includes at least some additional sex acts, with the exact list being up for debate.
Of course, where we get into the social construct part is if we begin discussing orifices used (please don't), masturbation and other sometimes frowned upon activities.
Exactly! The common use of the term includes at least some of those things, and turns it into a mess where you can no longer point to one specific physical state as defining virgin/non-virgin.
Am I wrong it is in the same vein as the social construct of a slut or a stud?
Being that it is constructed simply as a put down, and is seen as less than?
Because I know the pressure and societal want for people to express themselves sexually is a pretty abundant thing.
The constructedness of virginity is linked in with the stud/slut thing.
The woman who has a lot of sex is viewed as a slut (bad thing). The man who has a lot of sex is a stud (good thing).
So 'virgin' is less of a put-down in that context.
But the older the person gets, the more 'virgin' becomes a put down. This applies to both genders, but at different ages - C.F. 40-year-old virgin.
Different age groups will view virginity as a good thing in different contexts. Older people will continue to see it as a virtue in a young woman after her friends have begun to use it in a derogatory manner against her.
A father is more likely to view his son's virginity as unimportant (or even problematic) than his mother. The mother is less likely to see her daughter's loss of virginity as problematic than the father (see shotgun wedding tropes).
Found this article recently. Very interesting. Craig is supercool.
Very interesting
Yes age is a social construct espcially when it comes to how old people are pecieved as wiser or 'better' It is very common and actually pretty interesting how this mindset was started.
Though I do not study sociology. So I know very little on these types of subjects. But On psychology and why people think certain patterns or how to predict people or control people. (Indirect control through environment.
Found this article recently. Very interesting. Craig is supercool.
Wasn't there an astronomical level of jimmies rustled when Stephen Fry married someone younger than him?
I was bewildered then, as I am bewildered now.
Age is open to criticism from folk who would balk at commenting on race, gender, etc. for fear of repercussion. I was going to say "seemingly", but from an insider perspective, it absolutely is.
My partner is 25-26 years my senior. We get gak about this on a level you wouldn't believe. People in the street pointing if we hold hands, staff offering us fathers-day discounts in restaurants (you bet your ass we do that anyway), people feeling it's okay to openly comment on it in his work environment (very rare, but it happens). Can you imagine the HR hoo-haa if someone started digging about him being gay or black? Those things are not equatable with age. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we're still perfectly okay with treating people like gak over this one aspect.
I had a friend so vehemently against our dating that he drove home from work and threatened to beat my partner over it. I could understand if I was a 15 year old dating a coach, but I was a few days off turning 20 and had my own apartment.
I dunno if the current teen to twenties generation is a bit better about this? Thinking back, I didn't befriend him because he was "an older guy", we were just really close friends for a good while, and it seemed a natural escalation. Back then, both of us were crapping ourselves because of the age. I thought he would see it as some idol crush like a student gets on a teacher, and he thought I'd view him as a massive lech. In the end we just had a massive amount of shared views, loves, interests, and we gave it a go. Eight years on and I barely register the age gap. Until some clownboat drags it up for us.
Found this article recently. Very interesting. Craig is supercool.
Wasn't there an astronomical level of jimmies rustled when Stephen Fry married someone younger than him?
I was bewildered then, as I am bewildered now.
Age is open to criticism from folk who would balk at commenting on race, gender, etc. for fear of repercussion. I was going to say "seemingly", but from an insider perspective, it absolutely is.
My partner is 25-26 years my senior. We get gak about this on a level you wouldn't believe. People in the street pointing if we hold hands, staff offering us fathers-day discounts in restaurants (you bet your ass we do that anyway), people feeling it's okay to openly comment on it in his work environment (very rare, but it happens). Can you imagine the HR hoo-haa if someone started digging about him being gay or black? Those things are not equatable with age. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we're still perfectly okay with treating people like gak over this one aspect.
I had a friend so vehemently against our dating that he drove home from work and threatened to beat my partner over it. I could understand if I was a 15 year old dating a coach, but I was a few days off turning 20 and had my own apartment.
I dunno if the current teen to twenties generation is a bit better about this? Thinking back, I didn't befriend him because he was "an older guy", we were just really close friends for a good while, and it seemed a natural escalation. Back then, both of us were crapping ourselves because of the age. I thought he would see it as some idol crush like a student gets on a teacher, and he thought I'd view him as a massive lech. In the end we just had a massive amount of shared views, loves, interests, and we gave it a go. Eight years on and I barely register the age gap. Until some clownboat drags it up for us.
Where I am from (Rich Area, I mean fething rich) They see that as a good thing, especially if the guy has money. The girls in my area are literally taught to marry older men especially if they have money :/
Found this article recently. Very interesting. Craig is supercool.
Wasn't there an astronomical level of jimmies rustled when Stephen Fry married someone younger than him?
I was bewildered then, as I am bewildered now.
Age is open to criticism from folk who would balk at commenting on race, gender, etc. for fear of repercussion. I was going to say "seemingly", but from an insider perspective, it absolutely is.
My partner is 25-26 years my senior. We get gak about this on a level you wouldn't believe. People in the street pointing if we hold hands, staff offering us fathers-day discounts in restaurants (you bet your ass we do that anyway), people feeling it's okay to openly comment on it in his work environment (very rare, but it happens). Can you imagine the HR hoo-haa if someone started digging about him being gay or black? Those things are not equatable with age. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we're still perfectly okay with treating people like gak over this one aspect.
I had a friend so vehemently against our dating that he drove home from work and threatened to beat my partner over it. I could understand if I was a 15 year old dating a coach, but I was a few days off turning 20 and had my own apartment.
I dunno if the current teen to twenties generation is a bit better about this? Thinking back, I didn't befriend him because he was "an older guy", we were just really close friends for a good while, and it seemed a natural escalation. Back then, both of us were crapping ourselves because of the age. I thought he would see it as some idol crush like a student gets on a teacher, and he thought I'd view him as a massive lech. In the end we just had a massive amount of shared views, loves, interests, and we gave it a go. Eight years on and I barely register the age gap. Until some clownboat drags it up for us.
Where I am from (Rich Area, I mean fething rich) They see that as a good thing, especially if the guy has money. The girls in my area are literally taught to marry older men especially if they have money :/
Same isn't usually taught to men looking for male partners, though.
Age is open to criticism from folk who would balk at commenting on race, gender, etc. for fear of repercussion. I was going to say "seemingly", but from an insider perspective, it absolutely is.
And depending on where you are, race is still openly criticized as well.
I'm white and my wife is black, and we still frequently get reactions from people. It can be as obvious as people actually commenting that the races shouldn't mix, more subdued like people definitely staring with a disapproving look when a mixed couple holds hands in the street, and minor stuff like going to a restaurant and being asked "separate checks?" all the freaking time.
It's not just some isolated thing that we imagine. We have a lot of mixed couple friends (2x black/white, Hispanic/white, native/white, Asian/white) and they all frequently experience the same thing.
Just thought I'd put something in here... Warning, contains heresy by the bucket load. Couldn't get half way through the first paragraph without the urge to "do something really stupid"
Tactical_Spam wrote: Just thought I'd put something in here... Warning, contains heresy by the bucket load. Couldn't get half way through the first paragraph without the urge to "do something really stupid"
Tactical_Spam wrote: Just thought I'd put something in here... Warning, contains heresy by the bucket load. Couldn't get half way through the first paragraph without the urge to "do something really stupid"
I see. So your best argument is someone who is either part of an extreme and irrelevant minority or trolling (and it's a perfectly-crafted troll post IMO), ignoring the vast majority of transgender people who don't say stupid stuff like that, and label a whole group of people "heresy"?
Edit: dear god, are you serious? Did you even spend 30 seconds looking at the site you were quoting from? The whole site is such a blatant parody I can't believe you would actually fall for it.
d-usa wrote: And depending on where you are, race is still openly criticized as well.
I'm white and my wife is black, and we still frequently get reactions from people. It can be as obvious as people actually commenting that the races shouldn't mix, more subdued like people definitely staring with a disapproving look when a mixed couple holds hands in the street, and minor stuff like going to a restaurant and being asked "separate checks?" all the freaking time.
It's not just some isolated thing that we imagine. We have a lot of mixed couple friends (2x black/white, Hispanic/white, native/white, Asian/white) and they all frequently experience the same thing.
I can't pretend I can imagine how that feels. That is hideous to read.
But I'm guessing we both understand how it feels to be so completely enamored with someone that you don't see those trivial differences, and the fething crash to Earth whenever it's pointed out for your benefit. It shouldn't hurt because it's their idiocy. it shouldn't affect my day because it's their idiocy. But perhaps because it's two of us, andI'm not shrugging for one, I'm shrugging for him as well, it sticks.
I wasn't trying to equate age, race, gender, and I hope that I didn't hurt anyone by seemingly doing so. I was trying to say that people who think of themselves as "too good" to be racist/etc, will happily gossip about this as though it's absolutely fine.
Got to admit I don't understand the "separate cheques" comment, though. Maybe that's me being slow. I have never ever had the waiter pass me the bill though, in 8 years. I'll hold up my card and there's the almost audible mental recalibration.
Asherian Command wrote: Where I am from (Rich Area, I mean fething rich) They see that as a good thing, especially if the guy has money. The girls in my area are literally taught to marry older men especially if they have money :/
Oh wow. I never thought it'd be viewed as positive anywhere. That's nuts, but I guess that's culture.
The responses I get, and I can detach enough to recant some, but others I can't give muscle-effort to typing:
- Are you in his will? / What's he dying from?
- How much does he earn? / Do you share a bank account?
- So which uncle/family friend got to you when you were a kid? / [General daddy issues comment]
- Are you doing this to piss off your parents? (Because me being a total fruit didn't potentially tick that box already)
- What is he paying you? / So what's your monthly allowance?
- The opposite of cradle snatcher is apparently "grave robber".
I'm not here to justify my relationship (I didn't have to post about it at all), I'm just saying these are things that people come out with upon meeting/seeing us. That they thing are acceptable.
I see. So your best argument is someone who is either part of an extreme and irrelevant minority or trolling (and it's a perfectly-crafted troll post IMO), ignoring the vast majority of transgender people who don't say stupid stuff like that, and label a whole group of people "heresy"?
Edit: dear god, are you serious? Did you even spend 30 seconds looking at the site you were quoting from? The whole site is such a blatant parody I can't believe you would actually fall for it.
I was more implying feminism. I know... 4 transgender people... all are girls who think they are dudes and 3 of them have some type of disorder (Depression/anxiety, Sociopathy and what I am going to say is nymphomania) and the last one is just a to everyone...
Scratch that, I think theres a dude who thinks hes a girl but he scares the crap out of me.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I was more implying feminism. I know... 4 transgender people... all are girls who think they are dudes and 3 of them have some type of disorder (Depression/anxiety, Sociopathy and what I am going to say is nymphomania) and the last one is just a to everyone...
Scratch that, I think theres a dude who thinks hes a girl but he scares the crap out of me.
I'm really trying and failing to think of how you could possibly make this post more offensive without getting banned.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I was more implying feminism. I know... 4 transgender people... all are girls who think they are dudes and 3 of them have some type of disorder (Depression/anxiety, Sociopathy and what I am going to say is nymphomania) and the last one is just a to everyone...
Scratch that, I think theres a dude who thinks hes a girl but he scares the crap out of me.
I'm really trying and failing to think of how you could possibly make this post more offensive without getting banned.
I am stating my opinion on the matter. I never refer to any of the, by their preferred pronoun, but I never use the other pronoun. I always use their name when I take to them or about them. I don't try to hurt their feelings.
I dated the sociopath for a month and that was... well... difficult
Also, I didn't say, "Them filthy Transgenders! We should murder the lot of them and kick them out of our country!" because that is offensive and the only reason I don't like feminism is because my step-mom never wanted me and treated my little sister like a goddess and now my little sister is practically a clone of my hated step-mom. We all have reasons Peregrine
No, you're being a tasteless bigot. Saying "theres a dude who thinks hes a girl" is not stating an opinion, it's hate speech.
I never refer to any of the, by their preferred pronoun, but I never use the other pronoun.
Which is blatantly offensive. If someone asks you to use a particular pronoun when talking about them then you're a rude if you ignore that request. At best. At worst you're a bigot.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I was more implying feminism. I know... 4 transgender people... all are girls who think they are dudes and 3 of them have some type of disorder (Depression/anxiety, Sociopathy and what I am going to say is nymphomania) and the last one is just a to everyone...
Scratch that, I think theres a dude who thinks hes a girl but he scares the crap out of me.
I'm really trying and failing to think of how you could possibly make this post more offensive without getting banned.
I am stating my opinion on the matter. I never refer to any of the, by their preferred pronoun, but I never use the other pronoun. I always use their name when I take to them or about them. I don't try to hurt their feelings.
I dated the sociopath for a month and that was... well... difficult
Also, I didn't say, "Them filthy Transgenders! We should murder the lot of them and kick them out of our country!" because that is offensive and the only reason I don't like feminism is because my step-mom never wanted me and treated my little sister like a goddess and now my little sister is practically a clone of my hated step-mom. We all have reasons Peregrine
Are you open to the possibility that not all transgender people are seriously troubled, though? Because that's not coming off from your posting. Yes there are a lot of people who have issues (many of which are a symptom of untreated or misundersood conditions relating to being trans), but there are definitely those who don't.
And "x who thinks y" may be how you view your own associates/friends, but you have to try and view how that looks from an outsider perspective of you view on the bigger issue. It isn't appropriate, it's dismissive of their identity.
No, you're being a tasteless bigot. Saying "theres a dude who thinks hes a girl" is not stating an opinion, it's hate speech.
I never refer to any of the, by their preferred pronoun, but I never use the other pronoun.
Which is blatantly offensive. If someone asks you to use a particular pronoun when talking about them then you're a rude if you ignore that request. At best. At worst you're a bigot.
So I am supposed to forgo my comfort to go out of my way to comfort someone who life decisions I dont agree with when I can avoid making discomfort for both of us?
I speak no hate and all of this is my opinion. I hate none of them, but I don't agree with them. You say that to disagree with them is hate speak, thus labelling me a bigot. I also have the opinion that you are a "Special Snowflake SJW," but I am still open to be proved wrong
Tactical_Spam wrote: I was more implying feminism. I know... 4 transgender people... all are girls who think they are dudes and 3 of them have some type of disorder (Depression/anxiety, Sociopathy and what I am going to say is nymphomania) and the last one is just a to everyone...
Scratch that, I think theres a dude who thinks hes a girl but he scares the crap out of me.
I'm really trying and failing to think of how you could possibly make this post more offensive without getting banned.
I am stating my opinion on the matter. I never refer to any of the, by their preferred pronoun, but I never use the other pronoun. I always use their name when I take to them or about them. I don't try to hurt their feelings.
I dated the sociopath for a month and that was... well... difficult
Also, I didn't say, "Them filthy Transgenders! We should murder the lot of them and kick them out of our country!" because that is offensive and the only reason I don't like feminism is because my step-mom never wanted me and treated my little sister like a goddess and now my little sister is practically a clone of my hated step-mom. We all have reasons Peregrine
Are you open to the possibility that not all transgender people are seriously troubled, though? Because that's not coming off from your posting.
Yes there are a lot of people who have issues (many of which are a symptom of untreated or misundersood conditions relating to being trans), but there are definitely those who don't.
And "x who thinks y" may be how you view your own associates/friends, but you have to try and view how that looks from an outsider perspective of you view on the bigger issue. It isn't appropriate, it's dismissive of their identity.
I am definitely open to the idea, I just have yet too see it. I tend to heavily seclude myself because of what happened when I tried to break up with the Sociopath. Let's just say my friend's picked "his" side.
I think perhaps with time you just may or may not encounter folk who deal with it well.
All of the trans folk I know offline are roughly 30-40, hold down jobs, and waited until a point in their life that it was "safe" to seek assistance and transition. One is a head teacher, one is a counsellor/therapist (who better to know their own mind, I guess). Another is retired, and has children who hold down jobs and raised families themselves. They're all gentle folk who had he planning and time to take off and deal with it without disrupting things for those around them.
However online, I know some complete and utter train wrecks who self indulge in misery and internet crusading, and I can absolutely understand how they would become the general face of trans to people in the online generation. The lack of filter, self-awareness and restraint damages their own cause.
I don't agree with it, but when extremists of any kind get the majority of the limelight, how is anyone outside the loop supposed to know they don't represent the majority?
Tactical_Spam wrote: So I am supposed to forgo my comfort to go out of my way to comfort someone who life decisions I dont agree with when I can avoid making discomfort for both of us?
If merely using the pronoun someone asks you to use makes you uncomfortable then you have a serious problem. And you need to fix it instead of making excuses.
I speak no hate and all of this is my opinion. I hate none of them, but I don't agree with them. You say that to disagree with them is hate speak, thus labelling me a bigot. I also have the opinion that you are a "Special Snowflake SJW," but I am still open to be proved wrong
No, I'm not saying that disagreeing is hate speech, I'm telling you that "he's pretending to be a woman" and similar statements are incredibly offensive. You're denying their identity, and in an incredibly tasteless way. You know, the kind of thing that drives people into depression and suicide. If that's not hate speech then I don't know what is.
I am definitely open to the idea, I just have yet too see it.
You seem to have trouble seeing a lot of things. Perhaps you should take this as a hint?
AHEM First a little bit of a thingy I found recently that is very relevant to this argument.
Spoiler:
General Argument I have seen
Thats a radical feminist.
Or what I like to call a Tumblrist. They do not represent the whole group. I thought I went over this when I talked about gobberrgate so many moons ago. (don't talk about it Asherian... Please don't go into rant mode.... Please no more GG, please no more GG).
Infact I plop into KIA saying the same thing "That doesn't represent the group, as much as some troll doesn't represent you and your group."
Feminism is all about equality, anyone spouting in the opposition of equality and calls themselves a feminist is a hypocrite. And are not radicals or feminists.
But this thread is not about the social problems caused by the radical left. Or the stupidity of others in society that represent its extremes (Radicalism, Terrorism etc) They are merely apart of society that we are all apart of, and we just have to deal with them, as they are outliers they will largely be ignored or dealt with by other ways. (most times non-violent)
So I am supposed to forgo my comfort to go out of my way to comfort someone who life decisions I dont agree with when I can avoid making discomfort for both of us?
You can just ignore them. If there views are so polarized to society and they are such an outlier you just ignore them.
I also have the opinion that you are a "Special Snowflake SJW," but I am still open to be proved wrong
Excuse me? Peregrine is not an Special Snowflake SJW! He's a very intelligent person, who knows his stuff, and is not as what you would call a social justice warrior. a Social justice warrior is a rabid white knight that can't tell reason from racism.
Please do not go to childish antics to try and prove your point
Are you open to the possibility that not all transgender people are seriously troubled, though? Because that's not coming off from your posting. Yes there are a lot of people who have issues (many of which are a symptom of untreated or misundersood conditions relating to being trans), but there are definitely those who don't.
Trans People are sometimes troubled I mean its why they identify as trans sometimes (SOMETIMES!) But it is merely confusion or misunderstanding of the sociological level and very seldomly biological. Trans Genderism is an interesting subject which I really don't have any expertise from other than they identify as trans and they are people. Though I often do say "That identifying as a gender, sexuality or political side is disingenuous as all of those are placed in a spectrum. It says nothing about you personally, other than what you identify as which is like ascribing a number to yourself, completely useless, and not at all helpful in my understanding of you." (Though this has been my experience it might be different for other people)
Though identity crisis is a very young thing to do, younger people want to find a group a place in society as they have apart of them (The humanity in them that is) that constantly seeks to be and to find its place. So trying to identify and trying to place themselves in a place of some righteous path or identity makes them feel at home. Its very common, and is not necessarily bad, its a behavior that is psychologically ingrained in the human genome. You know those three years of psychology really got me thinking. Psychology has a big part of societal pressures and daily life.
As I remember talking recently to my Game Design teacher about the social convention that more women play mobile games than video games. Its a social construct that more boys play video games than females, or more usually white males play video games more often, even though video games are world wide phenomon. There is this idea that women in their late 40s to 50s just sit around and play on their phones all the time. Interestingly this stereotype is completely true, I mean, (not really stereotype but it is an interesting sociological and psychological development) as more people (most particularly women) are just playing games like candy crush when they are walking around. Sometimes they just play it on their phone looking at it absorbed by its experience its fascinating. (Though why candy crush is so popular is probably something I could write an entire research paper on, and study it for a few months and come back with actual data to prove my point)
The identities such as gamer, feminist, egalitarian, kantian, partier, and many other identities are changing. Its very fascinating in my opinion in how the social conventions have slowly been evolving and developing rather quickly. Interestingly my generation has become very accepting, (probably because we saw the greatest amount of change in twenty years, we went from no cellphones to smart phones, even more drastic we went from floppies (when we were younger) being introduced to digital downloads being a norm. Its probably why this generation has so much anxiety, depression, identity crisis, and a myriad of other issues.
Anyway:
Oh wow. I never thought it'd be viewed as positive anywhere. That's nuts, but I guess that's culture.
You would be surprised what other social conventions I have had to go through. I mean each state is basically its own country (assuming you live in the united states). With its own customs and cultures.
But I don't know why anyone would view someone older dating someone younger. I remember when a prospective girlfriend of mine's ex was like "EWWW he's like six years younger! You are really robbing the crib there girl."
Its fascinating, and insulting at the same time.
And depending on where you are, race is still openly criticized as well.
I'm white and my wife is black, and we still frequently get reactions from people. It can be as obvious as people actually commenting that the races shouldn't mix, more subdued like people definitely staring with a disapproving look when a mixed couple holds hands in the street, and minor stuff like going to a restaurant and being asked "separate checks?" all the freaking time.
It's not just some isolated thing that we imagine. We have a lot of mixed couple friends (2x black/white, Hispanic/white, native/white, Asian/white) and they all frequently experience the same thing.
It will be for a very long time, (The criticized race thingy or Racism) it will always be there and its something I am always sad hearing about.
Though personally I wish there was more could be done to counter it. But assumptions are just painfully racist sometimes by so many people.
Overall social constructs are dumb. But it is slowly becoming a norm. I mean the average american is already projected in a few decades to have tan skin naturally.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Also, I didn't say, "Them filthy Transgenders! We should murder the lot of them and kick them out of our country!" because that is offensive and the only reason I don't like feminism is because my step-mom never wanted me and treated my little sister like a goddess and now my little sister is practically a clone of my hated step-mom. We all have reasons Peregrine
Oh god, I can't believe I missed this edit. You're saying the equivalent of "I didn't say we should lynch all the {black people}, I just think we shouldn't pretend that they're equal to decent white people" and you really think I'm being unfair to you? And you dislike feminism, not because of any kind of coherent argument against feminist beliefs, but because you had a bad relationship with your mom and sister? You really expect people to take you seriously when you say stuff like this?
Though identity crisis is a very young thing to do, younger people want to find a group a place in society as they have apart of them (The humanity in them that is) that constantly seeks to be and to find its place. So trying to identify and trying to place themselves in a place of some righteous path or identity makes them feel at home. Its very common, and is not necessarily bad, its a behavior that is psychologically ingrained in the human genome.
Excuse me if I sidestep, and offer this is a reason why a lot of young parents latch onto the anti-vaccine and health scare mindsets, specifically young mother groups. There may be just as many young father groups, but I don't hear about them very often.
Small vulnerable groups, in an awakened sense of identity (parent) and protection urges (their child) have drawn an involuntary line between themselves and "everyone else". Making it harder for reasonable argument to be made against a group that already sees themselves as persecuted and has an insular self-reassuring community.
I'm sure it's not the only reason, I may also be entirely \wrong.
.
