Response to a post (About myself being Gender Fluid)

[John53]

@VoidCat said in a thread I probably wasn't allowed to post on, and I didn't out of courtesy:



I wanted to thank @VoidCat for the insights, but answer that I identifed as trans at one point, but now identify as Gender Fluid because:

1. I couldn't take all the debate in real life when I identified as trans. Especially when I considered it just a label.

2. As trans, I felt there was an expectation for me to "pass", ie look like the other gender. That's not to say I couldn't. However, I also consider gender to be a bit of a fluid thing, and in a general sense, while it's often treated a bit more binary by people than I feel it actually truly is. Perhaps it's binary for some, though - I'm not really debating that. And yes, there are some who treat their gender in a straight up, binary fashion, while some, like myself, are a bit more fluid with it - it's even that way among some cis people (especially cis women).

My other thoughts:

3. If you ask me which restroom I'd use, I'd say: "Whatever one it seems the most appropriate for myself, a Gender Fluid person, to use, and in a social sense, rather than what my own personal opinion is."

4. Since we're in the debate section, I admit that conservatives can try to make the argument that "Gender has gone too far", and point to "Gender Fluid" labels as being another symptom of that. However, despite myself not agreeing with conservatives completely on much of anything regarding this matter, I'd like to suggest that myself identifying as Gender Fluid may be quite logical because it's like I'm saying "Look, I realize that there's a bit of a culture war going on. And I've chosen to be somewhat pacifist, in this instance, and try to look outside of it", and I'm awaiting better questions and better ideas and better solutions in regards to the subject of the trans debate.

That's not to say I don't both sympathize with trans people, and support them from afar in a fairly large sense, as well.

It's also not to say that all conservative opinions voiced at me are falling on deaf ears.

Personally, I think it's time for new labels altogether. The old ones have too much pain and hurt and controversy and heartache and confusion. And I think this time, when deciding these labels, conservatives and liberals both should be consulted. It shouldn't be a push from just one side. And I also feel that we need crystal clear labels. Labels so clear, that when a person uses them, the other person knows immediately whether they are trans or cis or exactly what or who they are.

I think if we can get conservatives to agree that trans people are here to stay, and that they do agree with it, we too should make a compromise (on my side) and make sure these matters are clear to other people, including conservatives (at least the ones who are more reasonable about the subject).

Honestly, this is probably one of the more hot button threads I've made. It may go well. It may not. Sometimes, emotions run high in these kinds of threads. But still, I feel it's an important subject, so I'm crossing my fingers for the best, and sending this thread off with a song:

I don't understand any of it but I don't care, nor does it matter to me. People are people no matter how you group them. Some I like and get along with, others not so much.

 

[Kfox]

Sorry about that. I may have made it too confusing. I'll try to explain it a bit simpler:

Say a person who was born a woman was on testosterone hormones as part of transitioning. They had no surgery done, but they look and act like a male. Under what you propose, they can say that they are a woman. However, wouldn't you still want to know that they're on testosterone and look and act like a male?

I don't understand why I would need to know such information about a person, however if it were important; they could just tell me. I don't see the importance of coming up with a term for women who have had "this" done to them, or a man who had "that" done to them.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't understand any of it but I don't care, nor does it matter to me. People are people no matter how you group them. Some I like and get along with, others not so much.

Understandable. I do like @Quintessence 's approach to the subject in post #9, however.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't understand why I would need to know such information about a person, however if it were important; they could just tell me. I don't see the importance of coming up with a term for women who have had "this" done to them, or a man who had "that" done to them.

I understand.

 

[Kfox]

And how many folk get their chromosomes checked?

Not very many. Why would someone feel a need to get their Chromosomes checked?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Sadly, this wouldn't resolve the "issue" either given biological sex isn't actually all that straightforward either.

The core "issue" is we have a group of humans that wants to keep everything a simplistic binary that doesn't reflect the realities of either gender (social construct) or sex (physiological, also informed by social constructs). But a new set of "crystal clear" categories like Snow White suggests in the opening post would run into problems too even if it introduced more nuance. Why? Because the map is not the territory. It doesn't matter how many word-things we put on observed and experienced phenomena, it still is not that phenomena - it's how we've chosen to package and understand it to communicate. Applied word-things can be changed and have mismatches with the territory in specific situations.

Maybe a better approach is to remember that word-things are shortcuts that do not preclude thinking. What I mean by that is humans create maps of territory because they need cognitive shorthands as the experience life to navigate it more efficiently. It helps with faster decision-making by removing the need to think and consider - if someone says "let's go to a restaurant" you have an idea of what that experience will be because you have a map for the territory "restaurant." You know you'll be served food, probably get to sit down, and socialize. But there's fluidity to the word-thing "restaurant" too in terms of the type of food, the atmosphere. So the word-thing shortcut only takes the mind so far and from there some thinking needs to happen. Word-things that map "sex" and "gender" ought to be considered similarly. If someone says they are "woman" what does that actually tell you about them, and what doesn't it tell you about them? Just remember to think and not stereotype too much.

I like this approach to the subject.

 

[VoidCat]

Not very many. Why would someone feel a need to get their Chromosomes checked?

Im pointing out biological sex is made up of many aspects not just one. Chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics....most people never have tested their chromosomes. They assume what they are. But unless they been tested they don't know for sure. And they dont affect physical characteristics as much as you may think. Hormones on the otherhand...are very powerful. And can change a lot biologically. They are part of biological sex whether you wish it or not. If I go to the doctor right now my doc isn't going to give treatment like I'm a biological female. They'll consider my hormones, in addition to my reproductive organs. And I will be treated accordingly...some treatments will be more consistent with males and some with females. Because my sex is a mixture my hormonal sex is different then my reproductive organs and my chromosomal sex.

 

[Kfox]

Im pointing out biological sex is made up of many aspects not just one.

I think for a small minority, intersex blurs many of those lines; there is a reason they call them sex chromosomes.

Chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics....most people never have tested their chromosomes. They assume what they are. But unless they been tested they don't know for sure.

But 99.9% of the time, if you have a uterus instead of a prostate a natural testosterone level of 25 instead of 900, Ovaries instead of testes, fallopian tubes, and other lady parts, you’re probably a biological female.

And they dont affect physical characteristics as much as you may think. Hormones on the otherhand...are very powerful. And can change a lot biologically. They are part of biological sex whether you wish it or not. If I go to the doctor right now my doc isn't going to give treatment like I'm a biological female. They'll consider my hormones, in addition to my reproductive organs.

They’ll treat you like a biological female on testosterone and whatever other medicine’s you might be taking. I guarantee; when you turn 50 your doctor will not schedule you a prostate exam.

 

[Quintessence]

yeah; Intersex is an abnormality that effects all mammals. But that is not a sexual category,

Setting aside that judging intersex as "abnormal" is non-scientific value judgement, why not? How is deeming something "abnormal" make something somehow not a category? How is something that is atypical, statistically uncommon, or infrequent (less judgmental words to use than "abnormal") make something not a category?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Kfox]

Setting aside that judging intersex as "abnormal" is non-scientific value judgement, why not? How is deeming something "abnormal" make something somehow not a category? How is something that is atypical, statistically uncommon, or infrequent (less judgmental words to use than "abnormal") make something not a category?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

Abnormal is not a value judgment, it is an observation of what is normal. Some people are born with 6 fingers. on each hand, Is this normal? If I asked you how many fingers do humans have, wouldn’t you say 5 on each hand? Recognizing anyone born with any number other than 5 on each hand is not normal?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Abnormal is not a value judgment, it is an observation of what is normal. Some people are born with 6 fingers. on each hand, Is this normal? If I asked you how many fingers do humans have, wouldn’t you say 5 on each hand? Recognizing anyone born with any number other than 5 on each hand is not normal?

But would you therefore say that there is no "category" of people who have six fingers on each hand? Or less than five fingers on each hand? Does that de-legitimise them as a category? Because your arguments about intersex people seems to dismiss their existence as a category of person in favour of a simple binary.

What you're saying is essentially the equivalent of arguing that there ought to be only one category of person: a person with ten fingers. And when people point out to you that there are people with either more or less, you just say "well, that's abnormal".

It's not common, but that doesn't mean the category of people with more-or-less than ten fingers isn't a legitimate category of person.

 

[SomeRandom]

yeah; Intersex is an abnormality that effects all mammals. But that is not a sexual category,

I’m fairly certain biologists and sexologists treat intersex as it’s own seperate category though. The specifics over what constitutes intersex are often debated over, since science can be rather well overly specific. But it is classed as it’s own thing. I mean granted the term is an umbrella term, that covers many different conditions.
But I mean hermaphroditism still exists and that is it’s own category as well. Even though that is typically surgically “dealt with” at birth.

To quote my old high school biology textbook.
Sex characteristics are distributed through bimodal means in the human species. You can’t have a binary system if there’s more than two things in it, by definition. You only need one 3 to render a binary code no longer a binary code, after all.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

With all of the complications associated with Gender, maybe we should get rid of gender all together; and only label people according to their biology; like we do with animals.

Other animals don't have a concept of race, class, currency, nationality, spirituality, sociology, psychology and a number of other things that require advanced conceptual thinking. These being sociological concepts in whole or part does not change the profound effect they have on the physical and mental health of the human animal. And so dismissing them to 'alleviate complication'** would be foolish.

Whether one likes it or not, gender as a sociological and psychological concept associated with but not dependent on gonadal or chromosomal sex exist. So we may as well go about exploring it.

**Hint: it's not about alleviating complication but intentionally denying, suppressing and villifying trans and nonbinary identities.

 

[Kfox]

But would you therefore say that there is no "category" of people who have six fingers on each hand? Or less than five fingers on each hand? Does that de-legitimise them as a category? Because your arguments about intersex people seems to dismiss their existence as a category of person in favour of a simple binary.

What you're saying is essentially the equivalent of arguing that there ought to be only one category of person: a person with ten fingers. And when people point out to you that there are people with either more or less, you just say "well, that's abnormal".

It's not common, but that doesn't mean the category of people with more-or-less than ten fingers isn't a legitimate category of person.

Polydactyly is the condition of people born with 6 fingers on each hand. It is considered an anomaly; just like intersex is considered an anomaly.

 

[Kfox]

I’m fairly certain biologists and sexologists treat intersex as it’s own seperate category though. The specifics over what constitutes intersex are often debated over, since science can be rather well overly specific. But it is classed as it’s own thing. I mean granted the term is an umbrella term, that covers many different conditions.
But I mean hermaphroditism still exists and that is it’s own category as well. Even though that is typically surgically “dealt with” at birth.

To quote my old high school biology textbook.
Sex characteristics are distributed through bimodal means in the human species. You can’t have a binary system if there’s more than two things in it, by definition. You only need one 3 to render a binary code no longer a binary code, after all.

So is it your view that rather than a sexual binary of male and female ; 2, that there are 3; male female & intersex? That intersex is it's own sexual category?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Polydactyly is the condition of people born with 6 fingers on each hand. It is considered an anomaly; just like intersex is considered an anomaly.

You've not really responded to what I have just explained. It's about THE CATEGORY. Intersex people, "anomaly" or otherwise, are still a CATEGORY OF PEOPLE, just as "people who have more or less than ten fingers" are an "anomaly", but you can still acknowledge the existence of the CATEGORY of people who have more or less than ten fingers.

Do you understand?

 

[Kfox]

Other animals don't have a concept of race, class, currency, nationality, spirituality, sociology, psychology and a number of other things that require advanced conceptual thinking. These being sociological concepts in whole or part does not change the profound effect they have on the physical and mental health of the human animal. And so dismissing them to 'alleviate complication'** would be foolish.

Whether one likes it or not, gender as a sociological and psychological concept associated with but not dependent on gonadal or chromosomal sex exist. So we may as well go about exploring it.

Isn't gender based on stereotypes? What's wrong with getting rid of stereotypes?

 

[Kfox]

You've not really responded to what I have just explained. It's about THE CATEGORY. Intersex people, "anomaly" or otherwise, are still a CATEGORY OF PEOPLE, just as "people who have more or less than ten fingers" are an "anomaly", but you can still acknowledge the existence of the CATEGORY of people who have more or less than ten fingers.

Do you understand?

When did I ever suggest intersex was not a category of people?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When did I suggest intersex was not a category of people?

Post 20:

yeah; Intersex is an abnormality that effects all mammals. But that is not a sexual category,

 

[Kfox]

Post 20:

I said it was not a SEXUAL category. The fact that it is given a name suggests a category. So is it your view that rather than a sexual binary of male and female, that there are 3; male, female, and intersex?