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.

That is true, and it is why there is the evaluation process. There still are genuine cases.

blaktoof wrote:


I am colorblind.

Although both of those things are "bad", they were not accidents and were basically the "map" or "blueprints" from the DNA and are not in error, nor are they birth defects.

Bad genes getting passed along isn't an error, it is what "nature" intended.

Are you implying that being male or female sexed is a birth defect?

No, the contrary, actually. Having a strongly typed gender seems like the option that couldn't be a birth defect.

It was suggested that a split palate and heart defects are different from "unconventional" gender identities and thus not a defect because the gametes are properly formed in the latter. However, it seems to me as though we're classifying conditions we do consider disorders of a sort, such as colorblindness and sickle cell, which are genetic conditions that occur in people whom have developed properly from birth, differently than gender identity. It seems inconsistent.

I suppose that there's a particular pragmatism at work where the notion that someone of an unconventional gender identity otherwise leads an unaffected and functional life outside of when he or she or it or whatever gendered pronoun is applicable in any selected case is challenged by incumbent social mores, but the same could be said for a colorblind person until you let them dress themselves or play trivial pursuit.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
1. Are you hurting me? No.

2. Are you hurting other people? No.

3. Are you happier doing whatever you're doing? Yes.

Carry on.

feth I love living in a liberal democracy where the rights of individuals to express themselves in nonharmful ways are not impeded by the dogma and tyranny of others.




NEXT!

Exalted!

unrelated but most colorblind people can see every color. Depends on what type of colorblind you are.

for me

If the size of the colored object is close to objects of different colors, then they cannot see it, for example orange writing on a green background, no way I can see that. Take a piece of orange paper and a piece of green paper and put them next to each other and i can tell you just as fast as a non colorblind person which is which.

The tests that have all the colors and the numbers, most of them are designed so there is a certain number you see if you are not colorblind, if you are a certain type(s) of colorblind you see a different number [ironically people who aren't colorblind cannot see this number..] and if you are another rare type of colorblind you don't see any number.

Some people cannot see certain colors at all, but that is a very rare form of color blindness.

blaktoof wrote:
unrelated but most colorblind people can see every color. Depends on what type of colorblind you are.

for me

If the size of the colored object is close to objects of different colors, then they cannot see it, for example orange writing on a green background, no way I can see that. Take a piece of orange paper and a piece of green paper and put them next to each other and i can tell you just as fast as a non colorblind person which is which.

The tests that have all the colors and the numbers, most of them are designed so there is a certain number you see if you are not colorblind, if you are a certain type(s) of colorblind you see a different number [ironically people who aren't colorblind cannot see this number..] and if you are another rare type of colorblind you don't see any number.

Some people cannot see certain colors at all, but that is a very rare form of color blindness.

I had a buddy in the army that was color blind (there are only two MOSs, jobs, in the army that he had available being colorblind. And one was medic ) and basically the way he described it was, where you and I see a pink shirt, or green grass his brain doesn't process/register those as green... He knows, academically that the color pink comes from using a combination of red and white to create a paler color; But when he sees something pink, his brain may tell him it's "blue" or some other color. I guess, really it was that his brain was wired wrong so he saw things in a pink floyd kind of way all the time?

 d-usa wrote:
My point is not really that you have to agree that non-binary gender is a thing. You can have the opinion that it's not real, and you can even explain why you think that. You just have to explain how without violating Rule #1.

Saying that people are rainbow unicorn crazy and need psychological counseling to confirm with what you think is normal is violating Rule #1. It is rude, insulting, and directly affects all the non-binary gender Dakkanauts that are reading this thread. Trying to handwave that away with " that's just my opinion" doesn't work.

Thinking about the impact that our words will have on our fellow Dakkanauts shouldn't be that complicated.

"To me". Did I call out anyone? No. If we do have people on Dakka who think that they aren't male or female, then why would they be offended by a broad statement by a singular member, not representing the official side of Dakka? I don't believe in non-binary gender. Period. Nothing that can be said will change that. If you cannot accept that attitude, then that's your problem, not mine. Same goes vice-versa. I have to live with people not sharing my point of view, they have to live with me not sharing theirs.

blaktoof wrote:
unrelated but most colorblind people can see every color. Depends on what type of colorblind you are.

for me

If the size of the colored object is close to objects of different colors, then they cannot see it, for example orange writing on a green background, no way I can see that. Take a piece of orange paper and a piece of green paper and put them next to each other and i can tell you just as fast as a non colorblind person which is which.

The tests that have all the colors and the numbers, most of them are designed so there is a certain number you see if you are not colorblind, if you are a certain type(s) of colorblind you see a different number [ironically people who aren't colorblind cannot see this number..] and if you are another rare type of colorblind you don't see any number.

Some people cannot see certain colors at all, but that is a very rare form of color blindness.

I know all about it. I have protanomaly, diagnosed toward the end of kindergarten. Turns out I'm the 1% after all.

My mom still gives me crap about the most hideous clothes I used to think were okay looking when I was young.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't believe in non-binary gender. Period.

So how do you classify the human beings that have a combination of both male and female physical attribute? (And I am speaking very specific physical attributes like penis, vaginas, those kind of stuff)
No need to go too deep into specifics, but having at least a rough notion would be nice.

Wow, it's almost like you didn't read anything I actually said, so let's try again.

 Sigvatr wrote:


"To me". Did I call out anyone? No.

Yes. You called out anyone that doesn't fit your idea of what is right by placing them on the same level as people who believe in rainbow unicorns and telling them that they need psychological counseling.

The "to me" doesn't change any of that. Let's take two hypothetical statements:

"d-usa is an donkey-cave": clear Rule #1 violation.
"To me d-usa is an donkey-cave": now suddenly not a Rule #1 violation because it means that I am suddenly not an donkey-cave except "to you"?

There is zero logic in the statement of "I'm not saying that you are all delusional people in need of psychological treatments, I'm just saying that "I" think that you are all delusional people in need of psychological treatment.

If we do have people on Dakka who think that they aren't male or female, then why would they be offended by a broad statement by a singular member, not representing the official side of Dakka?

Because telling them that they are mentally ill and delusional is offensive, even if it is only said by a singular member. Your status as a non-official voice of dakka" is irrelevant to that.

I don't believe in non-binary gender. Period. Nothing that can be said will change that. If you cannot accept that attitude, then that's your problem, not mine. Same goes vice-versa.

It's almost like I addressed that as well...

d-usa wrote:My point is not really that you have to agree that non-binary gender is a thing. You can have the opinion that it's not real, and you can even explain why you think that. You just have to explain how without violating Rule #1.

I have to live with people not sharing my point of view, they have to live with me not sharing theirs.

And nobody has to live with you calling them names, mentally ill, and delusional. Same as you don't have to put up with people calling you bigot.

You can believe it's not a real thing, I can believe it's a real thing. You don't get to call people that you don't agree with delusional and mentally ill, I don't get to call you an donkey-cave or a bigot.

It's simple stuff really.

It is, actually.

And it is already covered here.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

In particular:

Rule 1: Be Polite
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.

If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.

Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.

It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc, are strictly forbidden, including all images that are posted on or uploaded to our site. Remember that we have users of all ages and that Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy.

In this regard, MGS and I are on the same page.

If what you are doing isn't affecting anyone else, then knock yourself out. Enjoy it, be it, go have fun.

If you can't be happy with other people's enjoyment, especially when it isn't even affecting you, then you need mental help.

Find important phone numbers for your mental health here.

Call today.

 daedalus wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


I am colorblind.

Although both of those things are "bad", they were not accidents and were basically the "map" or "blueprints" from the DNA and are not in error, nor are they birth defects.

Bad genes getting passed along isn't an error, it is what "nature" intended.

Are you implying that being male or female sexed is a birth defect?

No, the contrary, actually. Having a strongly typed gender seems like the option that couldn't be a birth defect.

It was suggested that a split palate and heart defects are different from "unconventional" gender identities and thus not a defect because the gametes are properly formed in the latter. However, it seems to me as though we're classifying conditions we do consider disorders of a sort, such as colorblindness and sickle cell, which are genetic conditions that occur in people whom have developed properly from birth, differently than gender identity. It seems inconsistent.

I suppose that there's a particular pragmatism at work where the notion that someone of an unconventional gender identity otherwise leads an unaffected and functional life outside of when he or she or it or whatever gendered pronoun is applicable in any selected case is challenged by incumbent social mores, but the same could be said for a colorblind person until you let them dress themselves or play trivial pursuit.

I understand what you are saying.

I was not really touching on the issue of gender identity in my original post, some fo the things people mentioned such as cleft lip, color blindness, cleft palate, sickle cell, heart defects. Some of these are caused solely by the genetic map that is our DNA, some of them could be caused by other reasons that cause birth defects ranging from poor diets, alcohol use, drug use, smoking, too much caffeine, exposure to chemicals, etc.

None of those however have a emotional, mental, or societal component in the same way gender identity does.

For example, your chromosomal DNA may be XY making you what most people would consider biologicall a man, but perhaps you have other genetic traits that lead your brain to function similarly in a "feminine" way or to produce more estrogen and less testosterone than a normal man, or perhaps there is something nebulous unreleated to those things wherein you feel you are feminine. The issue of gender identity is difficult due to long standing gender roles in various cultures, which in some haven't changed much over time. The identity of being colorblind for example doesn't have these issues, stigmas associated with it.

Perhaps "nature" intended for a person with XY chromosomes to be a man, but for other genetic reasons to have feminine tendencies. Maybe that is natural, but maybe societal pressure to belong to one or the other genders makes someone feel compelled that they are female, or male, instead of male with feminine tendencies. Some people might think its harder to feel like you are feminine in thought and action in a male body, than being feminine and thought in a male body that is basically cut up to made to look feminine because of how other people perceive you, and how you see yourself when you look at yourself.

before I commit the sin of rambling so much my point is lost:

gender identity most likely has components to it that are not completely genetic, or hereditary, and the decision and perception of someones gender carries with it connotations an ideals that are in line with society's constructed views on gender that may not mean much in relation to genetics. In those regards comparing it to something like color blindness or a cleft lip is not very accurate, as many people with color blindness do not feel like they are someone else trapped in a colorblind body, and they aren't worried about how society will view them, etc.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think there is some fairly convincing transsexuals out there, like Bailey Jay for example.

Spoiler:

I am not sure I want to know what you mean by "convincing".

What I mean by convincing is if you didn't know she had a penis you would probably think she is a girl with nothing unusual about her physically.

Well, I think you can achieve that relatively easy even without any kind of surgery. That is what make-up is for.
I mean, cosplayers can do it, so I am not surprised.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, I think you can achieve that relatively easy even without any kind of surgery. That is what make-up is for.
I mean, cosplayers can do it, so I am not surprised.

I was under the impression it was extremely hard.

Well, maybe it is to be convincing when naked, I have no idea. I have barely seen people naked anyway, so...
But clothed and with makeup, depending on your build, it can be not so hard.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, I think you can achieve that relatively easy even without any kind of surgery. That is what make-up is for.
I mean, cosplayers can do it, so I am not surprised.

What is your point?

For many MtF transgendered folks "passing", or to use Cheesecat's terminology, being "convincing", is difficult and often requires hormone treatments and various levels of cosmetic surgery. Some people are blessed with less masculine body frames and hair growth which allow them to pass easier than others, but "relatively easy" as you say I am not sure. Relative to what? Relative to a genetic female getting ready for the day? Probably not. A MtF transgendered woman who isn't using hormones and hasn't had any surgery will likely spend more time and more effort trying to display as female. And remember, passing can at times be a matter of life or death. Violence against trans people remains extremely high.

So, no. In most cases I don't think passing on the level that Bailey Jay does (one of those genetic males who could almost pass as a female even before she had breast augmentation surgery) is relatively easy.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
What is your point?

That I am not surprised some transgender people can be "convincing'. Not that it is easy for all of them, of course.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
What is your point?

That I am not surprised some transgender people can be "convincing'. Not that it is easy for all of them, of course.

Okay. Not really a point, but okay.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't believe in non-binary gender. Period. Nothing that can be said will change that. If you cannot accept that attitude, then that's your problem, not mine. Same goes vice-versa. I have to live with people not sharing my point of view, they have to live with me not sharing theirs.

Plenty of people didn't believe the earth went around the sun, or that diseases weren't caused by something other than by miasma, or that the shape of the skull spoke to the merits of a race. Even long after the mainstream experts on in the science community came to consensus on the facts, still they didn't believe. They were wrong, profoundly and indisputably wrong. There was not a sliver of validity or merit in their ideas, not even a shadow of a half-truth. You are every bit as wrong. Your misplaced pride in your ignorance is more than simple disagreement, it actually has the potential to hurt those affected by these issues. If you're going to demand respect say something respectable first.

I usually try to keep out of the off-topic debates, but I would like to weigh in here. I did my dissertation in gender identity theory, and have received a few awards for my essays in the field.

It is accepted convention, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, to use 'sex' to refer to an individual's biological characteristics, and 'gender' to their social traits. In trans-friendly circles, it is convention to take the individual's gender identification at their word.

This leads to something called the 'three bodies problem':
Individual A - male bodied, male gendered.
Individual B - male bodied, female gendered.
Individual C - female bodied, female gendered.
However, in this argument, all of them share precisely the same social traits - they are all into makeup, wear dresses, enjoy quad biking and the films of Quentin Tarantino etc (what the traits don't matter, just that they are the same.)

So if we take A, B and C at their word, their gender identity doesn't signify anything real about their traits, as they can be attached freely to the male (A) or the female (B, C).

So, instead we could try saying that a person's gender is determined by their sex, as some of the more conservative dakkanauts have suggested. But this doesn't actually work in real life, as we can see that male-sexed individuals exhibit a whole variety of social traits (the existence of transexual individuals should show this plainly).

What we end up with is gender as a concept not really meaning anything concrete about the individual. This applies to binary and non-binary identities alike - if there is nothing about one's social role which can be said to make a man a man (or vice versa) then it makes no sense to say "I am non-binary, whatever this 'man' thing is I am not it".

(As an aside, if anybody can come up with the defining social characteristic of 'man' or 'woman' without reference to biology, I welcome the attempt)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Post Script - this isn't at all an argument against transexual individuals having access to hormones and surgeries; it is still completely possible to have a map of the body in the brain which does not match up the body, but 'map' is what we use the word 'gender' to mean.

Crystal-Maze wrote:


(As an aside, if anybody can come up with the defining social characteristic of 'man' or 'woman' without reference to biology, I welcome the attempt)

Spoiler:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Not really a point, but okay.

Well, at least it is not rude, bigoted, ignorant, intolerant or stupid. At least I hope so. I find comfort in small things.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:


(As an aside, if anybody can come up with the defining social characteristic of 'man' or 'woman' without reference to biology, I welcome the attempt)

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I was asked to do this in a theories course once. Don't try. It hurts

SOCIAL charateristics are subjective, so asking for anything definitave from an area that by definition, wont be definitive, is absurd.

Its like asking for a defining social characteristic of "good tasting food", everyone will have a different, legitimate answer as its subjective in nature.

However, gender is not a social construct, it is a physical reality based on physical things (like genetics ect) so its a farce to disclude the only meaningfull evidence for/against something simply because it does not fit your narritive.


as it is, anyone is welcome to consider whatever they want as part of their "identity" wether that be related to what naughty bits they do/do not have, or if they want to identify as a chair, hey go for it, pursuit of happyness and all that.

however, identity is not a physical construct, and does not take precedence over actual reality.

so while someone can certainly be free to identify as a woman, if they were physically born a man, they dont get to compete in the womans olympics for instance.

How do you all get around the hermaphrodite issue? Just sayin....

This seems like a pure semantical argument over the word 'gender'. Replace 'gender' wih 'gender identiy', and I don't think most people would have such a reaction to it, becasue, after all, who really gives 2 cheerios how someone else feels comfortable dressing and acting if it doesn't harm anyone.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, at least it is not rude, bigoted, ignorant, intolerant or stupid. At least I hope so. I find comfort in small things.

I don't know. You likened MtF trans folks to cosplayers when it came to make up use. I think that is a little rude and stupid considering one group uses make up to blend into society and another group uses make up to pretend they are pop culture characters. That may not have been your intention but that is how your comment read to me.

 jasper76 wrote:
How do you all get around the hermaphrodite issue? Just sayin....

I ont see why that is an issue... they are hermaphrodites, we have a term for that psyical reality when someone has both.

there is no "social definition" of hermaphrodite roles, and any given are inherently flawed for the reasons I mentioned,

there is however, a physical definition that is universal.


gender =/= gender identity they are not equivelent.


the words that would actually be more interchangable would be identity = gender identy (or GI is part of an overal identity)

basically, no one gives two cheerios over what you identify as,

people only care once that person starts to assert that their "identity" overides psyical realities.

IE when a man, who identifies as something not a man, wants to compete with women, who identify as woman, in the olympics and claim its not a psycical advantage.

Sigvatr, Iron Captain:
Even biological gender is not "binary". You can have people who are XX, people who are XY. That's the "norm" in the vast majority of cases. But it is a fact that you can also have people who are XXX, XXY, XYY and so on. Rare cases, often not "traditional" transexuals, more likely suffering from a variety of genetic complaints due to the extra chromosomes interfering with gene expression.

And I mean, that's just looking at it from a pure chromosome level, which is awfully simplistic. Each of those sex chromosomes is absolutely chock full of genes that are linked to gender (and in the case of the X chromosome, numerous other things). Different people have different alleles of these genes which express different proteins, with different results. Some might express different levels of different proteins at various developmental stages, non-functional proteins, or no protein at all, blah blah blah you get the picture- it's incredibly complicated.

It is not possible to say in any kind of definitive way whether transgendered people's feeling of being transgendered is "natural" (I mean, if we're taking natural here to mean "The result of their genes") or "psychological". It's not even helpful to think in those terms, but I am trying to put this across in a way that you might feel is conclusive. The brain and the influence of genetics on things like personality traits is extremely poorly understood. These things are likely to be heavily polygenic and to throw up surprising exceptions and weirdness that is not covered in any genetics course covered by non specialists.

And that's not even going near the interaction of genes and environment, which is another huge kettle of fish entirely.

To put it bluntly, there is plenty of room in biology for more than 2 "genders", and plenty of room for gender confusion to be "natural" (as useless as that term is).

 easysauce wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:


(As an aside, if anybody can come up with the defining social characteristic of 'man' or 'woman' without reference to biology, I welcome the attempt)

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I was asked to do this in a theories course once. Don't try. It hurts

SOCIAL charateristics are subjective, so asking for anything definitave from an area that by definition, wont be definitive, is absurd.

Its like asking for a defining social characteristic of "good tasting food", everyone will have a different, legitimate answer as its subjective in nature.

However, gender is not a social construct, it is a physical reality based on physical things (like genetics ect) so its a farce to disclude the only meaningfull evidence for/against something simply because it does not fit your narritive.


as it is, anyone is welcome to consider whatever they want as part of their "identity" wether that be related to what naughty bits they do/do not have, or if they want to identify as a chair, hey go for it, pursuit of happyness and all that.

however, identity is not a physical construct, and does not take precedence over actual reality.

so while someone can certainly be free to identify as a woman, if they were physically born a man, they dont get to compete in the womans olympics for instance.

'Gender' as the term is used today i.e. " the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)." defined by a cursory google, is a social construct. Its used to contrast the term 'sex', being the biological characteristics. You can use the term 'gender' to mean 'sex' if you wish, as we did in the 1950s before the work of Money, Hampson and Hampson, but you will fail to communicate clearly with people who are versed in the subject.

Saying this, I am interested by the fact that you term biology the the "only meaningfull evidence" on the subject. I agree that there is no meaningful social characteristic that makes a man a man, even within a given culture like America. As soon as one is suggested, one can point immediately to another individual who defies the definition. So it is only sex (rather than 'gender' as we now use the term) that has any concrete meaning. Even then, sex is much less clearly defined than we give it credit for.

 easysauce wrote:
IE when a man, who identifies as something not a man, wants to compete with women, who identify as woman, in the olympics and claim its not a psycical advantage.

Gotcha....I couldn't give 2 cheerios about the Olympics, or whether men do or don't compete against women in leisure activities, so I guess I don't have an opinion on how this works out in sports. Male and Female-designated facilities I suppose are the only area where I see this having much meaning.