For the record you started with being condescending I simply followed suit.
Fair.
I appreciate nuance isn’t a thing on a forum. You think I was being serious with this comment, I wasn’t.
This I don't get. You've stated the same thing more than once on this thread, that you think people who have a preferred version of their names are up themselves and you're deliberately going to do the opposite to wind them up. How is that 'nuance', how else are we supposed to interpret that? Is it me, I'm sorry if so but have I missed something blindingly obvious here?
No problem, I was just joking. Appreciate it might have fallen flat. I’ll admit to finding it weird when Geoffrey gets upset by being called Geoff for example. I’ll also occasionally refer to them as Geoff because I’m used to nigh on 99% of people I’ve ever met either preferring the short version or just (whispers it) not caring either way. It does tend to be very uptight people in my experience who insist on Geoffrey.
Anyway, have a good day and I’ll step away now and think twice before posting tongue in check comments 👍🏼
Geoffrey Vader?
😂
I'd just like to add my thanks to many of the contributors of this thread, again especially to Boriselbrus for widening my understanding of this.
The wife and I were discussing this subject the other day as we've friends who's daughter has just come out as non-binary and I was trying to understand, but Boriselbrus's first post kind of made everything click into place.
As for the not caring part, I totally get what funkmatsterp & 5plusn8 are saying, I'm not sure why Cougar doesn't? I think it is a case of two meanings for the same statement maybe?
A question Cougar, do you care that I'm a white middle aged male?
Yeah, OK, now I'm with you. I suffer the same problem, I always assume people know when I'm kidding.
With names, oddly I've found the opposite. Most people prefer the full version over the shortened. Though that might just be confirmation bias on my part, I've not stopped and counted.
You can find out a persons sex from their DNA
Not exactly true. There is more to it than just having a Y chromosome.
Re clothing, I wish there were no such thing as gendered clothing. I would not wear women's clothes because most absolutely would not fit my body, although they do many men. But apart from skirts and dresses, everything else is available cut for a range of body types, boobs/hips or not, isn't it? It's just skirts, dresses and certain shoes that are reserved for women. How ridiculous is that? You can all wear the same stuff except these things, they're not for you. Unless you're Scottish maybe.
You do have a bit of a fixation on dresses as some sort of marker for non-binary.
I guess because the idea of wearing dresses is just some reinforcement of the binary classification?
It's not like there is anything intrinsically masculine or feminine about skirts or dresses, its just a recent Western construct.
If this whole gender identify was dealt with the same way as Kinsey assigned sexuality I think almost everyone would be in the 2-9 range and perhaps there would be a bit of a bi-modal aspect.
What I find a bit bizarre is just how far "society" clings to these stereotypes...
This is a bit tongue in cheek but really to illustrate what I mean.
If we take one of the most equal over the longest period societies (by a few measures from land ownership, equal votes, wearing trousers and killing people) in Sweden then one hot summer a few years ago some of the "male" ticket collectors/conductors started wearing skirts during a hot summer... as the dress code didn't let them wear shorts.
That bit isn't really amazing... what amazes me is the railway company gave in to some (perceived) public pressure and let them wear shorts... somehow it seems (at least to me) "The public" didn't feel comfortable with/approve of a big bearded bloke wearing a skirt when giving you a ticket.
[I'm sure perhaps the railway company just had a think and thought it was stupid making "men" wear long trousers... but it's just an example]
The whole idea of a binary split to me is just stupid... as is any sort of requirement that these get split into something that goes back to chromosomes.
Not everyone is empathetic though and that doesn’t make them a bad person. Empathy almost seems to be a STW must have for any debate. Epic levels of empathy 😀
Perhaps ironic ... isn't empathy considered a female trait ???
5plusn8
I am sure that most pro trans people do know and realise the difference between sex and gender but there could be plenty who don’t. I think I only consider that its ‘anti’ trans types who can’t tell the difference, so thank for pointing that out, I’ll remember that in future.
I think you missed the entire point... gender is simply a construct.
I don't see making new ones is productive because it doesn't matter how many there are there will never be enough and people will be pigeon holed into expectation of some social norm.
I think you missed the entire point… gender is simply a construct.
Yeah I don't think you've read any of my posts as I've clearly said that umpteen times.
Gender is still a word, with a meaning, even if it is a construct, we still needs to know the diff between sex and gender otherwise every time we comes across a non binary person our science head will say - but you can't change sex. If we know the diff, then we will realise that you can be non gender binary because it doesn't have an immutable physical characteristic.
Why do we even need gender at all?
Why do we even need gender at all?
Indeed, soon we won't I think.
(But then people will still be defined by sex, and some people won't like that)
Why do we even need gender at all?
Because otherwise people will insist on strict characterisation based purely on sex, which simply does not work for a minority of people.
Well this neatly comes back to strawman allegations about non-binary people wanting the “erasure of gender”… which simply isn’t the case. It is the anti-trans people that want people to stay in boxes defined at birth, rather than have a gender that might not match that once they are old enough to be self aware.
Well this neatly comes back to strawman allocations that non-binary people want to “destroy gender”…
I said they want to destroy sex, which you have acknowledged on previous pages, now you are trolling.
The word woman has been erase from many legal and organisational texts.
It is the anti-trans people that want people to stay in boxes defined at birth, rather than have a gender that might not match that once they are old enough to be self aware.
This is bordering on straightphobe, I thought the whole point was freedom of expression? Humans are frequently conformist learning machines, we follow others directions, binary gender based on sex is the norm, there is nothing objectionable to conforming to that.
You said…
The problem is that the erasure of gender is also leading to the erasure of women as a protected sexual characteristic….
The first isn’t happening. The second is a very difficult area that needs carefully addressing.
This is bordering on straightphobe
Ah. Well, enjoy your games.
binary gender based on sex is the norm, there is nothing objectionable to conforming to that
Of course not. Wanting everyone else to do the same is where it gets problematic.
The first isn’t happening.
Yes it is, gender is being erased and I personally support it. That does not mean there are not associated problems to solve. The second, the erasure of sex specifically with females, I agree, needs to be carefully addressed, because it should not happen.
Statistically men are arseholes to women, they need protection and equalising.
Of course not. Wanting everyone else to do the same is where it gets problematic.
100% agree.
kelvin
Because otherwise people will insist on strict characterisation based purely on sex, which simply does not work for a minority of people.
I don't think that is true... (the minority bit)
Well this neatly comes back to strawman allocations that non-binary people want to “destroy gender”… which simply isn’t the case. It is the anti-trans people that want people to stay in boxes defined at birth, rather than have a gender that might not match that once they are old enough to be self aware.
Again I strongly disagree.
I don't see why at 53 I would have to identify as non-binary just because I don't like many things society expects of me and like some things they expect me not to like.
Not that it's an issue in itself except by identifying as non binary I simply get a new set of expectations...
I would have to identify as non-binary
You will be pleased to hear that you don’t have to do any such thing.
I suppose, like a lot of things, gender definitions are from a different time and as a society we need to make a concerted effort to widen the definitions and possibly include more without getting carried away and ending up with 50. Either that or find a way to replace or completely do away with the idea.
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone that completely falls in to your stereotypical gender as described when I was a kid. Basically your completely manly man archetype and the girly, girl for want of better terms. People tend to sit somewhere along the scale. I do find it sad if there are people out there that feel pressure or are forced by others to conform to them. I think the progression made in the last few years in knocking down the man/woman stereotypes has been great. We have a hell of a long way to go to level the playing field though and mistakes are made along the journey.
On a side note I look good in a dress. I once wore one of Mrs F’s to make her laugh, walked passed a full length mirror and was like “Damn, you look fine” really comfy too! I’m fat now though so wouldn’t be able to pull it off.
She is mentally unstable and its a good PR stunt.
Why do we even need gender at all?
Because most men are sexually attracted to women and vice versa ?
Can I still call the wife the wife?
I often use the phrases 'the Mrs' or 'the other half', mainly because we're not married and I hate the term 'partner', and when I say that at work I can almost feel the disdain of my young London based colleagues who think I'm a northern neanderthal mysoginist. Interestingly though surely 'the wife' is better than 'my wife' because it removes the implication of posession?
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone that completely falls in to your stereotypical gender as described when I was a kid.
This. What I don't really understand is this need for some to identify with or label themselves as one, the other or none when none of these terms are entirely accurate. Or are we heading towards some describing themselves as non-tertiary? Do we need new pronouns for more labels?
If we lived in this wonderful world where people aren't referred to as him/her on a daily basis, a world where labels don't matter... then people wouldn't feel the need to make it clear where the labels that others put on them don't fit.
This is just the "I don't see colour" thing again... it's great if you don't, but that isn't the world that people of colour have to live in. And again, if gender seems irrelevant to you, that is also great, but that's not the world that non-binary people have to live in.
kelvin
If we lived in this wonderful world where people aren’t referred to as him/her on a daily basis, a world where labels don’t matter… then people wouldn’t feel the need to make it clear where the labels that others put on them don’t fit.
This is just the “I don’t see colour” thing again… it’s great if you don’t, but that isn’t the world that people of colour have to live in. And again, if gender seems irrelevant to you, that is also great, but that’s not the world that non-binary people have to live in.
and creating a third, or 23rd or 123rd gender helps because ?
Because most men are sexually attracted to women and vice versa ?
You're mixing up a whole bunch of things there in regards to definitions, and responses of; gender and sexuality.
Perhaps interestingly (or not) I'm reading Trumbach's very interesting book on the gender revolution in 18thC London (and it's effects on masculinity, and heterosexuality) He describes that folk at the time understood that what bits you've got are totally unconnected to what you might want to stick them in or rub them against They have no concept of what we would see as "gender" where it intersects with sexual attraction. They were a really weird bunch of folks though, at the same time both awful and horrific, and hugely enlightened and permissive, no wonder there was such a backlash in the following centuries (that we're still trying to crawl out from underneath)
Because most men are sexually attracted to women and vice versa ?
So what? We already know that many men are attracted to other men as well. So why do they need a label? Just be attracted to a person - it still works either way.
Lots of v interesting discussions and learning points here.
From a professional point of view, it's a real challenge that the medical profession hasn't quite figured out perfectly yet... but it IS important to us (medicine) because certain health conditions will affect different (oh gosh..what do I say..!) erm, sexes (?!), differently...
It would be really important for your GP etc to be aware of certain things, whatever your gender identity:
do you have a prostate
do you have a womb/cervix
do you have ovaries
were you born as a male (as higher risk of cardiovascular disease etc).
I guess our medical questioning will start to ask these as openly and non-expectant as we ask "did your parents have high cholesterol" and "have you ever worked with caged birds" etc etc...
I guess I can't just assume that because someone may appear phenotypically female, they aren't at risk of conditions that affect genotypical males.
Forgive me and my colleagues if we don't quite get this right.
DrP
So what? We already know that many men are attracted to other men as well. So why do they need a label? Just be attracted to a person – it still works either way.
Because its not just about the biological sex. Most men are attracted to the female gender/femininity as well as the female physical form. Hypothetically if the entire population turned into androgynous non binary people what do you think would happen?
Hypothetically if the entire population turned into androgynous non binary people what do you think would happen?
Again, check your understanding...you're mixing stuff up here that doesn't need mixing up. You only need read Boriselbrus' contributions...He identifies as fluid and non binary...he has a wife...
and creating a third, or 23rd or 123rd gender helps because ?
Top google result - https://www.lgbthero.org.uk/being-non-binary - gives the following categories 🙂
- Agender – having no gender or being genderless
- Androgyne – identifying somewhere in between man and woman
- Bigender – having two gender identities, either at the same time or interchangeably
- Demiboy – partially, but not completely, identifying as a man, boy, or masculine person
- Demigender – having partial connection with one gender (male, female, or other)
- Demigirl – partially, but not completely, identifying as a woman, girl, or feminine person
- Enby – a slang term to refer to a non-binary person, not all non-binary people identify with this term
- Genderfluid – moving between two or more gender identities at different times, in different circumstances, etc.
- Genderqueer – a non-normative or queer gender, having no exclusive connection to any gender
- Multigender – having more than one gender
- Neutrois – neutral or null gender, similar to agender
- Non-binary – an umbrella term to describe people whose gender is neither man or woman; can also be used as an individual gender identity for someone who is neither a woman nor a man, but does not identify further
- Pangender- having many or all genders within one’s culture
- Transfeminine or Transfem – a person assigned male at birth (AMAB) who identifies with a feminine gender, but does not necessarily identify as a woman
- Transmasculine or Transmasc – a person assigned female at birth (AFAB) who identifies with a masculine gender, but does not necessarily identify as a man
And the following pronouns in addition to he/her/them:
- Ze/hir
- Xe/xem
- Hy/hym
- Co/cos
I think a crib sheet we can carry with us at all times would be useful so we can avoid causing offence. 🙄
I think a crib sheet we can carry with us at all times would be useful so we can avoid causing offence.
Or polite enquiry and a little effort on our parts to remember for the next time...As opposed to getting out a check-list and a pencil... 😉
Again, check your understanding…you’re mixing stuff up here
I dont think i am mixing anything up. Sexual attraction consists of both physical (sexual) and non physical (gender traits). As i said, MOST men are attracted to the female form and feminine traits. MOST women are attracted to the male form AND male traits.
It is only a belief in the same way that I believe 1+1=2 and the earth revolves around the sun. It is a fact.
Often an issue is that people think they know about something, because they learned about it as school. The above quote contains a good example: "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is a simplistic understanding of what's actually happening and the reality is more complex.
See also: "chromosomes determine sex" and a whole host of other stuff.
Molgrips
So what? We already know that many men are attracted to other men as well. So why do they need a label? Just be attracted to a person – it still works either way.
I think it goes past that ... just because someone is attracted to members of the same or opposite sex shouldn't imply or set expectations that they like or dislike totally unconnected things...
(and the same for because of the sex anyone is born with)
Sexual attraction consists of both physical (sexual) and non physical (gender traits).
Sure the only difference here is that from time to time, gender fluid people may have both, or one going on in their heads, or perhaps none. It doesn't stop them having babies. Gay men and women still have children, as do people who's gender is not as firmly fixed as yours perhaps is. So in response to your query what would happen is everyone was gender fluid, The answer to that is; nothing really. As I pointed out earlier in the 18thC men and women had no concept of gender when it came to sexual attraction. And yet; life carried on.
You’re mixing up a whole bunch of things there in regards to definitions, and responses of; gender and sexuality.
Sorry, i missed this post.
I am responding to the thread going in the direction of "why do we even need gender" and "why do we need gender specific clothes" etc.
I my view gender is important because for the majority of people gender forms a large part of sexual attraction. Its not just about who has what sexual organs, its about masculine and feminine traits and they are largely what makes up gender surely?
Sure the only difference here is that from time to time, gender fluid people may have both, or one going on in their heads, or perhaps none. It doesn’t stop them having babies. Gay men and women still have children, as do people who’s gender is not as firmly fixed as yours perhaps is. So in response to your query what would happen is everyone was gender fluid, The answer to that is; nothing really. As I pointed out earlier in the 18thC men and women had no concept of gender when it came to sexual attraction. And yet; life carried on.
Yeah, I'm not naïve enough to think that procreation would grind to a halt altogether. However it would be wise to remember in this debate that the vast majority of the population ARE as firmly fixed in their gender as I am.
I my view gender is important because for the majority of people gender forms a large part of sexual attraction. Its not just about who has what sexual organs, its about masculine and feminine traits and they are largely what makes up gender surely?
Is this attraction innate, or is it created by society?
However it would be wise to remember in this debate that the vast majority of the population ARE as firmly fixed in their gender as I am.
Except this is exactly the group we are not talking about....
And, yet we remove a label and these poor souls are going to be suddenly all confused?
Something doesn’t add up...
I my view gender is important because for the majority of people gender forms a large part of sexual attraction.
I'm confused. Surely gender is the least important, with physical appearance and sex probably being the primary factors in attraction? Honestly the more I think about it (and I try not to), the more it seems to come down to 'what gender stereotype do I most identify with', which I think is pretty silly. Surely the whole point should be to reject and dilute these stereotypes rather than inventing new ones? Happy to be corrected or further informed but I'm still not getting it.
think a crib sheet we can carry with us at all times would be useful so we can avoid causing offence. 🙄
DazH, the eye-rolling is particularly helpful. It gives me the impression that non-binary people are more likely to be perma-offended snowflakey-types than are CIS-gendered/binary-gendered peeps.
This view is also informed by plenty of similar online stereotypes and memes (either real, imaginary or made entirely of straw) which get massive exposure owing to the ongoing trans-trend/clickbait games/business model/gravytrain via social media/Patreon etc
Is this attraction innate, or is it created by society?
I think a mix of both.
Except this is exactly the group we are not talking about….
And, yet we remove a label and these poor souls are going to be suddenly all confused?
Something doesn’t add up…
My point is, gender non conformity effects a small (~1%) of the population. The other ~99% seem quite happy with the way things are. So why is it right to remove the gender identity of 99% of the population because 1% dont feel they fit into those binary roles?
So why is it right to remove the gender identity of 99% of the population because 1% dont feel they fit into those binary roles?
Who is removing their identity? Are you sure your as firm in your gender as you state as you seem to be confused?
How big a percentage does it need before it becomes important enough for you?
I mean child abuse only happens to a small percentage of people...
I’m confused. Surely gender is the least important, with physical appearance and sex probably being the primary factors in attraction?
But you cannot separate them out that easily. A biological woman who identifies as male and therefore, dresses as a male, wears their hair as a male, maybe even takes hormones to appear more male and have a deeper voice etc, is not sexually attractive to me just because they have breasts and a vagina.
Who is removing their identity? Are you sure your as firm in your gender as you state as you seem to be confused?
How big a percentage does it need before it becomes important enough for you?
I mean child abuse only happens to a small percentage of people…
No-one is saying people cannot be non-binary or gender fluid or whatever. The point i am making (possibly badly) is that this thread was moving towards "we should remove gender altogether and all wear non gender specific clothes". Why? because 1% dont feel they belong to a binary gender, thats crazy!
I mean child abuse only happens to a small percentage of people…
Oh, and that is just about the dumbest comment in this thread
