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.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I don't know about the best answer, but it's how the people around me got their marriages to last for 40 years.

But how can you say that without identical copies of them, except for reversed gender roles, to act as a control group? Maybe they would have lasted 40 years with the woman in a high-paying career and the man taking care of everything else.

Without sounding rude, but in your "goodbye" post you mention the end of a 5 year relationship. In my experience the people with your opinion usually have torn homes (like illegitimate one parent families) or multiple divorces.

Completely wrong. I'd appreciate it if you don't try to go down this path again.

How did this thread devolve to "fat people don't turn me on"?

 d-usa wrote:
How did this thread devolve to "fat people don't turn me on"?

Entropy principle ?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Thats sounds pretty confusing...

Only if you want it to be. If you can handle playing 40k you can understand gender vs. sex.

They aren't the same thing. Not comparing apples to apples. Abstract thinking is not my strong suit. I am incredibly black and white. To me, sex and gender are the same thing and to call them something else is well... Heresy.

You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.

What do you mean nurse is enfermera when talking about a woman and enfermero when talking about a man?! That's crazy!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.

Or even English. Let's set aside gender identity issues for a moment and consider a common concept in English: being a "real man". The idea of course is that a man has courage/honor/leadership/whatever, and a person who lacks those virtues doesn't deserve to call themselves a man. It isn't sufficient to have male genes or male reproductive organs, and you'd be laughed at if your response to being called un-manly and weak was to unzip your pants and show that you are male. So there's very clearly a difference between physical sex and gender.

And I'm sure that Tactical_Spam knows this, and "it's too complicated" actually means "I don't agree with people who say that their gender identity doesn't match what's in their pants".

I'd think English would actually make it a lot easier to cope with this issue since English lacks grammatical gender. We're not French or Spanish, where nouns and verbs(? I don't know spanish XD) change when talking about the male or the female. Actually you'd think America would have a leg up on this, language being a core cultural mechanism and ours only having he, she, him, and her as gender identifiers.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I don't know about the best answer, but it's how the people around me got their marriages to last for 40 years.

But how can you say that without identical copies of them, except for reversed gender roles, to act as a control group? Maybe they would have lasted 40 years with the woman in a high-paying career and the man taking care of everything else.

Without sounding rude, but in your "goodbye" post you mention the end of a 5 year relationship. In my experience the people with your opinion usually have torn homes (like illegitimate one parent families) or multiple divorces.

Completely wrong. I'd appreciate it if you don't try to go down this path again.

I have only got one life, may as well take the best route based on my limited experience. Why try live based on this maybe that doesn't seem to exist anywhere? At least not around here.

Fair enough, but if you find something sensitive how about not sharing it on the internet, means nobody will mention it and there for annoy you.

More like a car is feminine in French, and neuter in German. A boat is masculine in French and neuter in German. A girl also is neuter in German.

In English, we commonly speak of boats as feminine, although English actually doesn't have genders.

Japanese also doesn't have genders, but the way that men and women speak is rather different, different pronouns and verb declensions are used.

Quite obviously these are examples of language as a social construct.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Fair enough, but if you find something sensitive how about not sharing it on the internet, means nobody will mention it and there for annoy you.

Mentioning something once does not give you indefinite permission to play amateur psychologist in completely unrelated threads. I'm honestly amazed that I have to explain this to you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Fair enough, but if you find something sensitive how about not sharing it on the internet, means nobody will mention it and there for annoy you.

Mentioning something once does not give you indefinite permission to play amateur psychologist in completely unrelated threads. I'm honestly amazed that I have to explain this to you.

Wait, mention something publicly and expect nobody to mention it? Whatever logic that involves I said I would leave it. And it's not psychology but simply, why take your advice when you have mentioned you cannot keep a 5 year relationship? That's all. The point was it's easy for people to talk it all up, but actually making something work is another thing.

Anyway as I said, fair enough. I will leave it, but don't yell out something then get upset when it's mentioned.

Of course, the idea of a long marriage being 'good' is a relatively modern western social construct.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Of course, the idea of a long marriage being 'good' is a relatively modern western social construct.

I know, hence why it is in the topic. The discussion was the best way to go about it, if going about it is even the best way at all. I wouldn't call it western but it's certainly a cultural thig.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Of course, the idea of a long marriage being 'good' is a relatively modern western social construct.

True. I believe in monogamy and long-term relationships, but not in marriage. It seems to bring boredom more often than not.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?

Because that's not a realistic goal in the foreseeable future. A much more achievable goal is to acknowledge that binary gender isn't as neat as people often think it is. And the common saying is "don't let perfect be the enemy of good".

I thought so, so really this is just to "undermine" the idea of gender.

I don't think everyone has the memo though... otherwise more people would claim to be gender-less rather than simply choosing one of the genders society has put in place. Seems like these people are very constraned by gender and firmly believe they can be X gender rather than trying to free themselves of gender all together.

I've encountered plenty of people who identify as 'agender' i.e. genderless.

Clearly alot of people on both sides believe that gender exists and is actually quite important; not all of the people on the trans side are trying to free themselves of gender, they're just after finding the right one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Fair enough, but if you find something sensitive how about not sharing it on the internet, means nobody will mention it and there for annoy you.

Mentioning something once does not give you indefinite permission to play amateur psychologist in completely unrelated threads. I'm honestly amazed that I have to explain this to you.

Wait, mention something publicly and expect nobody to mention it? Whatever logic that involves I said I would leave it. And it's not psychology but simply, why take your advice when you have mentioned you cannot keep a 5 year relationship? That's all. The point was it's easy for people to talk it all up, but actually making something work is another thing.

Anyway as I said, fair enough. I will leave it, but don't yell out something then get upset when it's mentioned.

There's a difference between bringing up a fact that somebody mentioned before, and taking a stab at how happy their family was as they were growing up. That's intensely rude.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Fair enough, but if you find something sensitive how about not sharing it on the internet, means nobody will mention it and there for annoy you.

Mentioning something once does not give you indefinite permission to play amateur psychologist in completely unrelated threads. I'm honestly amazed that I have to explain this to you.

Wait, mention something publicly and expect nobody to mention it? Whatever logic that involves I said I would leave it. And it's not psychology but simply, why take your advice when you have mentioned you cannot keep a 5 year relationship? That's all. The point was it's easy for people to talk it all up, but actually making something work is another thing.

Anyway as I said, fair enough. I will leave it, but don't yell out something then get upset when it's mentioned.

Well, if they mention it then commenting on it when it was mentioned might be vaguely acceptable, but even then, using it to postulate about their upbringing and going "well, X, so you must have come from a broken home" is just poor form.

Also, how does not being able to keep a relationship have anything to do with one's knowledge of gender/sex? I mean, if this thread was regarding dating advice, then yeah, maybe; but at the moment it looks like you're just going "well, you're not in a relationship so your opinion doesn't matter" which is just a really gakky thing to do.

 Goliath wrote:

Also, how does not being able to keep a relationship have anything to do with one's knowledge of gender/sex? I mean, if this thread was regarding dating advice, then yeah, maybe; but at the moment it looks like you're just going "well, you're not in a relationship so your opinion doesn't matter" which is just a really gakky thing to do.

Seconded.

I don't usually post one liners like that, but there are certain types of behaviour I wouldn't like to see promoted on Dakka, and taking jabs at someone's relationships or lack thereof in a separate thread is not cool.

 Peregrine wrote:


I genuinely don't understand this attitude. I can understand caring a lot about who a person has had sex with in the past for religious reasons (even if I disagree with that religion), but if "because god said so" isn't a reason then why does it matter so much? What's the difference between someone with a single previous partner and someone with a dozen, assuming the disease tests are all clear?

Well I can say this for sure: The one with a dozen is far more likely to know what the hell she's doing, and have a clear understanding of her own desires as well.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Of course, the idea of a long marriage being 'good' is a relatively modern western social construct.

Given rising divorce rates, as well as the later age at which people marry (and by extension the larger number of relationships people go through before reaching marriage) arguably Monogamy is quickly ceasing to be the standard model of relationships in Western Culture. Rather it is being supplanted by Serial Monogamy. I find it odd, as culturally we still espouse and glorify 'true love' as something that hits hard fast and never dies. It's a concept that is ever present in much of our art and entertainment media (except for comic books ) but it seems to have little real world basis.

It's a weird picture, where we culturally continue to espouse a construct that has very rapidly lost relevance to reality.

 Chongara wrote:


Well I can say this for sure: The one with a dozen is far more likely to know what the hell she's doing, and have a clear understanding of her own desires as well.

It's probably because I've been on a Red vs Blue bended lately but this line of discussion immediately reminded me of this;

 Ashiraya wrote:


"Genderfluid"

Fortunately, most people are polite, compassionate and generally nice enough to actually refer to people as the correct gender.

This. It's a non-issue most of the time. I can guarantee you that if asked by your co-worker to refer to him as a she, most people will just do it. That's how we work. Most people want to be positively recognized by others and if referring to someone as the opposite gender will do so, people will do it. I come from a more global, rational perspective. Bird's eye, if ya want to. And opposed to actual reality and how the world works, there's media and terrible, terrible loudmouths ruining the fun for everyone.

An important point though: gender dysphoria does not have a proven reason so far. There are studies that /suggest/ reasons, but it has not been proven yet. In science, suggestion isn't proof.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.

Or even English. Let's set aside gender identity issues for a moment and consider a common concept in English: being a "real man". The idea of course is that a man has courage/honor/leadership/whatever, and a person who lacks those virtues doesn't deserve to call themselves a man. It isn't sufficient to have male genes or male reproductive organs, and you'd be laughed at if your response to being called un-manly and weak was to unzip your pants and show that you are male. So there's very clearly a difference between physical sex and gender.

And I'm sure that Tactical_Spam knows this, and "it's too complicated" actually means "I don't agree with people who say that their gender identity doesn't match what's in their pants".

So thats your definition of a man?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


"Genderfluid"

Fortunately, most people are polite, compassionate and generally nice enough to actually refer to people as the correct gender.

This. It's a non-issue most of the time. I can guarantee you that if asked by your co-worker to refer to him as a she, most people will just do it. That's how we work. Most people want to be positively recognized by others and if referring to someone as the opposite gender will do so, people will do it. I come from a more global, rational perspective. Bird's eye, if ya want to. And opposed to actual reality and how the world works, there's media and terrible, terrible loudmouths ruining the fun for everyone.

An important point though: gender dysphoria does not have a proven reason so far. There are studies that /suggest/ reasons, but it has not been proven yet. In science, suggestion isn't proof.

Its quite difficult to tell what you're trying to say here.

Usually, when trying not to be viewed as one of the above-mentioned people ruining the fun for everyone, one would say 'correct gender' rather than 'opposite gender'. Makes you sound less like you know someone's gender better than they do.

What does your global, rational perspective suggest is happening?
Who are you more rational than?
What is the media doing to ruin things, in what context?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.

Or even English. Let's set aside gender identity issues for a moment and consider a common concept in English: being a "real man". The idea of course is that a man has courage/honor/leadership/whatever, and a person who lacks those virtues doesn't deserve to call themselves a man. It isn't sufficient to have male genes or male reproductive organs, and you'd be laughed at if your response to being called un-manly and weak was to unzip your pants and show that you are male. So there's very clearly a difference between physical sex and gender.

And I'm sure that Tactical_Spam knows this, and "it's too complicated" actually means "I don't agree with people who say that their gender identity doesn't match what's in their pants".

So thats your definition of a man?

It's quite obviously not.

If I say "there is an idea in some countries that women are inferior" it doesn't mean that I believe they are inferior. It means that I'm discussing those people that do believe it, and that I'm discussing the actual belief.

Peregrine was obviously discussing the idea, not espousing it. That you don't get that is worrying.

I'm old, like I remember the last time Yosemite exploded kind of old.

Social constructs change over time. That is how it is. Today's screaming lefties become tomorrow's conservatives as society continues to change and they don't. Alternatively socieites may become MORE conservative. Go with the flow or fight it, it doesn't matter in 50 years.

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You are going to have a lot of difficulty learning foreign langauges.

Or even English. Let's set aside gender identity issues for a moment and consider a common concept in English: being a "real man". The idea of course is that a man has courage/honor/leadership/whatever, and a person who lacks those virtues doesn't deserve to call themselves a man. It isn't sufficient to have male genes or male reproductive organs, and you'd be laughed at if your response to being called un-manly and weak was to unzip your pants and show that you are male. So there's very clearly a difference between physical sex and gender.

And I'm sure that Tactical_Spam knows this, and "it's too complicated" actually means "I don't agree with people who say that their gender identity doesn't match what's in their pants".

So thats your definition of a man?

It's quite obviously not.

If I say "there is an idea in some countries that women are inferior" it doesn't mean that I believe they are inferior. It means that I'm discussing those people that do believe it, and that I'm discussing the actual belief.

Peregrine was obviously discussing the idea, not espousing it. That you don't get that is worrying.

I don't really understand why it requires someone to show their junk to be a man. No wonder we have issues

 Frazzled wrote:
Social constructs change over time. That is how it is. Today's screaming lefties become tomorrow's conservatives as society continues to change and they don't. Go with the flow or fight it, it doesn't matter in 50 years.

Guess we could apply some Max Planck; A new <Social Construct> does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Thats way more accurate than you think.

As a Historiographer, I know completely true EDIT: The Inverse is also a useful way of explaining why disproven/bad ideas continue to persist long after they've been disproven.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm old, like I remember the last time Yosemite exploded kind of old.

Social constructs change over time. That is how it is. Today's screaming lefties become tomorrow's conservatives as society continues to change and they don't. Alternatively socieites may become MORE conservative. Go with the flow or fight it, it doesn't matter in 50 years.

Nail on the head right there.

Just look at the Germaine Greer debacle going on in my country at the moment - 40 years ago she was considered a firebrand, radical progressive. She's still saying the same things she always did, but now she looks stuck-in-the-mud and surpassed by the direction society is headed in.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
More like a car is feminine in French, and neuter in German. A boat is masculine in French and neuter in German. A girl also is neuter in German.

In English, we commonly speak of boats as feminine, although English actually doesn't have genders.

Japanese also doesn't have genders, but the way that men and women speak is rather different, different pronouns and verb declensions are used.

Quite obviously these are examples of language as a social construct.

At least with German, I'm not really familiar with other languages that do it, the "gender" of a noun has little to nothing to do with the actual item, but rather simply how it rolls off the tongue when spoken.



And for a number of subjects, I agree with Frazz and LoH. There are a number of social constructs that I think have changed, especially over the last 50 years that were not done so on purpose.... Remember way back in the day that a husband and wife would sleep on two separate bed unless they were about to bump uglies? It was considered a social faux pas for a family who could afford it to sleep in the same bed. Now, it is a sure sign of a troubled relationship if the partners get their shut-eye in separate spots. IMO, I don't think people in society called a meeting at local Elks Lodge number 247 to vote on the issue of whether a married couple sleeping in the same bed or not was none of your business.... It just sorta spawned on a certain generation that, hey, buying two beds simply because someone else says *I* can't cuddle with my partner is a dumb idea. So they stopped buying separate beds.