What's a "Purple Penguin"?The gender inclusive name for boys & girls in Nebraska public schools

[Alceste]

At the risk of introducing an authentic idea into a nonsense thread, I'd like to suggest that a gender binary teaching environment stinks for many people other than trans people. When I was in school, they used to have a class where all the boys went to shop (building awesome fun stuff) and all the girls went to home economics (boring, stupid sewing and cooking) . Not only would I have preferred shop, but any skills I had learned there would be directly relevant to my current occupation.

I think they must have changed that rule while I was there, since a couple years later I was able to choose shop, but by then the damage was done for most kids. They'd learned to sort themselves by gender and pick what they were expected to pick, so I was the only girl in the class. Which isn't a complaint, since I loved shop and never picked up a gender binary world view despite the best efforts of the world. But it is a tragedy, given how much money there is to be made in trades.

 

[Alceste]

I'm happy you edited with that edit or I was gonna have to spank your pretty ***. :angel2:

Hehe. I suppose I'll have to transgress again.

 

[Apple Sugar]

I think it's cute how liberals try to mislead people and then call conservatives names so as to appear superior.

"were not meant as rules staff had to follow, but as suggestions for how teachers can make students feel comfortable."

And contrary to what someone tried to imply, no one in this thread has ever said a word about this district trying to outlaw pronouns.
Real teachers would stick to the details and not interpolate to promote a liberal agenda.

For all the claims some make when they claim they're a teacher, I've yet to meet one that sets the example that would make that a positive affirmation leading us to feel our kids were safe in their hands. One such claimant in particular in another thread should have their license revoked and an investigation put on them asap.

Yeah, they haven't outlawed pronouns.

How is it that out of this whole thread, only the two of us recognized this story as complete horse puckey on sight, while everyone else is discussing it as if it were true?

As a former teacher from a family of teachers, it amazes me what nonsense people are willing (possibly even eager) to believe about us.

Edit, oh yeah, and Quint, Buttercup and the Penguin, but he's personally invested.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sure, it's a progressive infrastructure in child education to name children after colored animals so they can have their actually gender specific biological processes and reproductive organs marginalized into cartoon characterizations. So that others, who are engaged in dealing with emotional issues per their gender dysphoria, bring that condition to all children due to the labeling supervisors have affixed in a effort to make all kids dismiss their sexual identity.

Genius! Let's make everyone dysphoric! Then the minority will feel at home. That's what inclusion is all about baby.

That's not what gender/sex dysphoria is.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The REAL problem here is that people can't seem to grasp that gender identity, gender roles, gender expression and physical sex are all different things! That's the problem with much of this push to "gender inclusiveness".

The truth is that the vast majority of humans do fit on the gender binary. Almost all of us identify as just one or the other, and that includes the majority of trans people (or those who are forcibly included under the "trans umbrella"). There are biological reasons for that as humans are a sexually dimorphic species and our brains form as masculine or feminine. Even intersex people mostly identify as one or the other.

The solution to the loosening of socially enforced gender roles is to decouple gender identity and expected behaviors. For example, realizing that a woman who wants to be a fire fighter, a combat pilot or a nuclear physicist is just as feminine as a woman who wants to be a model or homemaker. Not only that, but that she's not "transgender" for not following social gender roles!

"Transgender" is being stretched further and further to the point that it is becoming a ghettoizing term that sets up an "us vs. them" situation. It's gotten to the point where the term is meaningless. It's hijacking the identities and experiences of widely disparate groups and throwing them all together for the sake of an agenda that they need more "teeth" to push. Transsexuals, transvestites, effeminate men, butch women, androgynes, etc. are not the same and it's insulting to shove us under the same category.

Conflating gender identity and behavior also reifies sexism and the very same gender roles they think they're fighting against. By narrowly defining "man" and "woman" - with no adjectives - as binary people who perform their socially-enforced gender role, they are merely creating a sharp division between them and "everyone else" and are doing nothing to attack the actual problem. They need to expand the definitions of boy/man and girl/woman to include those individuals that don't act as or partake in behaviors that are defined as traditionally masculine or feminine. An effeminate, cross dressing man is just as much a man as a man who is a lumber jack. A butch woman is just as much a woman as a woman who is a supermodel.

Since realizing the harm that this is causing, I have stopped referring to myself as transgender and, when it's appropriate to the conversation, I just call myself a transsexual man or a man with transsexualism. Transgender is not an appropriate term for a transsexual in the first place since "transgender" makes it seem like we're changing our gender and we're not. We're changing our physical sex. That's why it's called a "sex change" (although some find that rude for whatever silly reason).

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's cute how liberals try to mislead people and then call conservatives names so as to appear superior.

"were not meant as rules staff had to follow, but as suggestions for how teachers can make students feel comfortable."

And contrary to what someone tried to imply, no one in this thread has ever said a word about this district trying to outlaw pronouns.
Real teachers would stick to the details and not interpolate to promote a liberal agenda.

For all the claims some make when they claim they're a teacher, I've yet to meet one that sets the example that would make that a positive affirmation leading us to feel our kids were safe in their hands. One such claimant in particular in another thread should have their license revoked and an investigation put on them asap.

Some people (when they can't win the argument at hand) will erect a straw man.
It's so much easier to win against one. It's all about feeling like they won.
And feelings are more important than reason, ya know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The REAL problem here is that people can't seem to grasp that gender identity, gender roles, gender expression and physical sex are all different things! That's the problem with much of this push to "gender inclusiveness".

In my experience, that's the message behind a lot of gender inclusiveness. The "Genderbread Person" that was referred to earlier in the thread is an attempt to capture this:

The Genderbread Person v2.0

The truth is that the vast majority of humans do fit on the gender binary. Almost all of us identify as just one or the other, and that includes the majority of trans people (or those who are forcibly included under the "trans umbrella"). There are biological reasons for that as humans are a sexually dimorphic species and our brains form as masculine or feminine. Even intersex people mostly identify as one or the other.

The solution to the loosening of socially enforced gender roles is to decouple gender identity and expected behaviors. For example, realizing that a woman who wants to be a fire fighter, a combat pilot or a nuclear physicist is just as feminine as a woman who wants to be a model or homemaker. Not only that, but that she's not "transgender" for not following social gender roles!

"Transgender" is being stretched further and further to the point that it is becoming a ghettoizing term that sets up an "us vs. them" situation. It's gotten to the point where the term is meaningless. It's hijacking the identities and experiences of widely disparate groups and throwing them all together for the sake of an agenda that they need more "teeth" to push. Transsexuals, transvestites, effeminate men, butch women, androgynes, etc. are not the same and it's insulting to shove us under the same category.

Conflating gender identity and behavior also reifies sexism and the very same gender roles they think they're fighting against. By narrowly defining "man" and "woman" - with no adjectives - as binary people who perform their socially-enforced gender role, they are merely creating a sharp division between them and "everyone else" and are doing nothing to attack the actual problem. They need to expand the definitions of boy/man and girl/woman to include those individuals that don't act as or partake in behaviors that are defined as traditionally masculine or feminine. An effeminate, cross dressing man is just as much a man as a man who is a lumber jack. A butch woman is just as much a woman as a woman who is a supermodel.

Interestingly, in the gender inclusiveness training that I've had myself, the instructors gave almost exactly this message. There was a central theme through the whole thing: don't assume. If you need to know how a person sees himself/herself/themself/etc., ask.

Since realizing the harm that this is causing, I have stopped referring to myself as transgender and, when it's appropriate to the conversation, I just call myself a transsexual man or a man with transsexualism. Transgender is not an appropriate term for a transsexual in the first place since "transgender" makes it seem like we're changing our gender and we're not. We're changing our physical sex. That's why it's called a "sex change" (although some find that rude for whatever silly reason).

If you want to refer to yourself - and have others refer to you - as a transsexual man, that's fine, but I'm not sure why it should be a problem if some other transsexual man or woman refers to themselves as "transgender". I don't think the terms "transgender" and "transsexual" are mutually exclusive. IMO, there's a lot of overlap.

... though at the same time, I generally tend to respect the terms that the specific person wants me to use to describe them. And I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.

 

[Apple Sugar]

Some people (when they can't win the argument at hand) will erect a straw man.
It's so much easier to win against one. It's all about feeling like they won.
And feelings are more important than reason, ya know.

Oh, I've noticed that happens here quite a bit.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In my experience, that's the message behind a lot of gender inclusiveness. The "Genderbread Person" that was referred to earlier in the thread is an attempt to capture this:

The Genderbread Person v2.0

I've seen various versions of that before. That one is nonsense. "Asex" in the "biological sex" category, for one. That's not even possible!

That's a good example of how identities, physical sex and behaviors/expressions are being conflated together and it's making a huge mess out of everything.

Interestingly, in the gender inclusiveness training that I've had myself, the instructors gave almost exactly this message. There was a central theme through the whole thing: don't assume. If you need to know how a person sees himself/herself/themself/etc., ask.

I don't know what the course you took entails so I can't comment on that. I'm commenting on the matter at hand in this thread and the sort of thinking reflected in things like that "genderbread" person you posted.

If you want to refer to yourself - and have others refer to you - as a transsexual man, that's fine, but I'm not sure why it should be a problem if some other transsexual man or woman refers to themselves as "transgender". I don't think the terms "transgender" and "transsexual" are mutually exclusive. IMO, there's a lot of overlap.

... though at the same time, I generally tend to respect the terms that the specific person wants me to use to describe them. And I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.

Transgender and transsexual ARE mutually exclusive terms, by the very meanings of the terms.

Trans = across, beyond, on the other side. In the context of gender and sex, it means that you're crossing from one to the other.

Gender = psychological, mental and brain sex. This is your innate perception of self as a man/male or woman/female.

Sex = physical sex characteristics. It includes your genitals, reproductive organs, whether you have breasts or not, hormones, chromosomes, etc.

To "trans" "gender" is to change your gender. Since you can't change your gender identity, this will mean to change your gender role and the way that society perceives you as either a man or a woman. Basically, these people just want to live as the opposite sex but not take hormones or have surgery. Or they may take hormones and perhaps have breast augmentation but not have genital surgery. All or at least the majority of them have a strong aversion to genital surgery and view the other medical modes of transition as optional. Full time cross dressers may or may not fall under this category, depending on the individual.

To "trans" "sex" is to change your physical sex characteristics to match your gender identity/brain sex. Here, there is a strong need to not only change how society perceives you but to also change your physical characteristics to fit how you perceive yourself, thereby aligning the body with the mind/brain. Hormone replacement and sex change surgery are viewed as musts. There's usually a strong drive for genital surgery but various practical considerations such as cost and fear of a botched job may lead transsexuals to putting it off. However, there still exist genital dysphoria.

I am a transsexual, not transgender. Feeling at home in my body is more important to me than just social acceptance as what I proclaim myself to be. There is a lot of confusion and ignorance over the difference of the terms and the different groups they describe. There's a lot of fighting between the different groups thrown together under the "trans umbrella" because of this.

This explains it: Transgender Paradigm Debunked | Debunk Transgender Myths; Distinguish Transsexuals and Transgenderists

When it comes to that, the real problem is misrepresentation, appropriation and trying to redefine terms to make them mean what they don't. There's nothing wrong with wanting to live as the opposite gender but not change your sex. If you want to present as and live as a man or a woman but not get on hormones or have surgery, fine. But they're not transsexuals. To put it another way, transgender people are fine and even happy being a blend of male and female. Transsexuals aren't and desire to just be male or female. Since science isn't advanced enough to make a transsexual fully a male or a female, we are forever caught inbetween and will never have a fully male or female body and so have to live with that distress although hormone replacement and surgeries can bring us close to our goal. That's the real difference between the two.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've seen various versions of that before. That one is nonsense. "Asex" in the "biological sex" category, for one. That's not even possible!

That's a good example of how identities, physical sex and behaviors/expressions are being conflated together and it's making a huge mess out of everything.

FWIW, that was just the first example image I was able to find online. The other versions I've seen didn't have those sliders off to the side.

I don't know what the course you took entails so I can't comment on that. I'm commenting on the matter at hand in this thread and the sort of thinking reflected in things like that "genderbread" person you posted.

It was LGBT youth suicide prevention. They used the "genderbread" person, though as I mentioned, it was a somewhat different version.

Transgender and transsexual ARE mutually exclusive terms, by the very meanings of the terms.

Trans = across, beyond, on the other side. In the context of gender and sex, it means that you're crossing from one to the other.

Gender = psychological, mental and brain sex. This is your innate perception of self as a man/male or woman/female.

Sex = physical sex characteristics. It includes your genitals, reproductive organs, whether you have breasts or not, hormones, chromosomes, etc.

To "trans" "gender" is to change your gender. Since you can't change your gender identity, this will mean to change your gender role and the way that society perceives you as either a man or a woman. Basically, these people just want to live as the opposite sex but not take hormones or have surgery. Or they may take hormones and perhaps have breast augmentation but not have genital surgery. All or at least the majority of them have a strong aversion to genital surgery and view the other medical modes of transition as optional. Full time cross dressers may or may not fall under this category, depending on the individual.

To "trans" "sex" is to change your physical sex characteristics to match your gender identity/brain sex. Here, there is a strong need to not only change how society perceives you but to also change your physical characteristics to fit how you perceive yourself, thereby aligning the body with the mind/brain. Hormone replacement and sex change surgery are viewed as musts. There's usually a strong drive for genital surgery but various practical considerations such as cost and fear of a botched job may lead transsexuals to putting it off. However, there still exist genital dysphoria.

So in your mind, a transsexual person who doesn't plan to have sex reassignment surgery is not transsexual?

I have a different take on it myself. I don't think that "trans" necessarily implies change; I take it as just meaning "across" or "the other side" (like the old Roman provinces of Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul: "Gaul this side of the Alps" and "Gaul the other side of the Alps" - Transalpine Gaul wasn't going anywhere). I call myself cisgender because my gender identity, gender expression, and sex are all on the "male" side of the spectrum.

I am a transsexual, not transgender. Feeling at home in my body is more important to me than just social acceptance as what I proclaim myself to be. There is a lot of confusion and ignorance over the difference of the terms and the different groups they describe. There's a lot of fighting between the different groups thrown together under the "trans umbrella" because of this.

Again, if you prefer to be referred to as transsexual rather than transgender, I'll respect this. However, just as I don't think I should dictate to you what you can and can't call yourself, I don't think you should dictate to others what they can and can't call themselves.

When it comes to that, the real problem is misrepresentation, appropriation and trying to redefine terms to make them mean what they don't. There's nothing wrong with wanting to live as the opposite gender but not change your sex. If you want to present as and live as a man or a woman but not get on hormones or have surgery, fine. But they're not transsexuals. To put it another way, transgender people are fine and even happy being a blend of male and female. Transsexuals aren't and desire to just be male or female. Since science isn't advanced enough to make a transsexual fully a male or a female, we are forever caught inbetween and will never have a fully male or female body and so have to live with that distress although hormone replacement and surgeries can bring us close to our goal. That's the real difference between the two.

To me, transgender is a broad term that covers everything that isn't cisgender, and transsexual is a subset of transgender. But if you don't want to be called transgender, then I won't call you transgender. Still, I'm not about to say to some other person who considers themselves both transsexual and transgender that they can't be both.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So in your mind, a transsexual person who doesn't plan to have sex reassignment surgery is not transsexual?

The original definition of a transsexual was a person who desires not just to live as but to actually be a member of the opposite sex. Not having the body of the opposite sex causes us great distress and pain (dysphoria). This is because the brain sex of the person is mismatched with the rest of their body. There's the idea of a brain map that expects the body to have a certain configuration, and when this configuration isn't found in the body, it causes distress. So if a person has a male brain sex and brain map but the body isn't male, it causes great pain. As a transsexual man, I'm not happy with having female characteristics.

I'm not happy with my female bone structure, breasts, reproductive organs and genitals. If I had a choice, my body would be fully male. However, medical science doesn't have the capabilities to make that a reality. Even if I got my breasts removed and had phalloplasty along with the removal of the internal sex organs, my genitals would not be the same as a natal male. I would not have testicles (just implants), I would not have a prostate gland, or the internal structure of a natal male penis (it would require an implant to be able to attain erections) or seminal fluid. So I would just have the external appearance of male genitalia, but not ACTUAL male genitalia. also, phalloplasty costs tens of thousands of dollars, the vast majority of insurance plans won't cover it and it's a very grueling process that requires multiple surgeries over the span of about a year. Also, the phalloplasty option that provides the most pleasing results requires a skin graft from the forearm that leaves a rather horrific scar. Also, my body will not naturally produce androgens in the male quantity so I will have to inject testosterone into my body for the rest of my life. That is reality and it hurts very much.

However, a person who doesn't have a deep-seated need to be a member of the opposite sex is quite fine just socially transitioning to the external appearance and social role thereof. So a transgender man may not experience sex dysphoria (dysphoria due to the body not matching the brain sex) and hormones and surgery are viewed as optional and not required to have a healthy life.

When it comes to those types of trans men, they may have chest surgery but nothing else. Or they may undergo hormone replacement and nothing else. Or they may have a clitoral release but keep their vagina. Some of them have no problems getting pregnant and giving birth. Some of them actually love their female genitals. Most trans men who are in porn, for example, fall into this category and are gleefully vaginally penetrated in their films.

That's mind-boggling to me. I have tried to accept my genital configuration but that never worked out. I still have genital dysphoria and am not comfortable with being penetrated there. Furthermore, the idea of getting pregnant and giving birth is like a nightmare to me!

So could we say that those different people are both trans? Sure. But not the same type of trans!

I have a different take on it myself. I don't think that "trans" necessarily implies change; I take it as just meaning "across" or "the other side" (like the old Roman provinces of Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul: "Gaul this side of the Alps" and "Gaul the other side of the Alps" - Transalpine Gaul wasn't going anywhere). I call myself cisgender because my gender identity, gender expression, and sex are all on the "male" side of the spectrum.

Well, when trans is used as pertaining to one's sex and gender, it does imply a transition, a changing from one thing to another. If you don't desire to change anything and you feel no dysphoria at all, whether towards the body or how you're perceived, I'd say you're not trans at all.

Again, if you prefer to be referred to as transsexual rather than transgender, I'll respect this. However, just as I don't think I should dictate to you what you can and can't call yourself, I don't think you should dictate to others what they can and can't call themselves.

I'm not dictating anything. I'm asking for clarity and for people to get their definitions straight. The "trans umbrella" idea is a mess and this needs to be discussed. I'm not the only trans person who is against this idea of throwing us all together. Doing that erases the distinctions and the very different experiences, needs and wants of the groups being lumped together.

To me, transgender is a broad term that covers everything that isn't cisgender, and transsexual is a subset of transgender. But if you don't want to be called transgender, then I won't call you transgender. Still, I'm not about to say to some other person who considers themselves both transsexual and transgender that they can't be both.

I've explained why conflating the two is problematic and incorrect.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What ever is wrong with being able to sort children by more than just boys and girls? Why shouldn't children be taught they are more than what is between their legs?

To me, transgender is a broad term that covers everything that isn't cisgender, and transsexual is a subset of transgender. But if you don't want to be called transgender, then I won't call you transgender. Still, I'm not about to say to some other person who considers themselves both transsexual and transgender that they can't be both.

Transgender is the broad term; it's the umbrella term that includes a wide spectrum of various identities. If you were to discuss the issue with psychologist and psychiatrist, those who treat gender identity issues, this is the definition that will be used by most of them, with transsexual being a term to describe those who take hormones, surgery, and other steps to alter their physical sex.
But really, the best bet is just a regular person like anyone else, and then just ask if you want to be anymore specific and are unsure.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What ever is wrong with being able to sort children by more than just boys and girls? Why shouldn't children be taught they are more than what is between their legs?

What is the problem of saying "boys and girls"? The vast majority of human beings, including trans and intersex people, identify as being a boy OR a girl.

Yes, we are more than just body parts but those body parts do matter.

Transgender is the broad term; it's the umbrella term that includes a wide spectrum of various identities. If you were to discuss the issue with psychologist and psychiatrist, those who treat gender identity issues, this is the definition that will be used by most of them, with transsexual being a term to describe those who take hormones, surgery, and other steps to alter their physical sex. But really, the best bet is just a regular person like anyone else, and then just ask if you want to be anymore specific and are unsure.

Many of us aren't happy with this "umbrella" approach, which came later as part of a political agenda. Please see my above posts for why this is problematic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is the problem of saying "boys and girls"? The vast majority of human beings, including trans and intersex people, identify as being a boy OR a girl.

Yes, we are more than just body parts but those body parts do matter.

They matter very little in the context of teaching elementary school kids, IMO. Apart from one assembly or class for the kids who are about to start menstruating, I'm not sure why it's any more appropriate to refer to kids by gender or sex all the time than it is to refer to them by, say, race. Yes, it's part of their identity, but it's not a good idea for a teacher to be emphasizing that difference all the time.

Many of us aren't happy with this "umbrella" approach, which came later as part of a political agenda. Please see my above posts for why this is problematic.

Many people aren't happy with referring to transsexual people by the gender they identify with and consider that to be part of a political agenda.

 

[Alceste]

The REAL problem here is that people can't seem to grasp that gender identity, gender roles, gender expression and physical sex are all different things! That's the problem with much of this push to "gender inclusiveness".

The truth is that the vast majority of humans do fit on the gender binary. Almost all of us identify as just one or the other, and that includes the majority of trans people (or those who are forcibly included under the "trans umbrella"). There are biological reasons for that as humans are a sexually dimorphic species and our brains form as masculine or feminine. Even intersex people mostly identify as one or the other.

The solution to the loosening of socially enforced gender roles is to decouple gender identity and expected behaviors. For example, realizing that a woman who wants to be a fire fighter, a combat pilot or a nuclear physicist is just as feminine as a woman who wants to be a model or homemaker. Not only that, but that she's not "transgender" for not following social gender roles!

"Transgender" is being stretched further and further to the point that it is becoming a ghettoizing term that sets up an "us vs. them" situation. It's gotten to the point where the term is meaningless. It's hijacking the identities and experiences of widely disparate groups and throwing them all together for the sake of an agenda that they need more "teeth" to push. Transsexuals, transvestites, effeminate men, butch women, androgynes, etc. are not the same and it's insulting to shove us under the same category.

Conflating gender identity and behavior also reifies sexism and the very same gender roles they think they're fighting against. By narrowly defining "man" and "woman" - with no adjectives - as binary people who perform their socially-enforced gender role, they are merely creating a sharp division between them and "everyone else" and are doing nothing to attack the actual problem. They need to expand the definitions of boy/man and girl/woman to include those individuals that don't act as or partake in behaviors that are defined as traditionally masculine or feminine. An effeminate, cross dressing man is just as much a man as a man who is a lumber jack. A butch woman is just as much a woman as a woman who is a supermodel.

Since realizing the harm that this is causing, I have stopped referring to myself as transgender and, when it's appropriate to the conversation, I just call myself a transsexual man or a man with transsexualism. Transgender is not an appropriate term for a transsexual in the first place since "transgender" makes it seem like we're changing our gender and we're not. We're changing our physical sex. That's why it's called a "sex change" (although some find that rude for whatever silly reason).

Actually, if you click the link to the pamphlet, you'd agree with it. It's only 3 pages, but it supports much of what you're saying. It's not about transgender people specifically.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually, if you click the link to the pamphlet, you'd agree with it. It's only 3 pages, but it supports much of what you're saying. It's not about transgender people specifically.

I read it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

They matter very little in the context of teaching elementary school kids, IMO. Apart from one assembly or class for the kids who are about to start menstruating, I'm not sure why it's any more appropriate to refer to kids by gender or sex all the time than it is to refer to them by, say, race. Yes, it's part of their identity, but it's not a good idea for a teacher to be emphasizing that difference all the time.

This is silly. Little children know already what the differences are between males and females. Our gender identity is formed at a very early age, around 2 or 3 years old. What this is is adults projecting their issues onto children. Should bullying be stopped? Of course. But trying to erase differences that exist naturally, such as the fact that males and females are obviously physically different, and that most human beings have no problem identifying as one or the other, is not the way to do it.

Many people aren't happy with referring to transsexual people by the gender they identify with and consider that to be part of a political agenda.

Yeah, I know. This silliness actually makes things worse for transsexuals. Simply by being a person with transsexualism doesn't mean that I want to destroy the binary. In fact, I'm a part of that binary.

 

[Alceste]

I read it.

So what part do you disagree with, specifically, and why?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So what part do you disagree with, specifically, and why?

What? I think I've made my point clear. Did you read my other posts in this thread? That pamplet seems to want teachers to teach children that the gender binary doesn't exist and that recognizing girl/female and boy/male exists is some horrible and discriminatory thing. It conflates gender identity and behavior, which I pointed the problems with in the above posts. It also decouples gender identity from physical sex when the two are intertwined. This is bad news for transsexuals because the science is showing that gender identity does have biological correlations and isn't just some social construct or psychological identity, but the social justice warriors want to make it purely a social thing which has led to some making up ridiculous identities and pronouns for themselves (seriously, how many damn words do we need for androgyny?!). Now we have people going around and calling themselves "agender" and "degender", which doesn't make a bit of damn sense.

 

[Alceste]

What? I think I've made my point clear. Did you read my other posts in this thread? That pamplet seems to want teachers to teach children that the gender binary doesn't exist and that recognizing girl/female and boy/male exists is some horrible and discriminatory thing. It conflates gender identity and behavior, which I pointed the problems with in the above posts. It also decouples gender identity from physical sex when the two are intertwined. This is bad news for transsexuals because the science is showing that gender identity does have biological correlations and isn't just some social construct or psychological identity, but the social justice warriors want to make it purely a social thing which has led to some making up ridiculous identities and pronouns for themselves (seriously, how many damn words do we need for androgyny?!). Now we have people going around and calling themselves "agender" and "degender", which doesn't make a bit of damn sense.

Of course it doesn't pretend gender doesn't exist. It is all about gender. It presents gender as a spectrum and differentiates between physical gender, gender identitification, gender association and sexual orientation. Hardly anyone lives at either extreme of all four categories. For example, while my physical gender and gender identity is female, much of my behavior, occupation, interests and hobbies are very far toward the masculine side, and I have fallen for women a couple times. So how does enforcing a gender binary - where everyone is forced to cram into a narrow definition of a male or female - work for me? In my experience, when others expect particular behavior and interests from me because I'm female, it's just a pain in my backside, if not a major obstacle to pursuing my career. There are no benefits that I can see, unless you like dealing with people who are confused and disturbed by your nature.