|
Keep discussion objective and civil.
Blindly spewing uninformed non-sense will lead to moderation action. |
what is a "binary" and what is a "spectrum"
|
On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:48 killa_robot wrote:On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person. I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms. So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay. I said right after that I never claimed it was a mental disorder to begin with. Apparently you just decided to use my argument as a base to jump off on your own tangent. On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people). I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth. The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem. Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car. The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain? On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 10:42 ayaz2810 wrote:
[quote]
Our binary way of thinking is something I would hate to live without. I can't explain why exactly, but the idea of a bunch of men wearing baggy jeans with women's blouses along with lipstick, a backwards ball cap, a purse, and various other accessories from both genders just creeps me the fuck out. I picture a big homogenous mass of people who lack any identity. I honestly cannot figure out why that prospect bugs me to no end. Maybe it's something evolutionary. I dunno. Its cultural you were socialized go think like that your whole life , if you werent taught that men and women should wear the clothes that they do and there was no social stigma about wearing what you wanted be that lipstick blouses etc then you would not care . Life is binary, in all senses. You are either alive or dead. You are either male, physically, or female. You are either asleep or awake. That isn't to say we can't allow people to choose their preference in what they want to do. A boy wants to play with dolls? Fine. He might not even be gay, just a sensitive guy, who enjoys interpersonal relationships more than dominating. Where it happens to go wrong is the point on which we assume that a sensitive guy must be gay. Have you guys even looked into the feminist agenda, the male hate complex, etc? http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/It's really unpleasant to see, but the nicest males never get what they want, and females complain even after choosing the "manlier" men, the egoistic and self centered ones who think they deserve it all without having to give any in return. This isnt new at all. This is ages old. In our post feminist society, however, the feeling of being a man is so closely tied to success with females, and to behaving in very stereotypical ways. edit: Nicol's post echos my thoughts so much more coherently than I can say it at the moment. There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way . you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another. That argument doesn't support itself. Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary . Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument. I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . The binary is still that the person is either "Male" or "Female". Even if they change from one to the other, they are still one or the other, and not inbetween. If you're biological male yet you look female, you're still male. I can dress up as a dog, it doesn't make me some inbetween dog-man because I now look like a dog. I'm still a male in the end. Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ?
Hmmm good point. I'd probably consider them both, but that does kinda conflict with my "one or the other" bit now doesn't it.
Suppose I was wrong there.
|
On December 05 2012 11:56 AdamBanks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:48 killa_robot wrote:On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person. I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms. So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay. I said right after that I never claimed it was a mental disorder to begin with. Apparently you just decided to use my argument as a base to jump off on your own tangent. On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people). I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth. The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem. Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car. The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain? On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote:
[quote]
Its cultural you were socialized go think like that your whole life , if you werent taught that men and women should wear the clothes that they do and there was no social stigma about wearing what you wanted be that lipstick blouses etc then you would not care . Life is binary, in all senses. You are either alive or dead. You are either male, physically, or female. You are either asleep or awake. That isn't to say we can't allow people to choose their preference in what they want to do. A boy wants to play with dolls? Fine. He might not even be gay, just a sensitive guy, who enjoys interpersonal relationships more than dominating. Where it happens to go wrong is the point on which we assume that a sensitive guy must be gay. Have you guys even looked into the feminist agenda, the male hate complex, etc? http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/It's really unpleasant to see, but the nicest males never get what they want, and females complain even after choosing the "manlier" men, the egoistic and self centered ones who think they deserve it all without having to give any in return. This isnt new at all. This is ages old. In our post feminist society, however, the feeling of being a man is so closely tied to success with females, and to behaving in very stereotypical ways. edit: Nicol's post echos my thoughts so much more coherently than I can say it at the moment. There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way . you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another. That argument doesn't support itself. Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary . Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument. I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . The binary is still that the person is either "Male" or "Female". Even if they change from one to the other, they are still one or the other, and not inbetween. If you're biological male yet you look female, you're still male. I can dress up as a dog, it doesn't make me some inbetween dog-man because I now look like a dog. I'm still a male in the end. Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Well obviously gender must therefore be trinary. lol...
There are also varying degrees of hermaphrodites thus a spectrum.
|
On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ?
Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary.
|
On December 05 2012 11:58 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:51 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:48 killa_robot wrote:On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person. I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms. So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay. I said right after that I never claimed it was a mental disorder to begin with. Apparently you just decided to use my argument as a base to jump off on your own tangent. On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people). I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth. The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem. Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car. The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain? On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote:
[quote]
Its cultural you were socialized go think like that your whole life , if you werent taught that men and women should wear the clothes that they do and there was no social stigma about wearing what you wanted be that lipstick blouses etc then you would not care . Life is binary, in all senses. You are either alive or dead. You are either male, physically, or female. You are either asleep or awake. That isn't to say we can't allow people to choose their preference in what they want to do. A boy wants to play with dolls? Fine. He might not even be gay, just a sensitive guy, who enjoys interpersonal relationships more than dominating. Where it happens to go wrong is the point on which we assume that a sensitive guy must be gay. Have you guys even looked into the feminist agenda, the male hate complex, etc? http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/It's really unpleasant to see, but the nicest males never get what they want, and females complain even after choosing the "manlier" men, the egoistic and self centered ones who think they deserve it all without having to give any in return. This isnt new at all. This is ages old. In our post feminist society, however, the feeling of being a man is so closely tied to success with females, and to behaving in very stereotypical ways. edit: Nicol's post echos my thoughts so much more coherently than I can say it at the moment. There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way . you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another. That argument doesn't support itself. Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary . Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument. I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . The binary is still that the person is either "Male" or "Female". Even if they change from one to the other, they are still one or the other, and not inbetween. If you're biological male yet you look female, you're still male. I can dress up as a dog, it doesn't make me some inbetween dog-man because I now look like a dog. You are right it doesn't but their whole body changes except for genes , if their body changes to that of a female how does that not make them female? It was a natural change not surgery. There is a spectrum humans are notorious for the wide range of diversity we exhibit , so why is it so hard for you guys to grasp that sex and gender are also on a spectrum. If their body changed to being female they'd be female, which is just an agreement with what I'm saying. Granted, I don't recall hearing of a case where someone was a male, then suddenly changed into a woman, so I don't see this naturally happening. Not really sure what your point is here. It's not a spectrum though. If it was you could define it as such, yet you're still defining them as male and female.
What else do i call them ? i was raised in a binary system to , doesn't mean its correct thinking.
|
On December 05 2012 11:58 sam!zdat wrote:
what is a "binary" and what is a "spectrum"
Binary - On/Off
Spectrum - Rainbows.
|
On December 05 2012 11:58 sam!zdat wrote:
what is a "binary" and what is a "spectrum"
Binary is the though that there are two ways of thinking
Male -female
Black-White
Evil-Good
spectrum would be something like
White grey blue yellow red Black
|
On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary.
To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle.
|
On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary.
Agreed , which brings it back to the original argument just cuase your body is one way doesn't mean thats the reality for you .
|
On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle.
^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but.
|
On December 05 2012 11:46 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:43 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people). I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth. The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem. Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car. The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain? On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 10:42 ayaz2810 wrote:
[quote]
Our binary way of thinking is something I would hate to live without. I can't explain why exactly, but the idea of a bunch of men wearing baggy jeans with women's blouses along with lipstick, a backwards ball cap, a purse, and various other accessories from both genders just creeps me the fuck out. I picture a big homogenous mass of people who lack any identity. I honestly cannot figure out why that prospect bugs me to no end. Maybe it's something evolutionary. I dunno. Its cultural you were socialized go think like that your whole life , if you werent taught that men and women should wear the clothes that they do and there was no social stigma about wearing what you wanted be that lipstick blouses etc then you would not care . Life is binary, in all senses. You are either alive or dead. You are either male, physically, or female. You are either asleep or awake. That isn't to say we can't allow people to choose their preference in what they want to do. A boy wants to play with dolls? Fine. He might not even be gay, just a sensitive guy, who enjoys interpersonal relationships more than dominating. Where it happens to go wrong is the point on which we assume that a sensitive guy must be gay. Have you guys even looked into the feminist agenda, the male hate complex, etc? http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/It's really unpleasant to see, but the nicest males never get what they want, and females complain even after choosing the "manlier" men, the egoistic and self centered ones who think they deserve it all without having to give any in return. This isnt new at all. This is ages old. In our post feminist society, however, the feeling of being a man is so closely tied to success with females, and to behaving in very stereotypical ways. edit: Nicol's post echos my thoughts so much more coherently than I can say it at the moment. There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way . you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another. That argument doesn't support itself. Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary . Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument. I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white. Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are  thats the point.
Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this.
|
On December 05 2012 11:58 sam!zdat wrote:
what is a "binary" and what is a "spectrum"
One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish.
Everyone's taking the bait
|
Is this existence of a term which is neither A nor B (or both A and B, or not-A and B, or not-B and A) a threat to the legitimacy of the binary opposition qua concept?
edit: why don't you all read this article and give up this silly debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_square
|
On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but.
This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true.
|
On December 05 2012 12:03 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:46 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:43 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people). I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth. The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem. Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car. The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain? On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote:
[quote]
Its cultural you were socialized go think like that your whole life , if you werent taught that men and women should wear the clothes that they do and there was no social stigma about wearing what you wanted be that lipstick blouses etc then you would not care . Life is binary, in all senses. You are either alive or dead. You are either male, physically, or female. You are either asleep or awake. That isn't to say we can't allow people to choose their preference in what they want to do. A boy wants to play with dolls? Fine. He might not even be gay, just a sensitive guy, who enjoys interpersonal relationships more than dominating. Where it happens to go wrong is the point on which we assume that a sensitive guy must be gay. Have you guys even looked into the feminist agenda, the male hate complex, etc? http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/It's really unpleasant to see, but the nicest males never get what they want, and females complain even after choosing the "manlier" men, the egoistic and self centered ones who think they deserve it all without having to give any in return. This isnt new at all. This is ages old. In our post feminist society, however, the feeling of being a man is so closely tied to success with females, and to behaving in very stereotypical ways. edit: Nicol's post echos my thoughts so much more coherently than I can say it at the moment. There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way . you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another. That argument doesn't support itself. Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary . Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument. I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white. Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point. Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this.
You continue to digress form the argument to say i suck at arguing without actually proving any of YOUR points. I gave examples and the most you could say was "nope".
http://www.genderspectrum.org/about/understanding-gender
|
On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true.
You were socialized to believe things are binary without it actually being explained to you other then this is right just cause .
|
On December 05 2012 12:03 sam!zdat wrote:Is this existence of a term which is neither A nor B (or both A and B, or not-A and B, or not-B and A) a threat to the legitimacy of the binary opposition qua concept? edit: why don't you all read this article and give up this silly debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_square
oo interesting :D thank you.
|
so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum"
if there are no binaries, and only spectra
how does one conceptualize them?
edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square
edit: we would do well to keep in mind that binary oppositions are an unreasonably effective means of conceptualizing the world, even if we want to maintain some distance from any naive assertions of their ontological status or representational completeness
|
On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum" if there are no binaries, and only spectra how does one conceptualize them? edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square
A spectrum starts with two binary points
Male --------------Female
conceptualizing it would be like
Male ------Hermaphrodite -------Female with transexuals im not sure where to put them since gender wise they identify as female but sexually they could be a mix of either.
|
On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum" if there are no binaries, and only spectra how does one conceptualize them? edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square edit: we would do well to keep in mind that binary oppositions are an unreasonably effective means of conceptualizing the world, even if we want to maintain some distance from any naive assertions of their ontological status or representational completeness
Well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
