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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/01 07:24:28
To quote a fictional character... "Let's make this fun!"
Tactical_Spam wrote: There was a story in the SM omnibus where a single kroot killed 2-3 marines then ate their gene seed and became a Kroot-startes.
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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?
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
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.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/01 16:22:55
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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...
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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?
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/01 22:29:09
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/01 21:50:43
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/01 22:41:41
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
~4100
~1660
