|
Keep discussion objective and civil.
Blindly spewing uninformed non-sense will lead to moderation action. |
On December 06 2012 02:41 Lynda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:38 ScandiNAVIan wrote:
Could someone please explain what gender is, my mother tongue has one word for sex and gender. I tried looking it up at Wikipedia, but their definition was vague. To put it simply, sex refers to one's physical sex, while gender refers to how one's brain expects the physical sex of the body to be. The problem is when the two don't match as one's subconscious isn't capable of abandoning that expectation.
"expects" in what sense of the word?
|
On December 06 2012 02:59 mortonm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:48 farvacola wrote:
See, I knew you knew what a synonym really was! Are you claiming years and decades are synonyms? They aren't.
That's why I didn't say "years", I said "many years". But go ahead, keep on cherry pickin!
|
On December 06 2012 03:05 ScandiNAVIan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:41 Lynda wrote:On December 06 2012 02:38 ScandiNAVIan wrote:
Could someone please explain what gender is, my mother tongue has one word for sex and gender. I tried looking it up at Wikipedia, but their definition was vague. To put it simply, sex refers to one's physical sex, while gender refers to how one's brain expects the physical sex of the body to be. The problem is when the two don't match as one's subconscious isn't capable of abandoning that expectation. "expects" in what sense of the word?
In this sense:
excerpt from Julia Serano - Whipping Girl
It became obvious to me that I actually wanted to be a girl, and that, on some level, it felt right.
Trying to translate these subconscious experiences into conscious thought is a messy business. All of the words available in the English language completely fail to accurately capture or convey my personal understanding of these events. For example, if I were to say that I "saw" myself as female, or "knew" myself to be a girl, I would be denying the fact that I was consciously aware of my physical maleness at all times. And saying that I "wished" or "wanted" to be a girl erases how much being female made sense to me, how it felt right on the deepest, most profound level of my being. I could say that I "felt" like a girl, but that would give the false impression that I knew how other girls (and other boys) felt. And if I were to say I was "supposed to be" a girl, or that I "should have been born" female, it would imply that I had some sort of cosmic insight into the grand scheme of the universe, which I most certainly did not.
Perhaps the best way to describe how my subconscious sex feels to me is to say that it seems as if, on some level, my brain expects my body to be female. Indeed there is some evidence to suggest that our brains have an intrinsic understanding of what sex our bodies should be.
(subconscious sex referring to gender in that paragraph)
|
On December 06 2012 02:55 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:52 mortonm wrote:On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote:
You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female. Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with. Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender. Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling. On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political. I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it?
"scientific" doesnt say much in these matters. We're not talking physics or mathematics.
|
On December 06 2012 03:08 ScandiNAVIan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:55 shinosai wrote:On December 06 2012 02:52 mortonm wrote:On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote:
You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female. Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with. Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender. Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling. On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political. I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it? "scientific" doesnt say much in these matters. We're not talking physics or mathematics.
Medicine is very much a science. It is subject to the scientific method just as physics is.
|
On December 06 2012 03:08 ScandiNAVIan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:55 shinosai wrote:On December 06 2012 02:52 mortonm wrote:On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote:
You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female. Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with. Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender. Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling. On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political. I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it? "scientific" doesnt say much in these matters. We're not talking physics or mathematics.
Why, biology, more specifically physiology, genetics and neuroanatomy aren't on the same level?
|
On December 06 2012 03:08 ScandiNAVIan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:55 shinosai wrote:On December 06 2012 02:52 mortonm wrote:On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote:
You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female. Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with. Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender. Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling. On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political. I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it? "scientific" doesnt say much in these matters. We're not talking physics or mathematics.
Indeed, presumably the only reason Shinosai is asking this dude to provide examples of scientific evidence he'd believe is due to mortonm's refusal to understand the inherent differences between medicine, especially in regards to psychology, and the hard maths and sciences. Medicine is certainly enmeshed with the standards of scientific inquiry, but when it comes to the study of the human mind, this relationship manifests itself rather differently.
|
For those that are having trouble understanding, I think it's because there is a lot of ambiguity in the language. But hopefully the genderbread cookie can help you out.
Gender identity: Whether you identify as a woman, man, or something in between.
Gender expression: Masculine, feminine, or something in between.
Sex: Female, male, intersex. Refers to your chromosomes, primary and secondary sexual characteristics, etc. Usually determined by whether or not someone has a "penis or vagina"
![[image loading]](http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/files/2012/02/Genderbread-Person.jpg) http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/files/2012/02/Genderbread-Person.jpg
I think one problem in this thread is that gender expression has been conflated with gender identity. Not the same thing. Hence why, yes, you can be a trans female and still identify as a tomboy. Gender expression has very little to do with gender identity. You can be an effeminate man, and this does not make you transgender.
|
On December 06 2012 02:52 mortonm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote:
You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female. Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with. Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender.
Why does it matter what it is called? What matters is that there is a distinction between "mental sexual state" and "physical sexual state".
Your problem is that your anti-feminist nonsense is drowning out your reasoning. You're so focused on the language used that you don't care about the meaning behind that language. Words are words; arbitrary labels we put onto concepts that allow is to communicate more effectively. What matters is the concepts themselves. And the concept of a mental sexual state exists which is separate from the concept of a physical sexual state.
We have decided to call this concept "gender". If you have a problem with that... tough. That's what it's called now. If you think that the reasons we call it "gender" are dubious or informed by politics... tough. It needs a word, and that's the word we picked.
Arguing about what word to use for the concept is purely semantic and unproductive.
On December 06 2012 02:59 mortonm wrote:Decades are also made of seconds, but saying something has been a certain way for seconds implies a briefer period of time than saying decades.
But they're both still technically true. So your questions should not have been the argumentative and dismissive "which is it" but the more useful "how long ago was it."
On December 06 2012 02:59 mortonm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:48 NicolBolas wrote:
We choose what words mean based on the need for language. For a long time, we didn't need a word for "mental sexual state" as opposed to "physical sexual state", because for a long time we didn't know that these were two different things. Now we do. Just as once upon a time, we didn't need a word for "firearm"; once guns came into being, we needed a word to describe them.
We simply took an existing word and gave it a distinct meaning once we realized that a distinction needed to be made. If you have a problem with this happening, if you think a new word should have been invented rather than re-purposing an old one... I don't care. That's how the scientific literature defines them now, and that is how they are. So do we need a new word for "mental species state" as opposed to "physical species state"? Why or why not?
You would have to ask the experts. The experts say that "mental sexual state" is different from "physical sexual state". They have evidence for this, some of which has been presented to you (and offhandedly dismissed by you).
On December 06 2012 02:59 mortonm wrote:
We seem to be arguing past each other here. Now you concede that people are attempting to redefine gender, but you aren't providing any scientific basis for such a definition.
I don't need to. The actual scientists who know this stuff have already made the determination, as evidenced by the fact that they defined it as such.
On December 06 2012 02:59 mortonm wrote:
As I have said this redefinition is purely political.
Saying it doesn't make it true. Nor does offhandedly dismissing valid scientific determinations.
If you believe that all of the science on gender dysphoria is politically motivated, then there is no way that anyone can prove otherwise. You will dismiss any objective evidence of a distinction as simply feminist-inspired nonsense.
In short, you have assumed your own conclusion, creating circular reasoning which cannot be broken by any evidence.
On December 06 2012 03:08 ScandiNAVIan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:55 shinosai wrote:On December 06 2012 02:52 mortonm wrote:On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote:
You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female. Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with. Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender. Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling. On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political. I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it? "scientific" doesnt say much in these matters. We're not talking physics or mathematics.
If you're going to discount an entire field of scientific study as not being "real science" by some arbitrary metric... then what do you care what they have determined and put into a book?
|
The human soul has no gender. Transgenders that argue they need to fulfill some sort of gaping hole in their self persona are completely ignorant of this fact. Changing your outward appearance has nothing to do with your true inner self. That activity simply feeds cultural norms which define gender based on societal practices. For example when a woman dresses in almost unclad attire to seem more sexually attractive. This isn't something a man would do, because dressing in unclad attire would be weird for a man. In that sense, transgenders are actually inhibiting themselves by acting like these cultural norms actually define someone's gender. When in fact gender is really an outward illusion.
|
On December 06 2012 03:19 TheToaster wrote:
The human soul has no gender. Transgenders that argue they need to fulfill some sort of gaping hole in their self persona are completely ignorant of this fact. Changing your outward appearance has nothing to do with your true inner self. That activity simply feeds cultural norms which define gender based on societal practices. For example when a woman dresses in almost unclad attire to seem more sexually attractive. This isn't something a man would do, because dressing in unclad attire would be weird for a man. In that sense, transgenders are actually inhibiting themselves by acting like these cultural norms actually define someone's gender. When in fact gender is really an outward illusion.
Again, you are merely conflating gender expression with gender identity.
|
On December 06 2012 00:38 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 00:31 HoLe wrote:On December 05 2012 22:41 Zealos wrote:On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote:
I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this? Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever. Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice? I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it. Call me old fashioned. Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
|
Im prepare for another ban but FOR ME still is a mental disorder.. The End
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 06 2012 03:19 TheToaster wrote:
The human soul has no gender. Transgenders that argue they need to fulfill some sort of gaping hole in their self persona are completely ignorant of this fact. Changing your outward appearance has nothing to do with your true inner self. That activity simply feeds cultural norms which define gender based on societal practices. For example when a woman dresses in almost unclad attire to seem more sexually attractive. This isn't something a man would do, because dressing in unclad attire would be weird for a man. In that sense, transgenders are actually inhibiting themselves by acting like these cultural norms actually define someone's gender. When in fact gender is really an outward illusion.
Oh thank god you came in here to tell transgender people what's REALLY bothering them. If you had bothered to read ANY post in this thread...seriously you could have picked literally any post, you would have read that the relationship between gender and sex is more than just social construction or illusion.
|
I think the fact that people WANT to do such a prima facie strange thing as change their sex is proof enough for me that the whole things exists... if it didn't, why would we be having this conversation? If sex and gender were the same thing, there wouldn't be people who felt like their sex and gender got mixed up somehow and desired to fix it. QED.
|
On December 06 2012 03:20 HoLe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 00:38 Blazinghand wrote:On December 06 2012 00:31 HoLe wrote:On December 05 2012 22:41 Zealos wrote:On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote:
I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this? Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever. Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice? I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it. Call me old fashioned. Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights. Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
|
On December 06 2012 03:19 TheToaster wrote:
The human soul has no gender. Transgenders that argue they need to fulfill some sort of gaping hole in their self persona are completely ignorant of this fact. Changing your outward appearance has nothing to do with your true inner self. That activity simply feeds cultural norms which define gender based on societal practices. For example when a woman dresses in almost unclad attire to seem more sexually attractive. This isn't something a man would do, because dressing in unclad attire would be weird for a man. In that sense, transgenders are actually inhibiting themselves by acting like these cultural norms actually define someone's gender. When in fact gender is really an outward illusion.
sometimes i feel like the transgender thing is partially a social reaction rather than a natural reaction that would happen normally in someone's head, but i dont know.
|
On December 06 2012 03:20 HoLe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 00:38 Blazinghand wrote:On December 06 2012 00:31 HoLe wrote:On December 05 2012 22:41 Zealos wrote:On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote:
I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this? Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever. Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice? I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it. Call me old fashioned. Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights. Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
Neither is being gay or transgender...
|
On December 06 2012 03:22 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 03:20 HoLe wrote:On December 06 2012 00:38 Blazinghand wrote:On December 06 2012 00:31 HoLe wrote:On December 05 2012 22:41 Zealos wrote:On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote:
I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this? Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever. Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice? I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it. Call me old fashioned. Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights. Yeah but being black isn't voluntary So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
I had my people do a cost-benefit analysis, and it was a close thing, but in the end I decided it wasn't right for me 
|
On December 06 2012 03:20 HoLe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 00:38 Blazinghand wrote:On December 06 2012 00:31 HoLe wrote:On December 05 2012 22:41 Zealos wrote:On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote:
I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this? Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever. Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice? I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it. Call me old fashioned. Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights. Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
No one in their right mind would "choose" to be transsexual. Do you honestly think so many people would voluntarily risk losing everything if it was a choice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
