Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 15:14:20
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Daemonic Dreadnought
|
From what I have read from some studies girls with androgynous or male names actually do better than girls with completely feminine names, and tend to have more self confidence and self esteem.
Boys are the exact opposite. Boys with androgynous, or feminine names are frequently rejected by their peer group leading to lowered self confidence and self esteem.
Positive or negative self confidence/self esteem are the building blocks to a successful life, or a train wreck of a life. Is society wrong to treat boys with feminine names worse than boys with normal names because their name does not conforms to what society's norms? IMO yes society is wrong, and the problem is with society not the child. That being said I would not give a boy a feminine or androgynous name because I believe it's more important to protect a child against society's prejudices than it is to conscript a helpless child into a personal crusade to correct all of society's prejudices because when you conscript children they often become casualties.
|
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 16:15:25
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant
|
Kilkrazy- I'm not against it because i'm opposed to change- i'm all for moving forward. Currently the majority of people are happy with it as it is.
Differences in the brain make it more likely for males to be drawn to stereotypically male activities and females towards stereotypically female things. It's proved that there are differences between average female and Male brains. This isn't going to change any time soon and while the majority of people are happy with it it shouldn't be forced to.
Bringing a child up in a way that is so different from the way society works and goes against the way the child's brain works isn't going to give the child a good life.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 16:33:40
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
helgrenze wrote:
Actually, If as you say, gender refers to societal differences, then those wanting to end gender are referring to how society treats the two different SEXES, not Genders.
No, that's wrong. There is no reason to consider sex at all.
There are numerous cultures which have more than two genders, indicating that sex is not important in the sense of determinism.
helgrenze wrote:
Society may define genders but they are not a creation of society.
Sex and gender are not the same.
Sex is biological, gender is social and psychological.
Albatross wrote:
What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?
Nothing.
The point is that many people who like said roles are aggressive towards people who don't.
helgrenze wrote:
So then perhaps we should retrain some 11 billion people, from different social, economic, religious, and cultural backgrounds?
What?
There are only 6.7 billion people on the planet. Automatically Appended Next Post: Fafnir wrote:
But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.
And apparently our biology informs people to express their gender in ways which are not conventional by Western standards.
The argument from nature, or biology, never works out well for conservatives.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2011/06/30 17:06:31
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 17:31:02
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
I wore women's shirts sometimes when I was a teenager, because we got given a load of free clothes and were badly enough off to find them a boon. The main nuisance was that you get used to doing up the buttons the "right" way, so it was hard to fasten them.
Back on topic, I don't think it matters if men's brains are drawn to stereotypically male activities.
That concept tends to get trotted out when people either feel we have already arrived at the perfect balance of the sexes, or more frequently if they feel we have gone too far and need to turn the clock back.
If there is such a strong instinctive drive for women to seek low paid part time jobs and spend most of their lives caring for children, the house and elderly relatives for no pay, it won't matter if society provides plentiful opportunities for them to avoid doing all of that.
I've always found football a bore. Plenty of women love playing it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/30 17:31:39
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 19:58:13
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
Albatross wrote:
Well, I am a 'man' in a the (largely) traditional sense. Why should I be forced to adopt a gender-neutral position just to satisfy an insignificant minority?
Nobody said you had to. You can take whatever position you wish. However, if you would take a male less seriously, pr treat him differently because they chose to say, wear a skirt, then I would say that you'd be forcing your viewpoint on them due to their upbringing or choices, which would be unacceptable in what I would consider to be a modern society.
I'm not trying to tell them how to live their lives, much less that they are somehow ignorant or bad people.
Then you are different to many people in this thread levelling attacks at parents for choosing to raise their child in a way they see fit, as opposed to how they think a child should be raised.
In fact, I pretty much leave those people the feth alone because I have no interest in them.
Why? That sounds a bit strange. You're avoiding people because they don't conform to your particular view of the world?
I am not 'neutral' to the concept of 'gender', barely anyone is.
No-one said you were gender neutral. Where did you come up with that?
And I suspect that most of those who claim to be have to try really, really hard at it.
They don't have to try. If you're gender neutral, you're gender neutral, in the same way if you're gay, you're gay. I don't see why you have trouble accepting this.
In fact, I'd go further than that, and state that I'm of the opinion that Gender Studies and 'queer theory' are a load of subjective bollocks.
I would be interested to hear the detailed research or reading you've done on the topic to such a conclusive verdict. Because as I do actually consider you a relatively intelligent man Albatross, I would hate to think you were biasing such a generalised definitive statement on a few articles in the Daily Mail or somewhere.
OK, so I'm down with the idea that 'gender' roles are largely performative/demonstrative, and that this leads to outcomes whereby individuals take on a gender identity different to their biological sex - it doesn't change the uncomfortable fact that it is, fundamentally, all in the mind. Dress it up however you like, but there it is.
It's not necessarily a case of 'taking on' a gender-some people genuinely do not fit into the mould society tries to pour them into. You are correct, gender is all in the mind. But what is in the mind is placed there by surrounding environmental factors. And if society is discriminating against people for not adhering to what is essentially social brainwashing, then well.....I can't say that's fair, can you?
I can be traced back to Irish hill-farmers. I, however also live in a major metropolitan area of England, and am a music student. Does that which came before me influence me? Undoubtedly.
However, I am not exactly the same, in fact I am massively different, almost unrecognisable.
However, this is a terrible analogy. Why? Because sexism is alive and kicking across the world today, as a result of gender. You've taken no chronology into account with that analogy, and attempted to pretend that all sexism as a result of gender is in some distant unfathomable past. Its not. It's alive and kicking, as we speak. It's sexist towards men AND women in the current day. This is the harmful side of gender. This is why one might wish to change it.
See where I'm going with this? The roles of men and women in society are constantly evolving towards greater and greater equality - that DOES NOT mean that we need to do away with the concepts of 'man' and 'woman'.
The evolving towards equality of which you speak may exist in certain areas, such as women being given the vote, but in other areas, such as the media, it remains alive and strong. Gender imprintation goes far deeper than simply granting rights to women, and is applicable to both men AND women.
Cool, I'm all ears, since so far all you've posted was 'some people don't like them' and 'uh, sexism and that'. Shoot.
I hope my elucidating a little further has helped you understand somewhat. And I'm not being sarcastic, I mean that sincerely. You're an intelligent man Albatross, and I do respect you for that. That's why I'm choosing to engage in discussing this further with you, and not with the many ignorant posters that have weighed in on this.
It's quite a difficult concept to get your head around, gender studies, and took me a damn lot of brainpower, and a considerable readjustment in my style of thought. Similar to the sort of mental readjustment I had to do when I was examining a Soviet perspective on the West. I'm not convinced a lot of it is valid, but I recognise that it is definitely a real and relevant topic.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/01 00:22:20
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 20:09:45
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
The concept still comes down to trying to eliminate how other people, aka "Society", reacts to and deals with a person who chooses to affect a mentality and personality that is outside of the observers expectations of "normal".
You see a person with a shaved head, army style jacket, cargo pants, and heavy boots.....
If your thoughts went to neo-nazi then you would be in with the majority of society. Chances are that person is more likely a Sharp.... or even Rash...... but Most of society does not have the experiences to know the differences, and have been told by popular media that these differences do not matter or do not exist. Admittedly, those differences are subtle but they are important to the people in those groups.
Changing "society" and its perceptions takes time. It rarely happens in a single lifetime. Sorry to say, but racism still exists and is probably more prevelant than you think, though it has moved to the fringe, which is where it becomes more dangerous because it is hidden from view and allowed to fester.
|
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)
"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 20:25:39
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Racism has moved back to the political centre stage in the past 10 years.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 20:52:45
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
My name has been mentioned only once in this thread. I'm losing my touch.
|
Worship me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 21:58:49
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My name has been mentioned only once in this thread. I'm losing my touch.
Its okay. We still believe in you.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 22:33:22
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
LordofHats wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My name has been mentioned only once in this thread. I'm losing my touch.
Its okay. We still believe in you.
I do believe in fairies!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/30 22:39:27
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
corpsesarefun wrote:LordofHats wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My name has been mentioned only once in this thread. I'm losing my touch.
Its okay. We still believe in you.
I do believe in fairies!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 00:24:16
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon
Tied and gagged in the back of your car
|
dogma wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.
And apparently our biology informs people to express their gender in ways which are not conventional by Western standards.
No one ever said gender was strictly dichotamous. At least I never did.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 01:14:55
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Fafnir wrote:dogma wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.
And apparently our biology informs people to express their gender in ways which are not conventional by Western standards.
No one ever said gender was strictly dichotamous. At least I never did.
The point was that if you argue that biology informs gender, then any gender people choose to construct is based in biology. Its like arguing from human nature. Once you start discussing it, then you are forced to acknowledge that whatever people do is a component of human nature; ie. nothing is unnatural because it isn't possible to be unnatural. This applies even to a definition of nature which turns on the absence of human agency.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 01:57:28
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon
Tied and gagged in the back of your car
|
dogma wrote:whatever people do is a component of human nature
And there's a problem with that how?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 02:00:35
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Fafnir wrote:dogma wrote:whatever people do is a component of human nature
And there's a problem with that how?
Someone is a bit too sensitive for the internet.
I never said anything about a problem.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 02:16:41
Subject: Re:The End of Gender
|
 |
Mutilatin' Mad Dok
|
FITZZ wrote: Hmm, seems I recall this sort of experiment ending very badly...

O god was that ever an interesting movie
|
WAAAHG!!! until further notice
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 03:45:24
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Ketara wrote:Sebster, I'd just give up. Gender studies is a highly complicated field, and can be quite difficult to understand at the best of times. When my gender neutral friend first told me about this particular area, I couldn't really understand what she was talking about. It wasn't until I sat down in an academic library, researching the topic of gender, that I finally managed to wrap my head around the concept, and even then it required a complete shift in thinking as to how I regarded the difference between the words 'sex' and 'gender'.
Fact is, I don't think we're going to have much luck explaining it to the people here. From what I can see, we have a number of people who didn't read the article, a number of people making ignorant comments and implying its just a load of attention seeking made up stuff, and a number of people who could understand, but probably won't, or will refuse to in the context of an internet argument.
Pretty much. I really just don't understand how people can so aggressively opposed to hearing something new. Automatically Appended Next Post: Albatross wrote:What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?
In plenty of places, not much. In other places, maybe a whole lot.
What's wrong with studying gender roles to see if there's areas that are generally harmful, and ways in which we can improve? And all the while increasing everyone's understanding that while traditional gender roles might be ideal for most people, we shouldn't judge or dismiss people who don't want to conform to them. And all the while increasing our understanding of the unintended but clear ways in which we enforce onto people our assumptions of gender roles? Automatically Appended Next Post: iproxtaco wrote:What harm does it do? No harm, until said person steps out of their gender-less environment and into the regular world, where they will be judged.
If they suffer negative consequences for entering the real world having been raised genderless, then maybe people aren't so free to be what they want as 4M2A claimed. There must be social pressure for certain gender roles. Automatically Appended Next Post: Agent_Tremolo wrote:Exactly. I've been reading "Raising my Boychick", and the author rises quite a point: Parents should really loosen their grip on some issues that are, more or less, beyond their control.
It has reminded me of all the critizism Amy Chua got for that book on "Tiger Moms" and how strong discipline during childhood leads to successful adults. Most critics said Ms. Chua's methods were not only cruel, but also counterproductive. Believing that genetics or upbringing predispose your kid for success, attempting to rout out enthropy through tight control, is self deceiving. Education is about giving kids the tools to better deal with future situations, not programming them for a bright future which may never come.
Yeah, that's a really good comparison.
That said, I've still got issues against Queer Theory and most diatribes on gender espoused by the author of "Raising my Boychick". Gender studies rely too much on broad generalizations and categorizing that, in the long term, end up reinforcing traditional gender roles. By making up new categories such as cisgender, male/female assigned, intersexual and the like, or by adhering to orientalistic, deeply illiberal views on "other genders", they are effectively denying the fact that gender roles change and adapt as society does. Queer theorists' views on gender depend of an incredibly restrictive, almost medioeval definition of male and female gender roles, a world in which males are all psychopathic beer-guzzling promiscuous apes and women all feerical mother-figures always in the verge of hysterical breakdown. Accompanying these two caricatures lie a host of "intermediate genders", where all deviations from the "norm" are tagged and categorized as aberrations demanding proper study.
Needless to say, reality doesn't conform to this in the slightest.
Yeah, my big 'what in the hell?' moment came when I saw that incredibly long list that attempted to define everyone by actual sex, sex they saw themselves as, sexual preference and all the rest, most more awkwardly named than 'cisgender'.
One of the most annoying things about this thread has been that there's so much to criticise gender studies for, but instead the whole thread has been taken up with nonsense claims from people who have never bothered to read anything on the issue, or even bother reading the opening article. Automatically Appended Next Post: Albatross wrote:Well, I am a 'man' in a the (largely) traditional sense. Why should I be forced to adopt a gender-neutral position just to satisfy an insignificant minority?
You don't. No-one is saying men have to be less manly, or women less womanly.
I'm not trying to tell them how to live their lives, much less that they are somehow ignorant or bad people.
But social interaction just isn't that simple.
I am not 'neutral' to the concept of 'gender', barely anyone is. And I suspect that most of those who claim to be have to try really, really hard at it. In fact, I'd go further than that, and state that I'm of the opinion that Gender Studies and 'queer theory' are a load of subjective bollocks. OK, so I'm down with the idea that 'gender' roles are largely performative/demonstrative, and that this leads to outcomes whereby individuals take on a gender identity different to their biological sex - it doesn't change the uncomfortable fact that it is, fundamentally, all in the mind.
Except there are scientific studies showing brain pattern differences between straight people and people who want to change gender.
See where I'm going with this? The roles of men and women in society are constantly evolving towards greater and greater equality - that DOES NOT mean that we need to do away with the concepts of 'man' and 'woman'.
No-one wants to get rid of the idea of man and woman. They just want to increase understanding for people don't neatly fit into those two areas. And to try and reduce pressure on people who would be caused a lot of unhappiness if they were encouraged to fit into those traditional gender roles. Automatically Appended Next Post: helgrenze wrote:The concept still comes down to trying to eliminate how other people, aka "Society", reacts to and deals with a person who chooses to affect a mentality and personality that is outside of the observers expectations of "normal".
Yes, and the idea that building a more inclusive, understanding society is an objectively good thing.
Changing "society" and its perceptions takes time. It rarely happens in a single lifetime. Sorry to say, but racism still exists and is probably more prevelant than you think, though it has moved to the fringe, which is where it becomes more dangerous because it is hidden from view and allowed to fester.
Given people are rarely lynched anymore, I'm going to go out on a limb and say racism is a fuckload less dangerous than it used to be.
Meanwhile, the two groups who suffer more assaults per capita than any other are gay people and the transgendered.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2011/07/01 03:46:02
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 05:16:47
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
sebster wrote:helgrenze wrote:The concept still comes down to trying to eliminate how other people, aka "Society", reacts to and deals with a person who chooses to affect a mentality and personality that is outside of the observers expectations of "normal".
Yes, and the idea that building a more inclusive, understanding society is an objectively good thing.
Its the HOW that is causing issues. The idea is fine, but the execution is where the flaws are showing. Making your child an outsider and possible object of ridicule does nothing to make society more inclusive.
sebster wrote:helgrenze wrote:Changing "society" and its perceptions takes time. It rarely happens in a single lifetime. Sorry to say, but racism still exists and is probably more prevelant than you think, though it has moved to the fringe, which is where it becomes more dangerous because it is hidden from view and allowed to fester.
Given people are rarely lynched anymore, I'm going to go out on a limb and say racism is a fuckload less dangerous than it used to be.
Meanwhile, the two groups who suffer more assaults per capita than any other are gay people and the transgendered.
I have some real world figures for you..... Perhaps your per capita numbers are based on the number of victims against the total members of that particular segment of the overall population?
FBI website wrote:For each hate crime offense type reported, law enforcement must indicate at least one bias motivation. A single-bias incident is defined as an incident in which one or more offense types are motivated by the same bias. A multiple-bias incident is defined as an incident in which more than one offense type occurs and at least two offense types are motivated by different biases.
■In 2009, 2,034 law enforcement agencies reported 6,604 hate crime incidents involving 7,789 offenses.
■There were 6,598 single-bias incidents that involved 7,775 offenses, 8,322 victims, and 6,219 offenders.
■The 6 multiple-bias incidents reported in 2009 involved 14 offenses, 14 victims, and 6 offenders.
Single-bias incidents
An analysis of the 6,598 single-bias incidents reported in 2009 showed the following:
■48.5 percent were motivated by racial bias.
■19.7 percent resulted from religious bias.
■18.5 percent were linked to sexual-orientation bias.
■11.8 percent stemmed from ethnicity/national origin bias.
■1.5 percent involved disability bias.
Offenses by bias motivation within incidents
Of the 7,775 single-bias hate crime offenses reported in the above incidents:
■49.1 percent stemmed from racial bias.
■18.5 percent were motivated by sexual-orientation bias.
■17.7 percent resulted from religious bias.
■13.5 percent were prompted by ethnicity/national origin bias.
■1.2 percent were from biases against disabilities.
Racial bias
In 2009, law enforcement agencies reported that 3,816 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses:
■71.4 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.
■17.1 percent resulted from anti-white bias.
■5.5 percent occurred because of biases against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
■3.9 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
■2.2 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.
Religious bias
Law enforcement agencies reported 1,376 hate crimes motivated by religious bias. A breakdown of biases for these offenses showed:
■70.1 percent were anti-Jewish.
■9.3 percent were anti-Islamic.
■8.6 percent were anti-other religion.
■4.4 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
■4.0 percent were anti-Catholic.
■2.9 percent were anti-Protestant.
■0.7 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.
Sexual-orientation bias
Law enforcement agencies reported 1,436 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:
■55.6 percent were motivated by anti-male homosexual bias.
■26.2 percent resulted from anti-homosexual bias.
■15.0 percent were prompted by anti-female homosexual bias.
■1.7 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.
■1.5 percent were the result of anti-heterosexual bias.
Ethnicity/national origin bias
In 2009, law enforcement reported 1,050 offenses were committed based on the perceived ethnicity or national origin of the victim. Of these offenses:
■62.3 percent were motivated by anti-Hispanic bias.
■37.7 percent resulted from anti-other ethnicity/national origin bias.
Disability bias
There were 97 reported hate crime offenses committed based on disability bias. Of these:
■72 offenses were prompted by anti-mental disability bias.
■25 offenses were the result of anti-physical disability bias.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/07/01 05:19:21
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)
"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 05:22:36
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
helgrenze wrote:Perhaps your per capita numbers are based on the number of victims against the total members of that particular segment of the overall population?
That's what "per capita" means in this context.
FBI website wrote:For each hate crime offense type reported, law enforcement must indicate at least one bias motivation.
Crimes can be committed against a given minority without being hate crimes. This adjusts the rate of crime committed against minorities upwards.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 05:28:07
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
helgrenze wrote:Its the HOW that is causing issues. The idea is fine, but the execution is where the flaws are showing. Making your child an outsider and possible object of ridicule does nothing to make society more inclusive.
Where is this idea coming from that that's actually happening?
I have some real world figures for you..... Perhaps your per capita numbers are based on the number of victims against the total members of that particular segment of the overall population?
That's what per capita means.
And when you look at those figures, and consider that gay people make up no more than a couple of percent of the total population, you see that each individual in that community is much more likely to suffer violence (again, that's what the per capita bit measures). And that's even worse for the very small number of transgendered people.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 05:48:48
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
dogma wrote:helgrenze wrote:Perhaps your per capita numbers are based on the number of victims against the total members of that particular segment of the overall population?
That's what "per capita" means in this context.
Per capita means per a given quantity of the total population, as in 100 per 100,000. If you base your "per capita" on a specific segment of the population your results will be skewed to make it appear to occur more often.
dogma wrote:helgrenze wrote:FBI website wrote:For each hate crime offense type reported, law enforcement must indicate at least one bias motivation.
Crimes can be committed against a given minority without being hate crimes. This adjusts the rate of crime committed against minorities upwards.
True, and these FBI figures do not cover like on like crimes only those classified as "hate crimes". Even if you include other types of crimes, Blacks still tend to have a greater number of "per capita" assaults committed against them. This is, in part, due to Blacks taking up a much larger segment of the population than gays and transgenders combined.
Since the estimated segment of the population that openly admits to being either gay or transsexual is around 5% of the total (or roughly 5,000 per 100,000), it makes 1,436 crimes against 5,000(for example) total gays, look much worse than 1,436 crimes against 100,000 total people.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/01 05:50:03
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)
"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 05:56:30
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
helgrenze wrote:
Per capita means per a given quantity of the total population, as in 100 per 100,000. If you base your "per capita" on a specific segment of the population your results will be skewed to make it appear to occur more often.
That is what "per capita" means, but the parameters of "population" can be set in any manner the speaker wishes. For example, the United States can be used as a total population, and frequently is in order to establish the statistic "per capita income". When you want to find out how often a thing occurs amongst a given population, homosexuals for example, you limit your data to that population. This doesn't skew anything, it simply illustrates how often event X occurs in group Y.
helgrenze wrote:
True, and these FBI figures do not cover like on like crimes only those classified as "hate crimes". Even if you include other types of crimes, Blacks still tend to have a greater number of "per capita" assaults committed against them. This is, in part, due to Blacks taking up a much larger segment of the population than gays and transgenders combined.
Since the estimated segment of the population that openly admits to being either gay or transsexual is around 5% of the total (or roughly 5,000 per 100,000), it makes 1,436 crimes against 5,000(for example) total gays, look much worse than 1,436 crimes against 100,000 total people.
You're confusing gross prevalence with rate of incidence.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 06:16:08
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
helgrenze wrote:Per capita means per a given quantity of the total population, as in 100 per 100,000. If you base your "per capita" on a specific segment of the population your results will be skewed to make it appear to occur more often.
No.
Per capita is used to determine frequency in a given population. For instance, the Ukraine has 2,226 murders in 2006, while Belarus had 975. Does this mean the Ukraine is the more murderous country, and that people there should be more fearful of murder than in Belarus? We can't tell from just those figures, because the two countries have differing populations. So to determine how likely an individual person in Belarus or Romania is of being murdered, we take the total murders and divide by the total population, to give the per capita rate, which is basically the chance an individual person will be a victim of murder in a given year.
In this case, we can see that in Belarus, with a population of around 10 million end up with a murder rate of 10 per 100,000 people, while the much larger Ukraine with its population of around 45 million has a much lower murder rate of 5 per 100,000 people.
Now think about that in case of transgendered people. Consider that while they suffer a reasonably small number of total hate crimes, there are very few of them, and so by using per capita figures we can see that for the people in that community, the likelihood of suffering assault is much higher than it is for the rest of us.
Which is a serious problem.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 06:28:21
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Ok. so.. according to the FBI hate crime statistics, of the 15,437,276 (estimated based on 5% of US population) people that identify as gay or transsexual, just over 1400 were crime victims.
The FBI seperates the total crimes by catagories of "Against persons" and "against property"...
FBI wrote:Of the 7,789 hate crime offenses reported:
■61.5 percent were crimes against persons.
■38.1 percent were crimes against property.
■The remainder were crimes against society.
Crimes against persons are further subdivided by type of crime...
FBI wrote:Law enforcement reported 4,793 hate crime offenses as crimes against persons. By offense type:
■45.0 percent were intimidation.
■35.3 percent were simple assault.
■19.1 percent were aggravated assault.
■0.4 percent were the violent crimes of murder (8 offenses) and forcible rape (9 offenses).
■0.3 percent involved the offense category other
Since we do not which crimes were committed against specific groups, we can still get an estimate using the figures above as "averages".
An estimated 861 crimes against persons in the gay/transsexual group.
An estimated 474 of those crimes were some form of assault. Murder works out to an estimated 1 out of the 8 reported.
This is of course based only on reported "hate crimes". Like on like crimes and non hate based crimes are not included in these figures.
It should also be noted that hate crimes against this specific segment of the population tend to get greater press coverage than hate crimes against other segments of the population.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/01 06:41:08
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)
"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 06:53:23
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
helgrenze wrote:It should also be noted that hate crimes against this specific segment of the population tend to get greater press coverage than hate crimes against other segments of the population.
Whatever all that meant... do you accept that per capita gay/transgendered people suffer assault more often?
Do you see that that is so much more of a problem than one couple calling their child 'it' for an indefinite period of time, that is almost certainly going to end before the child can understand what's happening.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/01 06:54:27
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 09:59:00
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Manchester UK
|
Ketara wrote:Albatross wrote:
Well, I am a 'man' in a the (largely) traditional sense. Why should I be forced to adopt a gender-neutral position just to satisfy an insignificant minority?
Nobody said you had to. You can take whatever position you wish. However, if you would take a male less seriously, pr treat him differently because they chose to say, wear a skirt, then I would say that you'd be forcing your viewpoint on them due to their upbringing or choices, which would be unacceptable in what I would consider to be a modern society.
Why should I care what you think? In fact, why should YOU care what I think? The contents of my head are the exclusive property of me, and are, frankly, no-one else's business. I could argue that you are forcing your viewpoint, unasked, on me. Why should I take a man in woman's clothing seriously?
In fact, I pretty much leave those people the feth alone because I have no interest in them.
Why? That sounds a bit strange. You're avoiding people because they don't conform to your particular view of the world?
I find them ever-so-slightly grotesque, and a little bit sad. Just a matter of taste. I don't hate, don't discriminate, don't point, don't laugh. It's their choice, so I leave them to it.
I am not 'neutral' to the concept of 'gender', barely anyone is.
No-one said you were gender neutral. Where did you come up with that?
My point is that we have an innate awareness of sex, and gender is tied to this. True gender neutrality, whether a neutral attitude towards gender, or an assumed gender role which is neutral (i.e. neither male nor female in the traditional sense) is as close to impossible as makes no difference.
In fact, I'd go further than that, and state that I'm of the opinion that Gender Studies and 'queer theory' are a load of subjective bollocks.
I would be interested to hear the detailed research or reading you've done on the topic to such a conclusive verdict. Because as I do actually consider you a relatively intelligent man Albatross, I would hate to think you were biasing such a generalised definitive statement on a few articles in the Daily Mail or somewhere.
Condescension duly noted, but I don't have to prove a single fething thing to you, homey. I will go so far as to state that I spent a large part of last year, and a significant part of this, studying (amongst other things) gender roles in popular culture. That encompassed a lot of these issues, though in truth I shouldn't really have dignified your question with a response at all.
OK, so I'm down with the idea that 'gender' roles are largely performative/demonstrative, and that this leads to outcomes whereby individuals take on a gender identity different to their biological sex - it doesn't change the uncomfortable fact that it is, fundamentally, all in the mind. Dress it up however you like, but there it is.
It's not necessarily a case of 'taking on' a gender-some people genuinely do not fit into the mould society tries to pour them into.
Gender is performative, whether you perform the gender your biology assigns to you or not. So yes, you do 'take on' a gender - the reasons for this are not yet completely understood, but are are definitely legion.
I can be traced back to Irish hill-farmers. I, however also live in a major metropolitan area of England, and am a music student. Does that which came before me influence me? Undoubtedly.
However, I am not exactly the same, in fact I am massively different, almost unrecognisable.
However, this is a terrible analogy. Why? Because sexism is alive and kicking across the world today, as a result of gender. You've taken no chronology into account with that analogy, and attempted to pretend that all sexism as a result of gender is in some distant unfathomable past. Its not. It's alive and kicking, as we speak.
So you would argue that sexism in modern advanced societies is the same as sexism in the Middle Ages, for example? Or are you arguing that gender creates oppression, therefore we should oppress people into annihilating their gender, in order to satisfy a minority of idealogues? Either way, it's all nonsense, because modern societies have evolved ways to deal with the concept of gender fairly, by developing equality between the sexes. This is a process, and as my analogy suggests, sexism today is more or less unrecognisable to sexism even as recently as 100 years ago.
sebster wrote:Except there are scientific studies showing brain pattern differences between straight people and people who want to change gender.
...Except that's not strictly true is it? As far as I'm aware, the studies done on the brains of transgender individuals relate to the biological make-up of the brain (as opposed to electrical signals), are few in number, and are not conclusive. That said, if you can provide sources, I would gladly look at them with great interest. Again, as far as I'm aware, what you're talking about relates to homosexual brain activity. If I'm incorrect, I'll admit it, of course. I wonder if you will...
It may be an idea to be less arrogant when making definitive statements with a derisory wave of the hand. It's probably your worst habit, truth be told.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/07/01 10:03:14
Cheesecat wrote:
I almost always agree with Albatross, I can't see why anyone wouldn't.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 12:04:20
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
Albatross wrote:
Why should I care what you think? In fact, why should YOU care what I think? The contents of my head are the exclusive property of me, and are, frankly, no-one else's business. I could argue that you are forcing your viewpoint, unasked, on me. Why should I take a man in woman's clothing seriously?
You can think what you like. However, the minute you start treating people differently on the basis of gender, race, sex, dress style, etc however, it turns into discrimination. Whether discrimination is good or not can be another topic altogether, but I think we can agree that in modern British society, its seen as undesirable.
The key there is that what is in your head is sacrosanct. Just don't force it on others by treating them differently/badly as a result of those thoughts.
It's true you could argue that telling you not infringe upon others with your views infringes upon your views (especially if your view consists of you being allowed to infringe upon others). However, I could use the same argument to justify a Mad Mullah standing outside your house shouting at you through a megaphone all day.
I find them ever-so-slightly grotesque, and a little bit sad. Just a matter of taste. I don't hate, don't discriminate, don't point, don't laugh. It's their choice, so I leave them to it.
Sooo......to take the example of my gender neutral friend, because she doesn't always want to wear dresses, because she's quite happy to chug pints with the rest of the lads, doesn't want to wear makeup, and so on, you'd call her grotesque and sad?
Interesting.
My point is that we have an innate awareness of sex, and gender is tied to this.
Sure. Without different sexes, the concept of gender would never have come into existence. However, whether you think a girl should play with dolls or meccano as a kid has nothing to do with sex. Gender encompasses far more social constructs than you seem to allow for.
True gender neutrality, whether a neutral attitude towards gender, or an assumed gender role which is neutral (i.e. neither male nor female in the traditional sense) is as close to impossible as makes no difference.
......its statements like this that genuinely make me think you are mistaking sex and gender, and confusing the two concepts.
Condescension duly noted, but I don't have to prove a single fething thing to you, homey. I will go so far as to state that I spent a large part of last year, and a significant part of this, studying (amongst other things) gender roles in popular culture. That encompassed a lot of these issues, though in truth I shouldn't really have dignified your question with a response at all.
It wasn't intended as condescenscion. Honestly. No need to take the defensive. Tone can sometimes be hard to read on the internet, and re-reading, I can see why you might have thought my comment was meant to be sarcastic. It wasn't.
I honestly do consider you an intelligent man. However, I also know that what a lot of intelligent people 'know' (myself included), comes out of distorted media pieces, which may or may not help or hinder understanding.
Gender is performative, whether you perform the gender your biology assigns to you or not. So yes, you do 'take on' a gender - the reasons for this are not yet completely understood, but are are definitely legion.
I disagree that biology necessarily inspires gender and all its connotations in a neutral environment at all. It is possible to see why gender evolved the way it did, with men being dominant due to superior physical strength, for example.
Yet 'gender' as in what it means be a 'man' as opposed to a 'male' is down to social context and pressures. Biology does not assign gender. Biology does not say girls should wear skirts. Biology does not say men are expected to be less emotional than men. Biology does not say men should not wear make-up. Gender dictates many many things about people, and forces them into styles of thinking and levels expectations upon them based on their sex. And none of those styles of thinking or levels of expectation are biologically encoded. They are social constructs, pure and simple.
So you would argue that sexism in modern advanced societies is the same as sexism in the Middle Ages, for example?
I would argue that sexism deriving from gender is sexism deriving from gender, whether now, in the middle ages, or two thousand years in the future on the Planet Zog. Sexism then is as sexism now, as recognised by the fact it is the same word being used. The specifics may change, but the concept remains the same. Otherwise you're essentially saying that the Crimean War and WW1 were completely different things. On one hand, you'd be right, they took place in geogrpahically different locations, with different people at a different time.
However, the phenomenon known as 'war' occurred both times. This is due to the many similarities between the events in the broader sense, that is to say, organised nation states fighting with armies. In such a way, whilst sexism derived from gender 500 years ago may be different to sexism derived from gender today in the case of specifics, at the end of the day, they both still sexism derived from gender. In the same way both the Crimean War and WW1 are both wars.
Or are you arguing that gender creates oppression, therefore we should oppress people into annihilating their gender, in order to satisfy a minority of idealogues?
Gender does create oppression. It forces considerable expectations upon you, and makes people discriminate against you or negatively judge you for failing to follow its dictates.
To answer your question with a question, if you tell an oppressor he is not allowed to oppress people, does that make you an oppressor? That' sa a question Liberals have been struggling with for a long time now, there's no steady answer to it.
Either way, it's all nonsense, because modern societies have evolved ways to deal with the concept of gender fairly, by developing equality between the sexes.
True equality between the sexes would involve the ability to switch gender at will, because your sex would have absolutely no bearing on anything.
This is a process, and as my analogy suggests, sexism today is more or less unrecognisable to sexism even as recently as 100 years ago.
It's still sexism though. Sure, society today is more progressive in some aspects, but progression in one aspect does not necessarily mean there is progression in others.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 13:48:09
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Ketara wrote:
You can think what you like. However, the minute you start treating people differently on the basis of gender, race, sex, dress style, etc however, it turns into discrimination. Whether discrimination is good or not can be another topic altogether, but I think we can agree that in modern British society, its seen as undesirable.
I don't know about that. Sexuality, for example, is based on discrimination. You can't be straight while treating men and women the same, or even gay. Probably not bi either, considering differences in gender norms, and biological feedback.
Ketara wrote:
Sooo......to take the example of my gender neutral friend, because she doesn't always want to wear dresses, because she's quite happy to chug pints with the rest of the lads, doesn't want to wear makeup, and so on, you'd call her grotesque and sad?
She isn't gender neutral, she's masculine. You demonstrated this with the comment "the rest of the lads." There's nothing wrong with that of course, but it should be accurately phrased.
Ketara wrote:
Sure. Without different sexes, the concept of gender would never have come into existence. However, whether you think a girl should play with dolls or meccano as a kid has nothing to do with sex. Gender encompasses far more social constructs than you seem to allow for.
/Jane Austen
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 16:40:29
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
dogma wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Sooo......to take the example of my gender neutral friend, because she doesn't always want to wear dresses, because she's quite happy to chug pints with the rest of the lads, doesn't want to wear makeup, and so on, you'd call her grotesque and sad?
She isn't gender neutral, she's masculine. You demonstrated this with the comment "the rest of the lads." There's nothing wrong with that of course, but it should be accurately phrased.
No. I gave some behaviours she has that might be considered not feminine. She has others that would be considered feminine. You're jumping to conclusions based on too little data. She is gender neutral.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/07/01 16:49:58
Subject: The End of Gender
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.
|
Deadshane1 wrote:Let's take something natural, normal, and almost instinctive...
...and make it complicated.
Idiots.
....oh yea, and I'm going to use my son/daughter as an "experiment".
Fabulous, just what the world needed, another screwed up kid.
Rather than teach your child GENDER-BAD, NEUTRAL-GOOD. How bout teaching something useful that wont make your son look like a freak to 99.9% of the planet that you live on.
If you're a boy that wants to paint his toenails...fine.
If you're a girl that wants to do runway for male and female fashion...more power to you.
THATS YOUR CHOICE
Parents making sure that their kids are non-genderised? WTF!? What is wrong with you? Innocent children...getting a screwed beginning in life...b/c their parents have something to prove to the world.
I really agree with everything said here.
Anyone can have sex with whoever consents to it that they want, dress however they want, be a man in a woman's body (and vice versa) and I have absolutely no problem with it.
To me, this is bordering on child abuse. If the child chose (or was born) to be this way I'd have no problem with it, but the parents forcing the issue doesn't seem right to me.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/01 16:53:54
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. |
|
 |
 |
|
|