Response to a post (About myself being Gender Fluid)

[ImmortalFlame]

I said it was not a SEXUAL category.

Correct. That's what you said. But it is. Clearly, there are people who are intersex.

The fact that it is given a name suggests a category.

A sexual category, because it relates to sex. Hence, interSEX.

So is it your view that rather than a sexual binary of male and female, that there are 3; male, female, and intersex?

My view is that of the scientific consensus: that sex is bimodal.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

No, gender isn't based off stereotypes. Gender roles are. Gender is in part based off the concepts of masculinity and femininity, a dynamic sociological concept that does not apply rigidly across sex. When you try and uniformly apply those concepts based on dangly bits, then it becomes stereotypical and often prejudicial.

Just like nationality, another sociological concept, has undisputed common cultural traits but attempting to uniformly apply to all people under one national label is unhelpful.

If anything, broadening our understanding of diversity under identity labels, not dispensing with labels, brings more utility.

Now, in a premiere utopia society might it be nice to not have things like nationality, currency, spirituality, gender, etc? Some people certainly think so, but regardless we don't live in that reality and so we shouldn't pretend those things don't exist with relative positive and negative connotations they bring.

And, like I said, this isn't about eliminating complexities OR stereotypes. It's about eliminating trans and nonbinary identities. Let's be fr.

 

[Kfox]

Correct. That's what you said. But it is. Clearly, there are people who are intersex.

It has been my understanding that intersex consists of male and female also. That it is the sex chromosomes that determine male/female. If you have the y chromosome you are male, and if all your chromosomes are x you are female regardless of genetalia. But if your position is that there are 3; male, female, and intersex; I won’t argue that with ya.

My view is that of the scientific consensus: that sex is bimodal.

How are you defining bimodal?

 

[Kfox]

No, gender isn't based off stereotypes. Gender roles are. Gender is in part based off the concepts of masculinity and femininity, a dynamic sociological concept that does not apply rigidly across sex.

How is basing it off of masculinity and femininity different than basing it off of stereotypes?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How is basing it off of masculinity and femininity different than basing it off of stereotypes?

It's literally in the quoted text.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It has been my understanding that intersex consists of male and female also. That it is the sex chromosomes that determine male/female. If you have the y chromosome you are male, and if all your chromosomes are x you are female regardless of genetalia. But if your position is that there are 3; male, female, and intersex; I won’t argue that with ya.

It seems very weird to assign people a social category based entirely on a trait that you cannot possibly assess in 99.99% of instances, but whatever.

How are you defining bimodal?

I've already explained previously what "bimodal" means. You do know what it means.

 

[Kfox]

It's literally in the quoted text.

Based on post #42, it seems to be saying gender is not based on anything concrete, but is vague. Why use something vague to describe ourselves rather than something concrete like biology?

 

[Kfox]

I've already explained previously what "bimodal" means. You do know what it means.

My understanding of bimodal is; you have black, you have white, and countless shades of grey. But each of those shades of gray don't have their own names, they are under the category of black or white, where as binary is only the extreme black or extreme white. Is this your understanding?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Based on post #42, it seems to be saying gender is not based on anything concrete, but is vague. Why use something vague to describe ourselves rather than something concrete like biology?

For the same reasons already outlined in post 33.

Re: just because a sociological concept is not concrete or based purely on biology does not negate its utility, and the impact of its existence. Nor is it reducible just because you want it to be.

 

[Kfox]

For the same reasons already outlined in post 33.

Re: just because a sociological concept is not concrete or based purely on biology does not negate its utility, and the impact of its existence. Nor is it reducible just because you want it to be.

Burt when describing each other, don't cha think it is better for our descriptions to be based on something concrete like biology rather than something vague that could mean different things to different people; like gender?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Burt when describing each other, don't cha think it is better for our descriptions to be based on something concrete like biology rather than something vague that could mean different things to different people; like gender?

Refer back to post 33. Sociological concepts that exist and impact people are not reducible just because we want them to be.

 

[Unfettered]

Part 2:

I think one way of getting away from the labels is developing a separate term and terminology rather than grouping trans women and cis women (or trans men and cis men) together in the context of human language. It's certainly okay for some people to group the two together. However, I also think we shouldn't "force" people to group the two together. We should give others the personal autonomy to come to it on their own terms.

If we're just going to force people to accept something, they'll be prone at rejecting a concept completely, not even hearing the specific good points of something.

It is not possible to get away from labels. Identity requires a label. If we come up with some other "term," we're just coming up with some other label.

 

[Kfox]

Refer back to post 33. Sociological concepts that exist and impact people are not reducible just because we want them to be.

I'm not talking about "Sociological concepts" I'm talking about the description of real people. If we are gonna describe an actual person, don't you think that description should be based on something concrete like biology rather than something vague like gender that could mean different things to different people?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

I've been curious. Not motivated to actually get it done, but certain features and lack if some others have made me curious.
But usually it's a medical need. Such as questions arised over things not happening during puberty that should have happened by now (like no menarche).

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm not talking about "Sociological concepts" I'm talking about the description of real people. If we are gonna describe an actual person, don't you think that description should be based on something concrete like biology rather than something vague like gender that could mean different things to different people?

Real people have descriptors that are ambiguously defined by diverse groups all the time. (See post 33 for examples.) Because the human experience is not always so easily defined, regardless of how much we want to oversimplify it. (Or try to rephrase oversimplifications over and over again.)

Gender is a nuanced subject that expands beyond biological sex. That is an unambiguously true statement. Whether you want to or don't want to engage with that topic is your problem, not the rest of social sciences and people who find utility in those concepts.

Ditto people who'd like to erase the term 'race' because there are no human biological races. The term race extends beyond the field of biology.

 

[Kfox]

Real people have descriptors that are ambiguously defined by diverse groups all the time. (See post 33 for examples.) Because the human experience is not always so easily defined, regardless of how much we want to oversimplify it. (Or try to rephrase oversimplifications over and over again.)

But there are times when it needs to be easily defined. Not everybody has time to take into account your human experiences, or whatever might be going on inside of your head into account when describing you. Sometimes a description needs to be made, and all you have time for is a simple glance.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But there are times when it needs to be easily defined. Not everybody has time to take into account your human experiences, or whatever might be going on inside of your head into account when describing you. Sometimes a description needs to be made, and all you have time for is a simple glance.

Then those people need to grow some more. Because there's a lot about me that isn't informed by a simple glance, and it's not hard to ask.

 

[Kfox]

Then those people need to grow some more. Because there's a lot about me that isn't informed by a simple glance, and it's not hard to ask.

So if an APB is being posted on a person involved in a serious crime, and the person posting the APB did not have time to learn about the criminals human experiences, and whatever else might be going on inside of his head that postere needs to grow? C'mon!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So if an APB is being posted on a person involved in a serious crime, and the person posting the APB did not have time to learn about the criminals human experiences, and whatever else might be going on inside of his head that postere needs to grow? C'mon!

Lol. What a nonsense reply.

First of all, news reports and APB regularly misgender people because as it turns out quick looks aren't sufficient to establish gender identity, and so they often get it wrong *even with cis gendered people.* If they're wrong, they issue a corrections later and no big deal.

Nobody cares about mistakes, they just point out when people are being deliberately obstinant.

Secondly, if you're only going based off assigned sex then yeah, you need to grow because a F on paper doesn't mean without masculine presentation. So any investigator worth their salt would put very little visual bias on what that F on paper means.

If anything you're just making a better case to not presume someone's gender based on their assigned sex.

But like I said, this was never about making things less complex, it's about deliberately suppressing trans identities.

 

[crossfire]

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.

My answer to that would be: Stay the bleep out of my pants! It's not any of your business.